Entertainment

Calling the Scream franchise “iconic” would be a drastic understatement. It single-handedly changed the slasher sub-genre with its meta-analysis. However, despite the good faith it has built up over the last thirty years, the journey to the seventh installment has been nothing short of overdramatic. The lead actress of the last two movies, Melissa Barrera, was initially framed for being fired for her harmless anti-genocide comments, only to reveal later that her contract had expired. The studio’s self-embarrassment increased when the original director for Scream 7 dropped out, followed by Barrera’s co-lead, Jenna Ortega. Adding fuel to the fire, this new feature’s marketing campaign is the first of any film to partner with a gambling app and an artificial intelligence entity. With the behind-the-scenes drama aside, Scream 7 still had potential, as all Scream films are generally consistently good. However, this entry, unfortunately, breaks that trend.

Scream 7 follows Sydney Prescott, played by Neve Campbell, returning as the franchise’s iconic lead after sitting out the sixth installment because the studio refused to give her a proper salary. Sydney’s teenage daughter, Tatum, played by Isabel May, has grown distant from her overprotective mother, but still wishes to understand her trauma. As Sydney is going about her life, a new Ghostface tries to threaten her family by weaponizing her past. As Sydney’s darkest fears are realized, she must learn to help her daughter face their family demons.

Neve Campbell does a phenomenal job, as she has consistently for all her appearances as Sydney. Isabel May also turns in a solid performance as Tatum Prescott, and is a decent replacement for Melissa Barrera’s character of Sam Carpenter. Joel McHale’s inclusion as Sydney’s husband, police officer Mark Evans, was initially odd to learn, given the franchise's long-standing implication that Sydney settled down with Mark Kincaid, Patrick Dempsey’s detective character from Scream 3. Despite the confusing contradiction, McHale has strong chemistry with Campbell and is good for what he is. Returning faces outside of Sydney include franchise regular reporter Gale Weathers, played by Courtney Cox, joined this time around by her interns, twins Chad and Mindy, from the franchise’s previous two installments. Despite the fun of seeing them again, they barely do anything of note after their introduction at the end of the feature’s first act. Honestly, it goes incredibly downhill after Act 1, and it hurts to watch. The writer and creator of the original, Kevin Williamson, was the replacement director, and his inexperience is distracting. The cinematography lacks the stylistic flair of the first or fifth installments, nor the grimy aesthetic of the fourth and sixth. It feels like a straight-to-streaming movie, with how the camera work feels cheap and bland. The film’s negatives, unfortunately, start to outweigh the positives from here on out.

It would be wrong not to address some of the casting announcements surrounding this film. On top of the desperate move to bring Neve Campbell back after they did not want to pay her properly for Scream VI, they announced the surprise return of Matthew Lillard and Scott Foley. Lillard famously played Stu Macher in the original, the infamous secondary Ghostface, while Scott Foley played Roman Bridger in Scream 3, the only solo killer in the series. It has been a popular fan theory for years that Stu Macher survived his demise in the first film, as he seemed to be breathing under the TV dropped on his head. But the likelihood of him actually coming back in the flesh is lessened by the character of Roman also returning, as he was shot in the head at the end of his run as Ghostface. I explain all this to regretfully inform you that they do not bring back these characters in an interesting way. To say Foley is underused would be a hilarious understatement. Lillard is electric, but he is not used to his fullest potential. Without giving anything away, there are countless interesting or creative ways they could have brought Stu Macher back, and this was possibly the most disappointing route to go down.

On top of the disappointing usage of returning antagonists, it seems the screenwriters forgot they were making a Scream movie, because there is none of the meta commentary the franchise was built on. The '96 classic is, factually, one of the most important horror films of all time for many reasons, but mainly because it was the first horror movie where the characters directly referenced and made fun of the fact that slasher tropes were playing out around them. Ghostface was the first slasher villain that referenced cliches and used them to his advantage, making him far more terrifying than a lone, silent stalker. Scream 2 focused on horror sequels, whilst continuing the original’s other themes about the impact of violence and crime being featured so heavily in the media. Scream 3 lightly commented on trilogy tropes and heavily focused on Hollywood sex scandal cover-ups, which is ironic in retrospect, as this series was initially under The Weinstein Company. Scream 4 helped the franchise return after 11 years to critique grungy and violent 2000s remakes, while taking a look at how Ghostface would evolve in the era of internet video. Scream 5, also known as just Scream, was another return after a decade with a new directing team, replacing the late Wes Craven, that oozed passion for the original, making a proper continuation by commenting on legacy sequels, and the reactionary, toxic fandom that tends to surround them.

The sixth film set up an interesting plotline about true crime, as podcasts in-universe speculated that Sam Carpenter was a killer, and the antagonists used that to play on her paranoia. However, the feature did not provide proper resolution, and it made the setup feel like a waste of time. Scream 7 decided not even bother setting up any interesting storylines or meta-commentary. Mindy, in previous installments, carried on her uncle Randy’s legacy from the original trilogy by explaining horror rules. Here, she is silenced for a joke the second she tries to figure out how this new killer connects to movie tropes. The killer uses a new tool that could have let the door open for a phenomenal theme about legacy, or trauma being used to manipulate people, but the creatives seemed not to care. The kills are certainly more grand, but they feel out of place for this series that built its horror on slow-burning suspense instead of graphic violence. Without spoiling anything, the killer has a nonsensical, partially absent motivation that makes it feel as if Ghostface was an afterthought in his own franchise.

In the end, this film is a waste of money and time. Scream 5, reviving the series out of genuine love, has now set off this franchise to be mass-produced with no style or substance. Scream has become the horror slop they were making fun of with the in-universe “Stab” movies based on the events in the series. The worst part is, this film has already had the biggest opening in the franchise, so they will most likely continue to make these without any care for consistency. Fans who overhype Scream 7 seem not to understand what the franchise is supposed to be. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the extreme haters are far too aggressive. The film is a prime example of studio sequel slop; it plays it too safe, attempts lazy fan service, and is just mindless entertainment. Supporting Scream 7 would be supporting the death of Scream’s legacy, and if you have any respect or reverence, you would understand this feature is not worth it.