Scream VI (Matt Betinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett, 2023)
Note: There will be a spoiler free review, speaking to my general reaction. It will be followed by a spoiler heavy discussion of the specific pieces of the film which elicited that reaction. The spoiler section will be clearly marked and will be more geared toward readers with a familiarity with the franchise.
After eleven years of being out of commission, 2022's Scream brought the franchise back to theaters, surprising hard core fans, general audiences and critics alike. Restarting the franchise, with a new creative team (who are part of the Radio Silence collective), bringing in a new cast of young characters meant to be the standard bearers for the franchise moving forward, it was an entertaining, twisty slasher that managed the almost impossible task of being respectful of the original series, and going in some new directions. It was a box office success as well, which meant an announcement of a sixth installment was made quickly.
Scream VI hits theaters with no shortage of hype and expectations. With news that Neve Campbell wouldn't be back as Sidney Prescott, due to the production being unable to or refusing to meet her financial requirements, there's been plenty of speculation about whether a new Scream could stand on its own without her. (Yes, I have feelings about that, but they're separate from my feelings about the film we got, and whether it does or doesn't work.)
The answer is that it can stand on its own without Sidney, but to its detriment, it can't let go of some of the other elements of the past. Some aspects of this movie work very well. It's a well directed film. Unfortunately, there were elements I disliked in equal measure. What does work, works well, and what doesn't work, falls very flat. As much as I hate to say it, all of the problems are in the writing.
The relationships between the returning characters all work well. The returning cast from last years film are great, and the relationships between them get fleshed out further. They dynamics between them individually and collectively are very good. They have a dynamic different from the cast of the earlier films, but it has that important aspect of a Scream film, where they feel like they are friends, and they care deeply about each other. It's a welcome sense of warmth in the middle of a series of films dealing with some very dark subject matter. Being able to identify this aspect as a necessity, then to be execute it with new characters, new relationships between them and a new overall dynamic isn't the easiest thing in the world to do and the writing team deserves credit for how well they pull it off.
This goes for the characters returning from the earlier entries in the franchise too. Their relationships to the newer characters also feel like they matter. All of the returning actors, either from last year's film or prior, give good performances. Everyone gets a moment to shine, and they all make the most of them. Melissa Barrera (playing Sam) gets a much better chance to show a range the previous film didn't allow her, and her relationship with Jenna Ortega's Tara gets a more thorough grounding.
The set pieces are also well done. Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett know how to shoot a great horror set piece. There is a clear difference in style from the way Wes Craven's, and it's proof that different doesn't have to mean something negative, as this approach also works. The shots in these action/chase sequences are often up close and personal, they are frenetically edited, feel tense and urgent, without ever losing track of the how the characters are moving through the geography of the space or leaving the audience confused. It's a tough balance to establish, but as we've seen with Ready or Not, Scream (2022), and now the examples in Scream VI, the Radio Silence team do it very well. Two of the set pieces in the film go on a good bit longer than is standard for a slasher, and still manage to hold on to those feelings of tension and urgency. In one, they're even able to evoke those feelings when the story and character aspects have gone off the rails a bit, which is impressive. I found myself still being invested and getting pulled into the tension, even as I was compelled by the who and why.
Really, the first ninety percent of Scream VI works. It's the last ten percent that falls short. Endings are important to most any film, but they're especially important in the Scream franchise, and this one fails because it is too beholden to one of the earlier installments in particular. The Scream franchise has a certain formulaic nature. The big opening. The phone calls. The whodunit. A healthy dose of biting humor. The chase scenes. They capture the exact moment in which they're made, and somehow feel timeless because of it. They have the big reveal at the end. Part of the fun of the franchise, is in the attempts to come up with something new within that formula. Both Scream 4 and last years entry started heading in a new direction with certain aspects of that formula. Scream VI makes a head fake in those directions, and then when reaches back into an earlier installment in a way that ends up being disappointing.
The aspect of those previous films that hasn't worked for me, is treating a Scream film like Greek tragedy. Because of the tone of these films, and because they don't delve deeply enough into the characters to earn it, it ends up feeling like soap opera melodrama that can't decide if it wants to be full on camp or possibly doesn't even know what full on camp is. For the kind of Greek tragedy this story plays with to feel earned, it has to be related to the character's psychological and emotional journey which also has to be intimate in a way a slasher film literally isn't going to have time for. The Scream films, to their credit, have survived on having better characters, and being more respectful to their characters than the other slasher franchises certainly, and most franchises generally. That's part of why they usually clock in around the two hour mark, thirty minutes longer than the ninety minute standard. At the same time, they'd need another thirty minutes to get to the point this kind of Greek tragedy would work. Doing that would drastically alter the pacing and the need to rethink the tone. In addition to trying to be Greek tragedy, without either of the tones that make Greek Tragedy work, there's a pretty blatant issue with one of the performances.
There's an overall consistency to the Scream sequels. The original film isn't just a classic horror film, it's so well made it gets more critical and mainstream respect than most horror films, and slasher films especially. Among horror fans, it's considered one of the most consistent franchises. There's a general consensus that the first film is a classic, and the favorite horror film of no small number of horror fans. The sequels are regarded as having some variation in quality, but still being fun, with certain elements which make them worth repeated viewings. Scream VI fortunately continues that streak. It is one of the weaker entries in the franchise because of how poorly executed the ending is, and at the same time, everything leading up to it is very fun, interesting and does a lot with the existing characters.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
One of the most important aspects of any Scream entry is the opening scene. The original 1996 Scream has one of the all time great opening scenes in horror history, and to my mind, film history. It can stand on its own as a masterclass in creating a short horror film. It's iconic to the point that it's been relentlessly parodied. One could argue that the essence of what any Scream film can or was going to be, was established in that opening scene. The rest of the films in the franchise might not reach the bar set by it, but they've all been interesting and succeeded in pulling the viewer into the film.
Like the slasher genre itself, the opening of a Scream film has a basic framework, a skeleton, which allows filmmakers to hang a wide variety of ideas on it. The Radio Silence team manages to give us something we've never seen before, within that overall framework and make it tense and suspenseful. As always, Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface in every Scream film so far, does great work. The guy never misses, and this is a fun, interesting scene for someone with his talents to dig into.
We also have Samara Weaving playing Laura Crane (I'm not sure if we ever get her full name in the text of the film, but this is how she's listed on IMDB, presumably a nod to Marion Crane, Janet Leigh's character in Psycho). She does some great work, loading information about this character into a very small window. Because so much of what she's conveying is in her physical acting, I do think this opening is going to play better with the majority of audiences, after a second watch. It's a subtle performance, but the performance and the script give us all the information necessary to understand why she ends up walking into an alley where she meets her end. I don't want to go into it too much more, because I'm considering writing a separate piece, specifically about the opening.
The opening quickly suggests we might be in for something different about this Scream and this Ghostface, as the marketing has suggested. We get someone in a Ghostface mask, taunting a victim on the telephone who they kill, but they pull the mask off, immediately. Because the Scream franchise has always been centered around a "whodunit" style mystery, it would change things pretty seriously to go into the story knowing who the killer is. Here, when the mask comes off, it seems it's going to become a question of why and will they get caught.
The filmmakers aren't quite ready to make that level of departure from the formula though, as we then get this person we've just seen donning a Ghostface mask and committing a murder, end up on the other end of that equation. We do get some key pieces of information. He has a makeshift display/altar to the Stab films and Ghostface in a closet, where he puts the blood splattered mask he's just worn. He has a partner, who he initially thinks he's talking to on the phone. His partner was aware of the plan to kill Laura Crane. This guy enjoyed killing Laura Crane. There's no remorse, no sense of revulsion at what he's just done. It's elation and dehumanization, literally saying "She was just meat." He and his partner have hatched a plan to "finish Richie's movie," calling back to the motivation of the killer in Scream 5. Tony Revolori is good here as Jason, partly because the matter of fact nature of his line delivery is disconcerting. He's not over the top. He's not a frothing maniac. He's talking about a murder plot, meant to finish a deranged serial killer's attempt to inspire a movie, like this is all perfectly reasonable and rational.
It's not long before it becomes clear he's not talking to his roommate/accomplice though. His roommate/accomplice is dead, chopped into pieces in the refrigerator. As he's about to be dispatched, the thing Jason really cares about is, "What about the movie?" (again, referring back to the motive of the killers in Scream 5), to which this Ghostface responds, "Who gives a fuck about the movies?" and sends him on to the longest repose.
Like so much of Scream 6, the opening is well done, on a technical level. It's paced well, it does a great job setting up the tension, the violence feels visceral and impactful. It finds a good way to deliver exposition without feeling forced. At the same time, it undermines where the film eventually goes by creating the possibility for something much different than what we end up getting. How different would a Scream film be, if we were watching someone we already knew was the killer ingratiating themselves with the returning characters? There's as much opportunity for humor, tension, suspense, and scares, it's just creating them from a different perspective. It ultimately does a disservice to where the film goes, because what we get is so beholden to Scream 2. In a way, they undermined their own film by showing the audience a new direction it could have gone, and trying make it seem like reaching into the past to rehash something we've already seen was a twist.
Instead of moving forward with the new cast and new story threads it suggests, like "What happens in the age of conspiracy theories, when a serial killing maniac is enmeshed in the mythology and in group politics of a fandom sub culture?" the filmmakers decided to go backwards, to an ending that didn't work all that well the first time, and is even less successful here.
Scream 4 and Scream 5 moved away from the motive being a personal revenge narrative, somehow related to Sidney's mother (hence Scream 4 being my favorite of the sequels, despite its flaws), to the way the Stab films and "true crime" exist in the world of Scream. Yes, there's still a connection to family to some degree, Jill Roberts is Sidney's cousin, part of whose motive for orchestrating a string of killings in Scream 4 is having lived in Sidney's shadow. The other part of her motive though, is the desire to take Sidney's place. She wants to be the darling victim, the Survivor. She wants movies based on her story etc. Jill wants to be the center of the attention Sidney's been given.
Scream 5 goes into the existence of toxic fandom, with Richie and Amber on their killing spree in an attempt return to the Stab series
to what they see as its former glory. Sam being the daughter of Billy Loomis (the series OG homicidal misogynist) is just another sensationalist variety of hook in that story to Richie, who like Billy used Stu, is using Amber. He's not out for revenge against Sam and Tara. Richie envisions the events he's set in motion becoming the basis for a Stab film which would be a return to form. He's the epitome of the toxicity and misogyny of so much of fandom these days. He even goes so far as to try to insult Sam by dropping a jab about how easy it was to sleep with her, and referring to "sexuality liberated women," which is a favorite topic of misogynists these days, not just in fandom.
Sure, there is a direct similarity in Scream 5 returning to "the boyfriend" being the killer, having hatched a plan for an elaborate murder spree and manipulated the "final girl." Billy Loomis had set his violent, murderous plan in motion out of a twisted sense of personal revenge and misogyny though. The break up of his parents due to his father having an affair didn't fall at his father's feet, as far as he was concerned. It fell at the feet of Sidney's mother, and killing her wasn't revenge enough. The events of the original Scream are his revenge against Sidney, for existing, more or less. What's clear in that film is that Billy was going to be somewhere between Ted Bundy and Henry Lee Lucas, either way. All of this is just his twisted way of convincing himself he had an excuse for it. "The movies" are part of that cover, part of his self deception. What both Billy and Richie's characters have in common though, is the way the self deception covers the underlying misogyny that's really driving what they're doing.
Scream 6 now coming back around to create a connection to Scream 2 falls flat because we're now back to an even more tenuous "personal revenge" narrative. God bless Laurie Metcalf and the work she does in Scream 2, it was certainly fun to discover she'd been hiding in plain sight throughout the film. Her scenes with Courtney Cox are great throughout. It's not her fault the franchise went into heavy soap opera territory with her character either. "I'm here to get revenge, because you killed my sweet, serial killer boy," has never really worked for me. I know there are fans who enjoy the camp aspect of the ending, in both performance and in the text. After the first film had some interesting, intelligent things to say about misogyny, and then the rest of the second film was so focused on this sense of rational paranoia Sidney experiences as a result of being at the center of all this violence, going with the "crazy mom is trying to get revenge for her serial killer baby" was a let down. It's still more well made and performed than so many other slasher films, I can still appreciate it that much about it, but the ending just fails for me.
Coming to the end of Scream 6, and going with "Hey, the twist is it's the crazy dad and siblings this time!" was as much of a let down. There's also the issue of, as much as I hate to say it, Dermot Mulroney being tragically miscast in this role. There's a line between a kind of unhinged which is entertaining to watch, but still has disturbing and unsettling undertones (a key ingredient to why the endings of the original, as well Scream 4 and Scream 5 do work) and a performance of "crazy" that just comes across as zany. Mulroney comes across as zany here. His performance isn't the only problem with the ending though.
From a writing standpoint, if you're going to go for this kind of Greek tragedy, with this kind of absurd personal/family vengeance plot, it has to either be deadly serious, deeply rooted in a strong sense of character or you have to go full camp. The attempt to split the difference hinges on what I referred to before, in the characters feeling unhinged, without being zany. We've seen the series walk that line on a number of occasions. Part of what makes Billy and Stu genuinely disconcerting and frightening, is that they have no awareness of how utterly absurd they are. Jill Roberts level of commitment to becoming the "new Sidney" is absurd, comical, but also really disturbing. The same is true of Richie and Amber at the end of Scream 5. They're both absurd, to the point of being comical in some moments, but the depth of sadism they evince (along with Richie's misogyny) is disturbing. Mulroney as Daddy Kirsch, and the way the character is written is just absurd, lacking the necessary sense of menace. There have been criticisms of Scream 3 as feeling a bit too Scooby Doo, but nothing in the series has ever been as Scooby-esque as Daddy Kirsch and his children in this climax/finale.
There's a case that can be made for this ending adding some context to Richie's character in Scream 5. His farther is a guy who obviously indulged and spoiled his son. True crime memorabilia (also called evidence in criminal proceedings) is not cheap to come by and Richie had a whole personal museum stashed away, that his father helped him create. New York real estate is not cheap either, even if it is an abandoned movie theater. There's a degree of expense to all of this that is absurd on it's own. It's seems all of this is a passing nod to suggest, "This is how Richie became such an entitled little shit that he could conceive and execute a murder spree because his favorite movie franchise stopped meeting his expectations." It is passing though, and there's nothing else given to the idea in the film. It's all part of Mulroney's monologue in the end.
It also undermines the more interesting aspects of the story it lays out. Sam being vilified by conspiracy theories within the Stab fan community, as well as true crime circles, gets turned into "Nana nana boo boo, I spread rumors about you!" There are a thousand interesting places they could have gone with this aspect of the story, and the film suggests them by leaning so heavily on it throughout.
We're first presented with this aspect of the story when someone throws a drink on Sam early on in the film. The way it's dealt with and referred to, it's clearly not unusual for Sam to get harassed. This is a character with a mental illness. She's having hallucinations of her dead father that she's never met. That qualifies as severe mental illness. Her therapist tells her he's not equipped to deal with what she's been through, and goes so far as to call the authorities because of what she says in his office. There's a story in the interplay of those dynamics that could be really interesting. The film feints in the direction a story relating to this, when it presents news footage representing Sam as the aggressor when the drink was thrown at her earlier. Instead of exploring all of that, we get Richie's sister saying she is the source of the conspiracy theory that Sam was the mastermind behind the events in Scream 5, and she framed Richie. "It wasn't hard to convince people..." and so on. It feels less like a clever subversion of either genre tropes or the expectations this particular film set up and more like taking the easy way out. That's without even mentioning the interesting ways these could have interplayed with the fact that Gale wrote a book based on the events of Scream 5, after she said she wouldn't.
Scream 6 also seems to be trying to make some kind of connection between the way horror films treat real events, basically the relationship the horror has to true crime. Richie was obsessed with the Stab franchise, at least in the previous film. Here, we have this personal museum dedicated to the various murderers who were behind the events in the Scream films. We don't really have any idea how connected the Stab films are to the "real events" in the Scream series. There's a passing reference in Scream 4 to the fact that Sidney sued the studio and effectively prevented them from using aspects in her story in any of the Stab films after the third. In Scream 5, we don't really get any sense that Richie is as obsessed over the "real events," as he is about the Stab films. It's murky, at best.
Then there's the idea that Sam and Tara have no clue what anyone in Richie's family looks like. A cop's kid goes on a killing spree, and the survivors of that killing spree have never seen him before? The members of the killers family, including his cop dad weren't part of the media circus that would result from yet another set of Ghostface killings? That's a stretch that gets wrong the kind of relationship to media the rest of the series has gotten so right. Scream 2 at least went so far as to keep Mrs. Loomis and Sidney separate, so that it is Sidney who tells the audience that Debbie Salt isn't who she's been presenting herself to be. Mrs. Loomis disappeared into the sunset before the events of the first Scream, so there's at least some plausibility to the idea that she wouldn't have been plastered all over the news, and Gale and company wouldn't have recognized her immediately. His mother disappearing is the entire excuse Billy uses for setting his hateful, assinine plan into motion.
I'm sure that come a release to VOD or on physical media, like Scream 2 and Scream 3, I'll still enjoy this Scream VI as part of the overall story. The direction, technical filmmaking and (outside of Mulroney) the performances are all good. The way the relationships between the existing characters advance and are portrayed work. It also suggests possibilities that could be interesting in the future. It's a fun slasher film, at least. That the ending doesn't work for me on a story or character level doesn't ruin what I do enjoy, but I dislike it in equal measure. In fact, the technical filmmaking, even in the extended chase/action sequence at the end is good enough that I found myself a little confused, because it still evoked the sense of suspense and tension, even as I was scoffing and disappointed by the story aspects.
Ultimately, Scream 6 is too beholden to the past. To some degree, it's a reminder that I'm more interested in these long running franchises going in new directions and trying new things, even if they don't completely nail it (like Halloween Ends or the Child's Play/Chucky franchise), than I am in them playing it this safe and just rehashing/repeating what's been done before. Part of the reason I was genuinely excited about Scream 6, was the way the previous two films pointed toward those new directions, even as they played with the conventions of the series. Scream, as a franchise, has such a strong connection to media, how we consume it and how it shapes our reaction to things around us, that beginning anew with a fresh cast of characters opens up so many interesting possibilities. It's a shame both audiences and the filmmakers don't seem ready to delve into them. At the same time, maybe studios and production companies should stop setting release dates for films before there is a finished script. At the least, they could stop expecting anything as complicated as a good Scream film be completed and ready for theaters in a year.