SCREAM 7 (2026)

Directed By: Kevin Williamson

Written By: Kevin Williamson and Guy Busick

Story By: James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick 

Cinematography: Ramsey Nickell

Editor: Jim Page

Cast: Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, Isabel May, Jasmin Savoy Brown, Mason Gooding, Joel Michael, Anna Camp, McKenna Grace, Ethan Embry, Celeste O’Connor, Jimmy Tatro 

Sidney Prescott has built a quiet life in Pine Grove, Indiana, running a coffeehouse with her husband, Mark, and raising their teenage daughter, Tatum. That fragile peace shatters when a new Ghostface begins targeting Tatum and her friends, first attacking during a school theater rehearsal and then turning the family’s home and Sidney’s business into killing grounds. The threat becomes more personal when Ghostface contacts Sidney through video calls, appearing as an aged and scarred Stu Macher. As Sidney tries to protect Tatum, the attacks spread through the town, forcing her to confront the possibility that Stu survived and that someone is using her traumatic past to manipulate her family. With Gale Weathers, Chad Meeks-Martin, and Mindy Meeks-Martin drawn into the crisis, Sidney must uncover the killer’s identity before Tatum becomes the next chapter in her mother’s history of violence.


Spoilers ahead! If you haven’t seen Scream 7, I wouldn’t recommend reading this review. Then again, after watching the movie, you might wish somebody had warned you about that, too.

First things first: I love the original Scream. I like Scream 2, too. And for whatever reason, I’ve generally found myself enjoying the even-numbered entries in this franchise more than the odd ones. Honestly, they could have ended things with Scream 4, which I think more than makes up for the shortcomings of Scream 3.

At some point, I would have liked to imagine Sidney Prescott finally getting to live a normal adult life. You know, maybe raise a family, enjoy a quiet afternoon, and go grocery shopping without having to worry about some masked lunatic turning her errands into a crime scene.

But money talks, bullshit walks, and apparently, Ghostface never retires. So the franchise kept going, and I kept showing up.

Unfortunately, the plans for another trilogy centered on Melissa Barrera’s character fell apart after Barrera was fired following her public comments about Palestine. Jenna Ortega subsequently exited, and director Christopher Landon also departed the project. With the original plans in disarray, the franchise returned to Neve Campbell’s Sidney Prescott, bringing her back into the spotlight after the salary dispute that kept her out of Scream VI.

I wasn’t particularly interested in paying to see Scream 7 in theaters, but I was curious enough to check it out once it became available on streaming. 

This is a pale imitation of the movies that came before it. For a franchise that once felt clever, personal, and genuinely interested in playing games with its audience, this installment feels strangely disposable. It could have been any modern slasher or mystery horror movie, just with the SCREAM name slapped on the poster.

What makes that especially disappointing is the involvement of Kevin Williamson, the man who wrote the original Scream and helped establish what made this franchise so special in the first place.

You would think that having the guy who helped create the magic back in the director’s chair would be a good thing. Instead, the movie feels like a reminder that knowing the ingredients to a successful recipe doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll make a good meal.

Perhaps the last-minute changes and rewrites are partly to blame. Whatever the reason, the movie never feels as though it has much of a personal identity. It feels like a franchise trying to keep itself alive rather than a story that genuinely needs to be told. And that’s a shame, because there was a time when Scream felt like it had something to say.

One of my biggest problems is that the movie seems to think more gore automatically means more impact.

There’s certainly plenty of blood, guts, and gruesome business to go around. Apparently, every victim needs a mandatory serving of extra violence before they’re allowed to leave the movie.

The problem is that you barely get to know most of these people. They become little more than targets waiting to be crossed off the list. When somebody dies, you’re less likely to feel sad than to wonder whether they were the killer, a red herring, or simply another body to decorate the floor.

I find it ironic that when the original SCREAM came out, the filmmakers had to cut back on Drew Barrymore’s opening death to secure the R rating. Here, the gore is practically flying everywhere. We’ve certainly come a long way from the days when a little blood was enough to get the ratings board reaching for its scissors.

And while I can give the film some credit for its willingness to get nasty, there’s a difference between being shocking and simply being excessive. 

There’s also a particularly uncomfortable death involving a teenage Black girl that feels unnecessarily brutal. The violence is already clear, and the extra punishment adds nothing meaningful to the scene. It comes across less as effective horror than gratuitous overkill. And speaking of overkill, the movie has another annoying habit: refusing to let certain deaths remain deaths.

Characters who appear to have been killed turn out to be alive, sometimes after what should have been fatal encounters. The film wants to be coldhearted, but then seems to get nervous about following through.  You can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to play rough, at least commit to the game.

I understand Sidney wanting to protect her daughter from the horrors of her past. That’s a perfectly reasonable instinct for a mother.

But considering that Ghostface has repeatedly turned Sidney’s life into a never-ending episode of Who Wants to Be Murdered Next?, you would think she’d have given her daughter a little more information about the danger she might face.

There’s a difference between shielding a child and leaving them completely unprepared for a family history that practically comes with its own true-crime documentary series.

Still, one of the film’s better aspects is Sidney herself. Neve Campbell remains the heart of this franchise, and it’s nice to see her back on the big screen.

I appreciate that Sidney isn’t reduced to a shrieking victim waiting for somebody else to save her. She fights back, takes action, and tries to teach her daughter how to defend herself. That’s the Sidney Prescott I remember: a survivor who refuses to go down without a fight. But even that comes with a bittersweet feeling. How many times does this woman have to do this? At what point does she get to enjoy the life she’s fought so hard to preserve?

I know horror franchises thrive on bringing their survivors back for another round. But I would have liked to see Sidney get something resembling a happy ending. Maybe a peaceful family dinner. A vacation. A few years without a phone call from somebody wearing a Halloween costume and carrying a knife. Is that really too much to ask?

Mason Gooding and Jasmin Savoy Brown are the other returning cast members from the newer generation, and at this point, they feel like the franchise’s attempt to create another Dewey.

The difference is that Dewey generally had a stronger purpose in the story. Here, these characters sometimes feel like human pincushions, repeatedly getting attacked, somehow surviving, and then wandering right back into danger.

You’d think after everything they’ve experienced, they’d have considered moving somewhere with better security and fewer suspicious phone calls.

But they’re among the few links to the previous installments, so their presence at least gives longtime fans something familiar to hold on to.

Unfortunately, familiarity is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

When the killers are finally revealed, the whole thing feels less like a clever mystery and more like an episode of SCOOBY-DOO. You can practically hear somebody pulling off a mask and announcing that they would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling survivors.

The motivations are even more disappointing. Previous SCREAM movies understood that the killer’s identity was only half the fun. The motive needed to add something to the story, whether it was a commentary on fame, fandom, revenge, or the horror industry’s obsession with recycling itself.

Here, the explanations feel weak, impersonal, and downright silly. The reveal doesn’t make you reconsider what you’ve watched. It makes you wonder why you spent so much time trying to solve the mystery in the first place.

Even one of the killers feels so inconsequential for much of the movie that their eventual involvement in the big reveal barely registers.And the opening sequence, which should be one of the franchise’s signature moments, isn’t particularly effective either. It tries to make you suspect that the killings might be connected to one of the characters we’re meant to question, but the setup ultimately feels like much ado about nothing.

The opening victims may be recognizable to a few particularly devoted film fans, but they don’t have quite the star power or cultural recognition that might make their deaths especially memorable.

There’s nothing wrong with the actors themselves. The problem is that the sequence never quite achieves the impact of the franchise’s best opening scenes.

The movie does deserve a little credit for finding a way to bring back familiar faces from the past, much as the previous installments kept finding ways to incorporate Billy Loomis. It’s a fun idea in principle, but there are only so many times you can revisit the same tricks before they stop feeling inventive.

It’s not all bad news. There are very few savi g graces 

Gale Weathers gets a memorable entrance, and it’s refreshing to see her make it through the movie without getting repeatedly beaten, stabbed, or otherwise treated like a punching bag. For once, she seems to have figured out that self-preservation is a perfectly respectable career choice. And Neve Campbell is still a welcome presence. There’s something comforting about seeing her return to the role that helped define the franchise. She brings a familiarity and strength that the film desperately needs.

The gore is another point in its favor if that’s what you’re looking for. There’s an undeniable enthusiasm for practical nastiness, even if the movie occasionally mistakes excess for effectiveness. But these are small victories in a film that never quite comes together.

What’s especially strange is that this installment comes from Kevin Williamson, whose original screenplay helped make SCREAM, such a refreshing horror movie in the first place. Perhaps this is a case of the material needing a different perspective, or perhaps the franchise has simply run out of fresh ideas to say about itself.

I still like certain aspects of SCREAM 3, despite its flaws, because at least it felt as though it was trying something different. Its Hollywood setting and comedic elements gave it a distinct identity, while its commentary on the movie business and the people who control it offered more to chew on than simply guessing who was behind the mask. In retrospect, the film’s satire of Hollywood’s abuse of power also takes on an uglier dimension. which also seemed to be taking shots at DIMENSION FILMS and Harvey Weinstein in particular. 

SCREAM 7, by comparison, feels like a repeat performance in a different town, with fewer interesting things to say.

What makes this disappointing isn’t simply that it’s a bad sequel. Bad sequels are practically a horror tradition. It’s that SCREAM was once a franchise that made you feel as though you were in on the joke.

It understood horror movies, their clichés, their audiences, and the people who loved them. It could be funny without becoming silly, violent without losing its personality, and self-aware without making you feel as though the filmmakers were congratulating themselves for being clever.

The original movie helped make horror feel exciting again. It was sharp, entertaining, and genuinely surprising. It’s a movie that helped me

To take a greater Interest In horror films. Even when the sequels stumbled, there was usually something to appreciate, whether it was a new setting, an interesting idea, or another memorable performance from the returning cast.

With SCREAM 7, I mostly felt the absence of any of that 

It feels like filler masquerading as a full-fledged sequel, a movie that exists because the franchise is still profitable rather than because anyone has a particularly compelling story to tell. And given how much money these films can make, I doubt Ghostface will be hanging up the mask anytime soon. Another sequel seems inevitable, even if we don’t know when it’ll arrive.

If that happens, I hope the filmmakers take a step back and figure out what makes this series worth revisiting. Give us characters worth caring about, a mystery worth solving, a motive worth remembering, and something to say beyond the fact that people keep getting murdered.

For longtime fans, SCREAM 7 might be worth watching just to complete the collection. It’s nice to see Neve Campbell again, and there are a few moments that remind you why this franchise mattered in the first place.

But for me, this is one of the least memorable entries in the series, right down there with SCREAM 3, though that film at least had a personality of its own.

I wouldn’t recommend it as a starting point for new horror fans, either. It’s the seventh movie in a franchise, after all. There are better places to begin, including the very film that made all of this possible.

Ultimately, the saddest thing about SCREAM 7 is that it leaves me feeling less excited about the next installment than nostalgic for the first one.

I remember when seeing a new SCREAM meant looking forward to a clever new mystery, memorable characters, and the possibility that the franchise might surprise me all over again.

I wouldn’t be upset if this was the last in the franchise and they finally let it rest in peace but then again I said the same thing at the end of three and the force one ended up being spectaculat so We’ll see.

Grade: C- 

MISSING (2023)

Written & Directed By: Nick Johnson & Will Merrick

Story By: Sev Ohanian and Aneesh Chaganty

Cinematography: Steve Holleran

Editor: Austin Keeling & Arielle Zakowski 

Cast: Storm Reid, Nia Long, Ken Leung, Megan Suri, Amy Landecker, Joaquim DeAlmeida, Tim Griffin, Daniel Henney, Lauren B. Mosley, Jasmin Savoy Brown

After her mother goes missing, a young woman tries to find her from home, using tools available to her online.


This film is a good mystery, and will especially be a pleasure for homes loose in the audience. Especially true crime podcast audiences, who get shoutouts, and the film makes you feel like you are experiencing one of them.

It’s all about the reveals, but letting us know just enough information to see if we can get there first. 

The first film, SEARCHING, was about learning all about who the father-daughter was, different from who he thought she was, and a kind of race against Time. Which this film offers similarly to an extent. Both films are told through modern technology. This one has more at its disposal. As we have gotten more innovations over the years  

This film seems to be more about things at once, buried from the past coming to light and seeking revenge. Also comes across a bit more smooth and streamlined yet not as shocking as the first.

This film is perfect for these days as it is innovative while keeping that procedural feeling and getting to know the lead character along the way 

It also offers to show the appeal for older audiences getting to know the technology used so much so that shocked that it didn’t have cross-promotion with Apple to help sell because there is plenty of product placement 

It also offers a new  friendship for the main character to bounce off of who helps along the way 

We are given glimpses throughout, yet we are taken on by putting this puzzle together in front of us yet it offers a chance for us to put it together before being explained so that it feels more interactive

The third act feels a little far-fetched and reaching 

The film is a crowd pleaser and better to watch at home not necessarily the theater as it might feel a little more realistic, watching it on the screen 

The film is satisfying, which is becoming rare these days. As even though this film has a gimmick, it still focuses on character and story whereas it seems at times a lot of films get lost in the gimmick, or promote the gimmick and sacrifice the other things that would make the film, satisfying or even good 

This film is definitely a product of its time in the modern era. It’s over the top but lets you know what to look for in a modern-day mystery. 

Grade: B

SOUND OF VIOLENCE (2021)

Written & Directed By: Alex Noyer 
Cinematography: Danube Qin Wu 
Editor: Hannigan Aukia & Virtti Virkajarvi 

Cast: Jasmin Savoy Brown, Lili Simmons, James Jagger, Tessa Munro, Dana L. Wilson 

Alexis recovered her hearing during the brutal murder of her family when she was ten. The visceral experience awakened synesthetic abilities in her and started her on an orphaned path of self-discovery through the healing music of brutal violence. She goes on to pursue a career teaching and experimenting to find new sounds. She is supported and loved by her roommate Marie who is unaware of the dark secrets behind Alexis’ unique music and the part she unknowingly plays. Faced with the likelihood of losing her hearing again, Alexis escalates the pursuit of her masterpiece through gruesome sound experiments and devastating designs. She won’t let anything stop her not even love.


The film sets itself up quite nicely as far as the story goes though it seems more interested in Detailing the kills and deaths than working on human emotions and connections.

As the main character is diabolical when it comes to kills to the point that she could easily be the next saw villain that is how intricate her traps abs weapons are, though instead of seconding to be a moral judge or leaving the victims fate up to a game fo chance. 

She is more a killer who gets off on their deaths for a personal addiction. Where she sees music and colors and it gives her a kind of high that she can’t get enough of 

Her time period and the events move up as she realizes she is losing her hearing again and must complete her masterpiece before she is totally deaf again.

She is an Audio engineer though it never explains quite how she picked up these other seemingly gifted engineering skills when. It comes to building her devices of death.

The film also seems to almost make it seem like her killing. Is hereditary when her father massacres the family earlier even though it seems more his killing was done after a mental break after fighting overseas in the military. 

Though then again being introduced early to death and murder might just be ingrained for her. 

Though the film seems to only want to bring. Up her emotional connections or some relatively basic actions into the film And make them more important or prevalent when the film needs these points to continue the storyline. To make the film appear to age. More depth and convention. Towards the second. Half of the film.

As so revealed she has been doing this most of her life we only know of a few incidents. Though learn that she did it while in foster care and not as a survival mechanism but just like at the beginning of the film as kind of something that makes her happy and lets her have a one-of-a-kind experience. 

Not to mention it seems like most are attracted to her best friend in the film played by Lili Simmons as even the detective at the crime scene sort of seems to go out of her way to give her her card and really wants to talk to her about the case or anything else. 

Also find it hard to believe that in all her killings no one was attracted to her in her more normal mode with a few of her eccentricities. As once she and her friend reveal they kind of have feelings for one another it’s supposed to come as a surprise even though they have been having a clearly platonic yet intimate relationship throughout. That could have easily been another example of everything being done out of frustration for unrequited love. 

Where in fact she seems to hold out her cruelest punishment for the one person she loves and uses her to present and be her final masterpiece.

It would be easy to also attack the film for its protagonist to be a crazed minority and homosexual but the latter is only revealed in a later scene and the kills don’t seem dependent on that fact they are just who she is naturally and a disturbing homicidal   trait that just so happens to be there 

It’s a shame as the film does have promise and really wanted to like the film though at first the film seems a bit slow to get to its point then becomes more the audience waiting for her to strike next. Though soon it seems like they might be all the film has to offer is these kinds of heightened kill scenes. So that it tries to have depth at times but begins to become more monotonous. When it has the makings of something of more substance. 

Not to mention it leaves quite a few questions. For instance, she says her family was murdered but we never see or even know the details of her brother’s death. 

Grade: C-