Twenty-five years after the sleepy town of Woodsboro was hit by a series of brutal murders, a new killer dons the mask of Ghostface and targets a group of teenagers. He is determined to bring back the dark secrets of the past.
How can you imagine the sinister gaping mouth of Ghostface’s mask without Wes Craven’s name immediately coming to mind? Rarely has a master of horror remained as much at the helm of the saga as he himself initiated and his sad disappearance seemed to have led to the definitive cessation of “Scream”, not to mention now the absence of Kevin’s pen. Willlamson (often abused by the producers over the episodes) without whom the franchise would simply not exist.
Moreover, after being a model of slasher satire (while being one of its best representatives, a tour de force that will forever remain unmatched!), its sequels, the trilogy concept and, with its fourth installment, of the batch of remakes of great horror titles from the years 2000-2010, the saga itself seemed to have come to the end of its critical (and self-critical) look at Hollywood’s lack of imagination with regard to the genre in which she enrolled.
So when a fifth opus was announced, drawn up in the absence of the original thinking heads (Williamson is only a producer), replaced in particular by the duo Matt Bettinelli-Olpin & Tyler Gillett on the production, it must be recognized that mistrust is installed: “Scream” was going to know the sequel too much, becoming itself an object of mockery à la “Stab”, its fictional and parodic franchise, especially since its spin-off TV series had already ended on a particularly dismal third season, proving that misguided hands were apparently unable to match even a toe of the mind of a good “Scream” from the Craven/Williamson tandem?
Obviously, the simple idea of finding and taking news of the historical trio of survivors embodied by the superb and iconic Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox (whose frozen face we sometimes begin to confuse with that of Ghostface, disturbing…) and David Arquette, added to our immoderate love for the saga, was inevitably going to push us to put these a priori aside to give a chance to this fifth installment soberly titled “Scream”.
And, damn it, that we did well so much the directors of the sympathetic but too unequal “Wedding Nightmare” pass a course themselves to live up to the title “Scream” and even surpass the previous part on several levels !
We stupidly thought that “Scream” had reached the limits of its satirical discourse, nay! Since the last part, the evolution of horror/terror, between auteur films with more demanding themes and “requels” (reboot/sequel) of franchises seeking to update themselves from the transfer of their first opus, offers a tasty breeding ground for this new feature film which, while knowingly reusing the sources of the original film will succeed in the feat of combining the tasty criticism of this contemporary concept of “sequel-legacy”, the spectacle of ‘a violent and well-thought-out slasher and a passing of the torch between old and new generation perhaps more convincing than that attempted by its predecessor on the “woodsboroean” roots of the saga.
Far from the forgettable meta delirium of that of “Scream 4”, the simplicity of the opening sequence instantly alone anchors the mischievous gaze of this “requel” on its own status where, already, the right words on the authorizing pan of current horror cinema are fighting over a modern reappropriation of the cult introduction to the first film here, fully justified (and which is not gratuitous, unlike many others) by the fact that it truly becomes the detonator on which the plot will weave the reunion of the motivations of its old and new characters in the murderous events to come. As usual completely aware of the new sequel format in which they are prisoners and about which they discuss its specific rules for our greatest pleasure, the young protagonists will therefore evolve alongside the most experienced in a “Scream” constantly drawing in its foundations by means of emblematic places or known names with the aim of highlighting this notion of heritage, too often overexploited, and the crude tricks of this approach (even going so far as to use certain technical artifices attached to this type of requel, we leave you the surprise) to feast on them with humor, divert them and finally seek to renew them for the benefit of a new plot.