Nowadays, reviving horror franchises with reboots or continuations that just use the same title as the original film are all the rage — witness The Thing, Halloween, and Candyman; you might also include Evil Dead, Blair Witch, The Predator, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. (And it’s not just limited to horror movies: Shaft is a sequel to Shaft, which was a sequel to Shaft.) And where there’s a trend in horror movies, the Scream series must follow, to both emulate and roast the genre’s new status quo. Fortunately, there’s more than merely “we could call a new Scream film ‘Scream’” to the movie’s satirical targets.

Set about ten years after the last film, the fifth Scream (I get that the recycled title is a meta-gag too, but I still think it’s a shame they missed the chance to go with 5cream, or Screams / Scream5) introduces us to a new cast of characters. That’s what every Scream film has had to do (that’s the thing with slashers — most of your cast gets killed off each time), but here we’re in ‘requel’ mode. For those who don’t know, ‘requel’ is a portmanteau of “reboot” and “sequel”, i.e. a film that’s both a reboot (in the sense it’s a new story you can jump onboard with) and a sequel (in that it’s still in continuity with the previous films). “Legacy sequel” is a similar thing — a belated sequel, in continuity, with the original cast, now older — but Scream already targeted that kind of follow-up last time out. What being a ‘requel’ means for this film is we meet all the new characters before the legacy ones are gradually introduced the plot.

A plot summary is barely necessary: someone in a Ghostface mask is murdering people. Who is it? What’s their motive? That’s the plot of all the Scream films — of course it is, that’s how horror franchises work. The devil is in the details, but that can make the details spoilers. There are some neat reveals, and twists on the franchise’s formula, that I’m not going to spoil here because that would ruin the fun. If you’re a fan of the series, the less you know going in, the better. For example, there’s one reveal — which doesn’t come until we’re already in the final act — that was, apparently, blown in the trailer, even after the filmmakers worked hard to keep it secret until the right moment in the film itself. (That’s according to the audio commentary — I haven’t watched the trailer to see if it blatantly blew it or if fans just worked it out from the footage shown.)

Scream being Scream, it gets to both have its cake and eat it by pointing out the laughable clichés and ridiculous tropes of other horror films, then doing them anyway. Some people dislike this approach — “pointing out that what you’re doing is a cliché doesn’t stop it from being a cliché” — but, personally, I think it’s part of the charm of these films. They don’t do the thing and then have someone go “that was so cliché!”, they tell you “wouldn’t it be clichéd if this happened?” and then it does. Too subtle a difference for some, I guess, but it works for me. One thing the previous films have a habit of doing — and it continues in this one — is laying out the entire plot for you, even telling you who the villain is, but you don’t notice because you’re busy playing whodunnit and stringing the mystery together. Of course, they also lay out red herrings, so it’s always easier to spot the “they gave it all away” moments with hindsight.

Whether or not you’re on board with that “point out what it’s going to do then do it” approach will probably dictate how much enjoyment you can get out of a film like Scream. The best bits are the ones that are self-aware, either because characters are expressly discussing the plot or because the filmmakers are playing with our expectations. In the case of the latter, this film has a really neat sequence in which you know for certain the killer is going to jump out at some point, but the character on screen is, as ever, oblivious to this fact, so merrily goes around opening doors, thus blocking our lines of sight, or wandering past open doorways, which are then held in shot for just a moment too long… It’s a gag that builds in hilarity the longer it goes on, and directors Bettinelli-Olpin & Gillett milk it magnificently.

As for the former, this film has an especially neat exchange about “fan fiction”. Without Wes Craven in the director’s chair and/or Kevin Williamson at the typewriter, this film could definitely be dismissed as just “fan fiction” — that’s the gag, really. But, in terms of quality, there’s “fan fiction” and there’s “fans who have become professionals picking up the baton and continuing a franchise perfectly”. If this film is either, I’d argue it’s the latter. Which is a slightly convoluted way of saying Scream (5) nails the tone, style, and — perhaps most importantly — meta humour that makes a Scream film a Scream film.

Scream is the 69th film in my 100 Films in a Year Challenge 2022.