REVIEW: “Scream” (2022)

I still remember that December night in 1996. The late Wes Craven’s “Scream” had already been out a little over a week. I somehow convinced my wife of barely over a year to go see it with me. She didn’t like horror movies. I grew up on them. Thankfully we left the theater that night still happily married. That’s because not only did I enjoy “Scream”, but she did too. Well done Mr. Craven.

A fun, subversive and self-aware horror flick, the original “Scream” caught a lot of people by surprise. And while I never bought arguments that it dramatically changed the struggling genre, it certainly injected it with some much needed new energy. Not only did it launch its own series of sequels (one good, the others not so much), it also inspired a number of other blood-drenched young adult slashers, “I Know What You Did Last Summer” being the biggest.

But I don’t want to downplay the 1996 film’s impact. “Scream” was a blast and it knew how to utilize the genre’s strengths and have fun with all of its absurdities. It also did something that so many of its slasher predecessors couldn’t do – give us a broad cast of entertaining characters who we like being around and who are actually memorable. That’s a big reason why several careers were launched thanks to the movie.

Image Courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Co-directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett (“V/H/S”) set out to relaunch the series with their new film “Scream” (in keeping with the goofy horror movie trend of reusing the same title as the franchise’s first film). But the title isn’t the only thing they steal from the original movie. If you’ve seen the trailer you probably know it kicks off with a clear homage to the 1996 film’s iconic opening. The rest of the film features several other callbacks which range from fun fan service to unremarkably derivative. And then you get the final act which I won’t dare spoil. But let’s just say where the opening is a nice homage, the ending is a glaringly uninspired rehash.

Storywise, it’s been twenty years since the last brutal killings in the little town of Woodsboro. But wouldn’t you know it, in the opening scene a teenager named Tara (Jenna Ortega) is terrorized and then violently attacked by a knife-wielding psycho in a Ghostface mask. Yet unlike the 1996 opening scene (which this one is clearly mimicking), here the victim survives despite being stabbed multiple times.

After getting word of the attack, Tara’s estranged sister Sam (Melissa Barrera), who works at a bowling alley in Modesto, rushes back to Woodsboro with her generic tag-along boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid). While it first seems like a tender reunion, we soon learn there’s some serious baggage between the sisters which once unpacked gives us one of the film’s more outrageous twists.

Oh, and then there is Tara’s gaggle of friends, your normal group of twenty-something’s playing high-schoolers. I could list their names but there’s not much point. They’re basically just fodder for the killer, and each time one is savagely flayed we scratch them off the suspect list. And yes, the 1996 film had its group of party-hardy teens. But none in this new batch are remotely memorable or have half the personality and presence as Ulrich’s Billy, Lillard’s Stu, McGowan’s Tatum, or Kennedy’s Randy. The one saving grace from the new cast is Barrera who does the very best she can with the hit-or-miss material.

The biggest way “Scream” 2022 connects with the previous films is by bringing back the franchise’s most beloved legacy characters. Neve Campbell returns as Sidney, David Arquette as Dewey, and Courtney Cox as Gale. Without question it’s fun to see these three back in a “Scream” movie. At the same time, their roles here feel more nostalgic than important to the story.

This movie also embraces the same meta aspect which gave the original film its fresh and playful energy. But here it isn’t nearly as effective as the filmmakers want it to be. That’s because they go to it a few too many times. It often comes across as disingenuous, and while we see the actress speaking the words, all we hear are the writers trying to be clever. At other times it’s haphazardly crammed into scenes, to the point where the movie begins to resemble lazy self-parody rather than anything smart and/or creative. This is meta overload.

Image Courtesy of Paramount Pictures

While slasher movies aren’t known for having the smartest characters, I was surprised at the sheer number of dumb decisions people make in this one. Especially in a series that has made pointing out horror movie clichés and tropes a key part of its storytelling. It’s head-scratching to watch characters be so smart one minute and as dumb as a box of rocks the next; wisely suspicious for one scene but then forget to be in the very next one. You can argue that’s kinda the point,

Then you have equally baffling holes in the story’s logic. Like the police deciding to move Tara away from people to a completely empty floor of a hospital. Brilliant. Or the weird idea of hitting a wild party only a few hours after one of your best friends was brutally murdered. But my favorite might be Ghostface, not just taking four rounds from a .357 magnum at close range, but hopping back up like nothing happened? How does he survive? We don’t know. The movie forgets to tell us. Oh well.

A lot of this may sound like nitpicking, especially for a self-aware blood-drenched slasher movie. I don’t know, maybe I was expecting too much from “Scream” 2022. Perhaps I was wrong for thinking that resuscitating this old franchise meant they had something new to bring to it. Unfortunately, if you take out the handful of new faces and few grisly new kills, all you’re left with is a pretty run-of-the-mill horror flick. One that clearly respects Wes Craven’s original “Scream”, but spends too much time milking his ideas rather than coming up with fresh ones of its own. “Scream” is now showing in theaters.


27 thoughts on “REVIEW: “Scream” (2022)

  1. I love the anecdote about seeing the original with your wife. I have a fond memory of the first time seeing this too. I’m excited that legacy characters are in this. I’ll probably see it!

  2. I enjoyed enough, but I also didn’t have super high expectations and I’ve generally enjoyed all of them to middle or high degrees outside of 3, and I’ve never looked to the franchise to provide full-on newness, I guess that’s the joke but metaness can really only work fully fresh once in a series and maybe twice, so over time it is a bit of diminishing returns.

    Getting some thoughts in now. Far from perfect, took a bit of getting used to as far as set-up, but then I remembered the directors saying that there were misdirects in their trailers so I ended up going with the flow. Some logistics are hazy, kinda clunky in spots, but I actually dig the motives and enough of the metaness. I’d be OK with them ending it now but I’m sure we’ll get some form of a 6th.

  3. I just got back from watching this one. It has its moments, especially with the original actors, but as you mentioned, the movie suffers from meta-overload. The original film, which I watched before seeing this one, still holds up incredibly well, because it was smartly written. It poked fun at the genre conventions that Wes Craven helped establish while reinforcing them at the same time. The original Scream was a very good movie. However, you can only take a joke so far before it becomes stale, and at this stage in the game, Scream has MORE than run its course. It never should’ve made it past number 2. I would’ve liked it more, if the film-makers broke away from what Wes Craven did and did something original. Instead, what we have here is basically a carbon copy of the original. There were moments when I almost walked out of the movie. That’s how bad it was for me, and I love slasher movies. I love the original Scream. But this new one puts the final nail in the coffin of a franchise that really didn’t need to be one.

    • Yep, this really didn’t have anything new to offer. I agree with you about the original Scream. It was very well written. As for the meta, it felt authentic to the story in the original. In this one it just felt like filmmakers trying to be clever.

      • They spent a lot of time trying to stay in Wes Craven’s shadow when they needed to break out of it. There were a couple of clever moments here and there, but they just wouldn’t stop. Wes Craven trusted the audience to get what was going on, these guys didn’t. The directors and one of the writers did Ready or Not which I thought was a pretty good movie. They need to stick with original material.

  4. I have to admit I watched this after hearing about it, but I closed my eyes at all the major scenes. It was very nostalgic for me as an original “Scream” watcher. I felt like they introduced the new characters well while paying homage to the original members. Didn’t like what happened to ____ at all, though.

      • It was so major that we HAVE to be talking about the same individual. Shame on the writers for that one. Still, the movie had enough side humor and talented young actors (sons of two actors I like) and actresses (Sam was cool) in it to entertain the older folk. It was good, except for the profanity and the violent scenes I never saw. Not better than the original, but good.

        Oh, wait. I might have seen some violence in the end. Lol.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s