Directed By Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett

Starring – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette

The Plot – Twenty-five years after the original series of murders in Woodsboro, a new killer emerges, and Sidney Prescott (Campbell) must return to uncover the truth.

Rated R for strong bloody violence, adult language throughout and some sexual references

scream trailer – YouTube

POSITIVES

In its fifth film for a franchise spanning 25 years, “Scream” continues to find ways to reinvent itself. Whether in the psychological stimulation of its series-defining meta social commentary, this time sifting through toxic fandom in the way we as a movie community view all things sequels, reboots, and even requels, or just the ruthlessness and the resiliency of the single most violent installment of the entire franchise, this is very much a refreshing take on an iconic classic, and one that balances everything great about its predecessors while instilling plenty to be optimistic about for the future of this franchise. This is entirely homaged to the duo of Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett, whose immense task of taking the reins from the legendary Wes Craven is no easy feat, but all the more impressive considering what they are able to pull off. Aside from the carnage candy flowing like wine through some of the more innovative and devious methods of torture to its various victims, the duo is equally invested to the dynamic of the characters and their corresponding characterization, bringing forth arguably the best ensemble since the 1996 original movie. This is enhanced all the more with picture perfect casting, which not only brings forth no shortage of scene-stealing instances for this talented group to work their way into your heart, but also prescribes the kind of stakes and vulnerability that I felt was most noticeably missing in the previous two films, but here made apparent with the majority of their various interactions being rooted in distrust and overwhelming skepticism. The new players like Jenna Ortega and Melissa Barrera bring with them the kind of dramatic heft that has been noticeably missing from the film, and their chemistry as on-screen sisters is not only believable, but also deeply intriguing for the way they play off of one another. As for the legacy characters of this franchise of Campbell, Arquette, and Cox, they are very much still the heart of this franchise, but here takes a respectful backseat to the new blood within this franchise, in order for them to win over such a passionate audience. There’s still time for this trio to make their influence felt, but a whole film about them wouldn’t build much for the forecasting future, an aspect that writers James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick are fully aware of. Beyond this, it’s what the duo are able to pull off with their periodic deposits of untimely jump scares that is most impressive, here prolonging the wait for the big pay-off throughout a series of clever fake-outs and deviations that serve as a subtly satisfying wink and nod to moviegoers like me, who have made a science out of capably being able to predict when one will surmise at any given moment. The cinematography from Brett Jutkiewicz captures the intensity and urgency of Craven’s earlier films, all the while transcribing iconography in the depiction of its knife-wielding antagonist, which makes them feel as mystical and transfixing when held in contrast with the devastation and symbolism that visually surrounds them. It’s certainly clear that Jutkiewicz, as well as the duo of directors here have certainly done their homework on the previous chapters, but the permanence deposited to this particular installment feels anything but safe in the air of contemporary requels, instead indulging in the kind of unraveling of its mystery that is anything but predictable. This is seen not only in the revealing of its chaotic ghost, which takes the aforementioned commentary to sensationally sinister heights, but also in the arcs of particular characters themselves expanding and evolving into something substantially beneficial for the lore of this coveted franchise. Finally, while this is a series that capably balances the tiers of horror and humor consistently in a tonal dexterity, this chapter is very much the most one-sided of its existence, trading in the hip, heavy-handed appeal of its sight gags for a near-complete dependency on drama, for the sake of its menacing opposition. This certainly makes this film feel like the most personally gripping conflict for all of the characters included, but beyond that keeps its hooks in the genre that defines it firsthand; horror, for a ravenously roaring good time that dares you to look away at any moment in its smoothly paced 109-minute run time.

NEGATIVES

Though Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett are wisely creative enough to stay away from the elements that made the later chapters of this franchise feel redundant, they still can’t elude the hypocritical instances that solidify them in the same territory as the films they spoof. One could argue this intentional, as the self-aware franchise has made a history of mocking its own content, but by the fifth film in the series, with each character creating a literal formula for fighting back, their cliches of mistakes and overwhelming convenience keep it from fully practicing what the script so forcefully preaches. This is most notably the case during scenes pertaining to character motivations, or even the settings themselves, which play terrifically into the advantage of Ghostface in ways that were actually frustrating, even for a longtime fan of horror like myself. Even with Ghostface evolving with each killer or killers who take up the mantle, the victims themselves feel like they’re receding in a direction that brings buzzing flies to their absent intelligence, giving us several frustrating instances that have grown moldy with a film in 2022 doing the same things as the ones in 1996. In addition to this, there’s a special effect used in the materializing of one former character that I wish didn’t require C.G effects for its rendering. This is mostly because the effect itself made it a bit jarring to interpret if this character was who I actually thought it was representing, and only made apparent with the convenience of its dialogue painting the picture. What’s even more confusing is the actor of this character returns in the third act, but it’s obviously them influencing the scene this time, instead of them being artificially rendered, which makes the previous incarnations all the more unnecessary.

OVERALL

While just falling short of the heights attained from the original two movies, “Scream 5” (I’m not calling it Scream), with its dissection on toxic fandom, does more than enough to supplant its status with some of the best and most colorful moments of the entire franchise. Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett craft a ruthlessly rampant love-letter to Craven that not only breaks the same fourth wall that Wes eviscerated on four different occasions, but also crafts something that feels freshly innovative as a concluding coda or beckoning beginning, depending on how you hold the knife.

My Grade: 8/10 or B+