‘Scream 7’ Review: Franchise Goes Back to Basics in Competent, Uninspired Sequel

They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but the makers of “Scream 7” might be having doubts. After “Scream” (2022) and “Scream VI” (2023) introduced a new cast of characters, led by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega, the stage was set for a seventh installment that continued (or possibly concluded) their saga, answering questions about the fate of the series’ new protagonist Sam (Barrera), who was the daughter of serial killer Billy Loomis, and seemed destined to follow in his footsteps.

It was different, it was compelling, and it was completely discarded when Barrera posted on social media to protest the genocide in Gaza. Barrera was fired, Jenna Ortega left in solidarity, and director Christopher Landon quit too. Now, some diehard “Scream” fans argue that the film should be completely ignored. No one, they claim, should see this thing, no matter how good or bad it is.

Well, I can’t tell you what to see or what not to see. What I can say is if you skip “Scream 7,” you’re not missing the best film in the franchise. Kevin Williamson, the writer of the original horror classic, is now in the director’s chair, and he knows how to shoot a slasher movie. Also Neve Campbell is back, and she’s as uncannily talented as ever. But “Scream 7” never justifies its existence beyond bringing Neve Campbell back, after she sat “Scream VI” out due to a salary dispute.

“Scream 7” may be a competent, albeit unremarkable “Scream” sequel, but it’s one heck of an apology to Neve Campbell. Almost every scene is about how important Sidney Prescott is, and by extension Campbell, since this series is still (occasionally) meta. No one can shut up about how weird it is that Sidney didn’t turn up in New York to fight the killers in “Scream VI,” or how the new horror protagonists — in this case Sidney’s daughter, Tatum (Isabel May) — should do everything they can to live up to Sidney and Campbell’s specific legacy. Or at least the legacy of Gale Weathers and Courteney Cox.

“Scream 7” has zero interest in forging an individual identity, for its characters or itself. It just wants to get back to basics, as fast as possible, as though the last two, pretty darn good “Scream” movies somehow whiffed it. There’s an early surprise that’s good enough not to spoil, but suffice it to say there’s a new Ghostface killer in town and they’re hunting Sidney and Tatum. So they need to set aside their mother-daughter differences to save their family and friends.

There’s been a popular, long-running fan theory that Stu Macher — the second killer from the original “Scream,” played by Matthew Lillard — either wasn’t dead, or had a twin brother who was unaccounted for. You can blame Matthew Lillard and Wes Craven for this, since eagle-eyed audiences spotted Lillard in a party sequence in “Scream 2,” presumably as an Easter Egg or a joke. “Scream 7” finally acknowledges this fan theory, turning it into a plot point — or maybe a red herring. The opening kills take place at the old Macher house, which is now a tourist trap, setting the stage for a deep dive into the lore of the franchise.

Sadly, the dive is shallow. You would think — since the “Scream” movies have always been about dissecting trends in the horror genre and mining them for drama, humor and scares — that Kevin Williamson and co-writer Guy Busick might explore the phenomena of fan theories and have some fun with it. Or at the very least let resident movie nerd Mindy (Jasmin Savoy Brown), returning with her twin brother Chad (Mason Gooding), have a speech about the rules of fan theories and/or fan fiction. You’d be wrong, because this new “Scream” movie doesn’t take advantage of its meta possibilities. The most “Scream 7” concedes is that this is a nostalgic throwback, and it’s not super committed to that gag.

If anything, the fact that the twins show up at all plays like a consolation prize for fans of the recent movies. Either way, they’re sidelined and aren’t allowed to have any impact on the story. This is the Sidney Prescott show. Gale Weathers is allowed to show up. Sidney’s daughter is allowed visit center stage, but only when she’s talking about Sidney Prescott. Williamson and Busick do a swell job of introducing a new young cast of characters who (mostly) have real personality traits, so when they die it feels like we lost a real person. But make no mistake, this is not their movie. Do not get attached.

There are at least two kills in “Scream 7” which rank among the best, or at least goriest in the series, but most come and go with little fanfare. At least Williamson knows how to ratchet the tension as we wait for the fatal blows. He also front loads this film to a fascinating degree. It only takes a few scenes for “Scream 7” to get going, and once it does it burns rubber. Then it screeches to a stop and takes too long to get going again. It’s the rare horror movie where all the best stuff is in the first act.

Also, and it’s hard to fault “Scream 7” for this — since the early films raised the bar for slasher whodunnits, and now it’s hard to outdo them — but it’s pretty easy to figure out who’s behind the mask, and once everything is revealed, this all turns out to be relatively pointless. It’s a love note to Neve Campbell and Sidney Prescott, but so were the other Sidney-centric movies, so the sentiment feels redundant.

It’s not that “Scream 7” is a bad “Scream” movie. There are no bad “Scream” movies (yet). Even the worst one is kind of alright, and this is the worst one. It just never seems like there was a story that needed to be told, or a point that needed to be made. There’s hardly even a horror trend to explore, let alone explode.

Maybe the next one should be about what happens when horror franchises spin their wheels. The filmmakers could watch “Scream 7” for research.

“Scream 7” opens exclusively in theaters on Feb. 27.