Write a commentExtratextual (adjective): of, relating to or being something outside a literary text.
Is it possible to consume media completely on its own? Movie companies certainly hope not. Often, they bombard you with all kinds of ads, behind-the-scenes videos and try to hook you with nostalgia. This happens a lot with franchises.
If you weren't able to tell from the previous six reviews I've written, the "Scream" franchise is extremely close to my heart. I grew up with the films. They've helped me through rough times and given me a lifetime of memories. Pretty much anyone that knows me knows I'm an enormous fan.
"Scream" (2022), I feel, was a slight misstep in the series. It spent a lot of time trying to juggle multiple storylines with new characters, something "Scream 4" tried doing over a decade in the past. Sidney, Gale and Dewey were basically supporting characters in their own franchise, which felt somewhat wrong. There were really only two options for a sequel: have the original cast come back for a new adventure or introduce a new cast for a new adventure. "Scream" (2022) was trying desperately to have a foot in both camps.
After there was a pay dispute with Neve Campbell for "Scream VI", Campbell bowed out, opening the door for the Carpenter sisters (Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) to have their own story. Gale factored in, but she was a supporting character. This focus helped "Scream VI" immensely. A "Scream" film without Sidney Prescott was definitely weird, but it ultimately worked.
When it came time to make "Scream 7", things seemed to be on track. Barrera and Ortega would be back with Christopher Landon ("Happy Death Day", "Freaky") supposed to take over from the previous directors. Around this time, Barrera posted something online that Spyglass, a producer on "Scream", deemed antisemitic and fired her. Soon thereafter, Ortega left out of solidarity with Barrera.
This was a huge mess as "Scream 7" was supposed to be the conclusion to the Carpenter sisters trilogy. How do you make the conclusion to this trilogy without the main characters? It didn't make any sense. Spyglass made the mistake of lowballing Campbell and now they fired their lead for posts online.
So, what did they do? Went back to the well. They got Campbell back with a big payday and made the script about her. Replacing Landon as director was Kevin Willimason, screenwriter of "Scream", "Scream 2" and "Scream 4". It was like they were getting the band back together, so to speak. It was exciting. "Scream 7" was marketed as the "Scream" film fans have been demanding.
Films made for fans tend to pander unnecessarily. For the most part, the "Scream" series up until now has been very reverent of its own beginnings without fully bowing to the fans. It's nonsense. Fans don't want to be condescended to; they just want a good movie. Many franchises have fallen victim to this.
"Scream 7" starts shakily. The opening shows a couple renting out Stu Macher's home as an "experience". While there are some clever ideas, nothing is ever allowed to breathe. We don't get much of a sense of the characters and they're dispatched pretty quickly. If you compare this to any of the previous entries, it's clearly the weakest. If you look back to the previous entry, the cold open with Samara Weaving stands head and shoulders above the opening in "Scream 7".
We meet Tatum Evans, Sidney's oldest daughter. Her boyfriend comes through the window. He starts speaking about how he was watching a horror movie that reminded him of his relationship with Tatum, a familiar song comes on and they're interrupted by Sidney. The whole scene plays out almost like a parody of the original "Scream". Some things get rearranged, but it's basically the same scene.
In "Scream 4", Trevor and Jill have a scene where he comes in through the window and Sidney catches them. Sidney acknowledges how it reminds her of when she was younger. This scene was in the first, a similar one in the fourth and now they're doing it again? I get the instinct to have Sidney compare her daughter's life to her own, but you'd think there would be a different way of doing it.
Without getting too much into the minutae of it all, there's a lot of this movie that feels like it was someone's really bad interpretation of the first film. While the other films in the series have been able to skewer similarities with reckless abandon, this one seems to timidly put the scenes on display, hoping no one notices.
These films, this franchise has spent 30 years familarizing their audience with the tropes of horror only to now fall back on the cliches, praying the audiences won't get hip to it. It would be like turning on your stove and putting your hand down on one of the burners. Then, the next time you turn your stove on, you keep your hands away from the burner and your stove came to life and got upset with you. That's an extremely awful analogy, but you get what I'm saying.
One of the many strengths of the original "Scream" was the efficiency it had in the script. There is not a single scene wasted. We get to know the characters, they play their parts ultimately hanging around or getting excised. It's a brilliant screenplay, even moreso when you realize it was one of Williamson's first. Each of these characters get their own moments and it makes them memorable—even Kenny, Gale's cameraman, gets his moments, including his last actions before dying being something to help Sidney survive.
In "Scream 7", no one really has anything to do. Campbell is doing her best. Campbell has always been an underrated actress. She always brings a fair amount of attitude and lived-in experience as Sidney. We don't get to see a lot of her dynamic with her husband (McHale) before everything starts going sideways. The movie focuses on her relationship with Tatum, which makes sense, but much of that is sidelined for the main thrust of the plot.
And the plot. Good Heavens, the plot...
--------------------SPOILERS AHEAD--------------------
For years, there have been extremely stupid rumors bouncing around that Stu (Lillard) might not have died in the events of "Scream". Moronic internet people who like Lillard have been trying to get this theory off the ground. It is said that one of the early drafts of "Scream 3" had Stu orchestrating a cult of followers to attack Sidney. That might have been an okay idea at the time, but, we're all way past that.
This film spends so much time trying to push the fact that Stu is back. When Ghostface calls Sidney early on, there is some back and forth before Sidney calls him a coward and to show his face. There's then a video call with an aged and scarred Stu. And Lillard, for what it's worth, is giving his all. He gesticulates, yells and spits while doing so. This idea just seemed extremely stupid in theory and it comes off as even dumber in practice.
During the investigation into the crimes, it turns out Stu or "Stu" is A.I. generated. I don't know that this explanation makes it better or worse. Later in the film, we see a series of videos from previous Ghostface killers that are supposed to be A.I. generated by the real killers in the movie as well as Dewey.
This kinda doesn't make any sense. They explain it away that the person that created these videos is some sort of computer genius. Okay, maybe. But, the "A.I." videos we see of previous killers all are the actors from recently. Which doesn't make any sense. Stu died in 1996, Mrs. Loomis in 1997 and Roman in 2000. The last images anyone would have of these people would be from those times. Why do the A.I. generated images look like the aged actors? Stupid, small thing that annoys me, but it makes no sense from a plot standpoint. If the idea was to psychologically torture Sidney by showing her the images of people who victimized her in the past, why would you update their ages? Maybe she wouldn't recognize them.
----------------SPOILERS END------------------
I'm sorry to say that while Williamson can be a very talented screenwriter, he's not that great of a director. His previous effort as a director, "Teaching Mrs. Tingle", seemed more like a favor he was given by the Weinsteins and Dimenson Films as sort of a "thank you" for all the success of "Scream". Williamson chose to direct "Teaching Mrs. Tingle" over writing "Scream 3". Bad choice all around.
Considering all the time he spent with Craven on set for "Scream" (1996), "Scream 2" and "Scream 4", you'd think he would have picked up more by just being around Craven. Instead, most of the suspense scenes in "Scream 7" don't really have any contained structure to them. A scene that begins in a bar goes out onto a street and then back to the bar and back to the street. The constant back and forth doesn't create more suspense but dissipates it.
---------------SPOILERS AHEAD-------------
Also, one of the kills in the bar is unimpressive while the other seems a little more gruesome and out of place. The victims in these scenes, by the way, are some of Tatum's friends. None of whom we really get to know throughout the film. You don't have the same emotional connection to any of these people so the kills don't matter from either an emotional or plot standpoint. When Tatum in "Scream" (1996) gets crushed in the garage door, the impact is greater than just the violence because we got to know her. We know how the characters around her care about her. When Lucas' skull gets pierced by the beer pull at the bar in "Scream 7" to allow beer to flow through his mouth, there's no real impact to the kill because he was a nothing character that we got to know next-to-nothing about in the preceding scenes.
The crux of the success of a "Scream" film, in my opinion, is the killer reveal. They need to have good motivation and, in order to remain fair to the audience, they should be visible during the normal plot of the film. Many complaints were made about Roman's reveal in "Scream 3" because he didn't have interactions with Sidney ahead of time. Similarly, Mickey and Mrs. Loomis from "Scream 2" were more or less way in the background. The difference is, the performances of these killers made the reveal worthwhile. If you can't get them in the movie ahead of time, at least have a good ending scene and land the plane.
"Scream 7" has neither, unfortunately. The killers are revealed to be Sidney's sorta friend Jessica and a man that works at a mental hospital named Marco. Their motivations for starting this killing spree doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Marco was able to create the A.I. images because he's a tech wiz and Jessica is just mentally unstable. Camp and Embry do their best in the scene but it's not enough. It doesn't come together and it all feels rushed, which makes it that much worse for the audience.
--------------------SPOILERS END----------------------
There are some sequences that are good. It's nice to see Brown and Gooding back
As I've mentioned before, a lot of movies could benefit from taking their time, especially suspense films. For the most part, you want to sit in the tension. Wes Craven was a master at this. Williamson seems more like a tactician, sprinting through scenes like he's finishing up homework.
I'm hopeful that, in subsequent viewings, "Scream 7" works a little better. After just the initial viewing, I hate to say I'm pretty disappointed. And while all the things leading up to the creation of this film, the extratextual aspects, were rather distressing, the film itself does not justify its own existence or its inclusion in the franchise. Instead of passively addressing the events of the last film, you'd think a film with some guts (pun intended) would lampoon itself. Talk about how studios make bad decisions and ruin franchises, lose up-and-coming lead actresses for voicing their opinions.
Maybe that's something Williamson from 1996 would've done. The Williamson we get, Williamson 2026, is now just an A.I. generated fascimile of himself, spitting at the audience hoping they're entertained.
Scream 7 (2026)
Directed by Kevin Williamson
Cast: Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Isabel May, Jasmin Savoy Brown, Mason Gooding, Joel McHale, Celeste O'Connor, Sam Rechner, Asa Germann, Mckenna Grace, Anna Camp, Ethan Embry, Matthew Lillard, Kraig Dane, Mark Consuelos, Roger L. Jackson
Runtime: 114 minutes
MPAA Rating: R (for strong bloody violence, gore and language)
Rating (out of ****): **1/2
