Scream (2022) Dir. Matt Bettinelli-Olpin & Tyler Gillett

Is it a sequel? A reboot? A re-quel? Well whatever the right term, the Scream franchise returns this year to take another ‘stab’ at a sequel based around the killings in Woodsboro committed by the iconic masked killer Ghostface.

A quick aside. Back in 1996, after a few years in the wilderness, Wes Craven came back to the director’s chair with the low-budget original and it was a spot-on riff that successfully deconstructed the slasher genre as a great way of engaging a cynical 90s audience.

The problem? Well, any teen slasher has to do something very new in order to avoid all of the situations that particular film takes apart. There seemed very little left in this once popular genre to cover and the Scream sequels are sadly guilty of the very thing they once parodied.

And this film definitely wants you to think it’s self-aware of all of this. But it sadly forgot to make a decent film though.

The plot starts with essentially a carbon copy of the first film’s telephone scene with Tara Carpenter being attacked by Ghostface and ending up in hospital. Tara’s sister Sam returns to Woodsboro, joins up with Amber and her friends and the murders start to pile up with little interest.

Sam has been haunted by visions of Billy Loomis (the first film’s killer and also her father) before the obligatory cameos arrive – Dewey (David Arquette), Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) and eventually Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell). It then riffs on some of the kills seen in previous movies and there’s LOTS of talk about horror movies.

Here's the issue though, and can be summed up by looking at the opening scenes from original trilogy. Firstly, we began with the iconic telephone scene, the second film has the cinema kill and the third a car chase. The 4^th and 5^th? Well, it’s the girl at home alone on the telephone scene again. Heck, even the first Scream sequels tried not to repeat that and create interesting kills.

Secondly, it’s nowhere near being a horror film. There’s not a single bit of tension, menace or terror throughout. Not even a good jump scare to fill in the gaps. It’s obsessed with the self-referential aspects, but wasn't the first film mostly limited to film-buff Randy's obsessions? The similar Cabin in the Woods at least had some decent scares and took itself seriously enough despite the parodies.

Films that reference themselves (“the movies go off the rails after the 5^th film”) just remind the viewer that it’s true despite an attempt to lean into the nods and winks. It also reminds me of this spot on scene from Top Secret.

Didn’t Scream also have a few stars? Drew Barrymore was a recognisable name so the film could “do a Marion Crane” and Courtney Cox was from the biggest TV show at the time, Friends. The charisma voids that they call a cast here are dull as dishwater.

Every subsequent film, including this one, has made the original look better and better. And the franchise joins Halloween, Saw, Paranormal Activity, Final Destination and many more, as one good film and a plethora of forgetful follow ups.

By the end of the film I’d argue it’s mostly a remake rather than anything else. But could it be called a sequel? A reboot? A requel? Who cares. It’s like someone took the clips of the badly made film-in-a-film “Stab” in Scream 2, and simply finished making that film. It’s rubbish and should be avoided by those frustrated with these cash-grab returns.

★½☆☆☆

Michael Sales