‘Scream’ (2022) is bringing back the past
Classic horror movies are once again coming back around. First — another “Halloween,” another “Saw” and now, another “Scream” (2022) has made its way into theaters.
The fifth installment in the “Scream” franchise, “Scream” (2022), has been released and is back to its old habits. The film was enjoyable and I’m happy it was released, even though it wasn’t completely necessary, but classics always come back!
Ghostface is one of my favorite classic killers, next is Jigsaw, but I just love the playful banter he has to offer with the phone and the games he plays. The kills throughout this film were great and everything you could ask for in a “Scream” movie. The flow of this film feels supernatural — also cheesy — but nothing feels forced. It is the right mix between, we are following the original, and here’s something new.
The movie follows a group of friends with connections to past “Scream” movies as they play to the whole idea of acting like they are in a “Stab” movie (their variation of “Scream” in that universe). And, the group of friends quickly realize the new Ghostface is just trying to create the next “Stab” movie.
Now when it comes to the queen of the ”Scream” movies, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), she is the main character — one that is hard to beat. Campbell has been amazing throughout the whole “Scream” franchise. She will always be the best part of the films.
When it comes to Sam Carpenter (Melissa Barrera), who just so happens to be the daughter of Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich) — the character was fine, but the actress, Barrera, was the worst part of the whole film. Her acting was so fake and very cheesy, and I just couldn’t get into her as a character because I wanted to laugh at everything she said. Although the movie had so much potential and was super good, she was the biggest flaw of the whole production, and something I will be bringing up every time this film is mentioned.
In the original “Scream” (1996), the friends have some finger pointing casual talk to convince the audience to look at the friend group for the killer. But after the first adaptation, that didn’t continue on in the next couple films as it seemed to be more of a given. But “Scream” (2022) brought that feature back, and it came back hard, with very persistent and aggressive finger pointing. Made me think — “wow, you guys actually aren’t friends” with how aggressive it was.
Also, “Scream” (2022) should have just been named “Scream 5” since it’s somewhat annoying when films use their original name again, it makes it harder on everyone to discuss it. Anyways, “Scream” (2022) takes place 11 years after “Scream 4,” which takes place 11 years after the trilogy ended with “Scream 3,” tries to bring into this new light — but it’s a return of a return. “Scream 4” was created because it was the return of Ghostface as he’s back. Now “Scream” (2022) is trying to do the same thing again but with more of a family connection angle, but this does not mean the return hasn’t been done.
I will say, the characters all having connections to past characters was a great addition, a great way to bring back old ideas in a new way — but doesn’t make it original. However, “Scream” (2022) does it way better than “Halloween” (2018) did. I was very impressed with the way the directors made this film work.
This seems to be the first film made without Wes Craven, whom the film is dedicated to. It shows somewhat that his absence is present, but I think Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet, the directors mostly known for “Ready or Not,” were a great choice to take on the franchise as “Ready or Not” fits the vibe that “Scream” goes for. Most of the time when franchises change directors, or the original director has died it can mean a dead end that results in a worse film than ever but I would disagree — that did not happen for “Scream” (2022) and it’s even better than “Scream 3.”
So, to wrap it all up, what’s your favorite scary movie?
Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
An Oakland University Film Student • Jan 24, 2022 at 7:03 PM
I’m very disappointed that you’d spoil the relationship of the main character to someone from prior films in this review. Good film critics do not spoil such things in their reviews. However, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen a review from the Post with lapses in good criticism. The review for Dear Evan Hansen being the other one, because unlike what is said in the review, you can critique a storyline for a film even if it wasn’t made for film to start out.
I know my wording might be a bit harsh, but I would like to see better film criticism from the Post. I hold your paper to a high standard, & I think having critics who are knowledgeable when it comes to cinema would help immensely in the long run.
An Oakland University Film Student • Jan 24, 2022 at 7:04 PM
Furthermore, the spoiler should be removed from this review if possible since it was never alluded to in any part of the marketing.
Also an Oakland University Film Student • Jan 26, 2022 at 9:45 AM
Hi. I also enjoy reading the post and I actually like their movie reviews because they are not so serious all the time. I like to know what other, non film students, are thinking about and how they like or dislike different movies. The spoilers are inevitable, that is why it is called a “review.” They are reviewing the film as a whole. If you want good “film criticism” why are you searching a college student newspaper? Nobody here said they were a film critic, and these stories are strictly opinions from the students.
Oakland University Film Student • Jan 28, 2022 at 2:08 PM
Yes, you do review the film as a whole, but you never spoil any aspect of the film that isn’t already shown in marketing. If we were in 1999, would you put in your review of The Sixth Sense that Bruce Willis was dead the entire time?