Scream (1996) is a parody horror-slasher film directed by Wes Craven starring Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott, Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers, Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis, and Matthew Lillard as Stu Macher. Sidney, a high school student, is terrorized by a masked killer, paralleling her mother’s torment the year before. The film is loved for its parody and revival of the slasher genre. While it is a classic, it doesn’t always hit the mark.

This review will have a spoiler and non-spoiler section, starting with the spoiler-free section.

Spoiler-free Section

Through its satirical approach to the genre, this film offers a unique blend of thrill, horror, and comedy. It is an entertaining and satisfying flick that has certainly maintained its iconic status. However, it often fails to be more than that, with questionable use of meta-humor and horror tropes that sometimes feel like outright mistakes instead of meta-humor. Overall, I rate this film a 6/10 on my scale. It is a fun experience, but it has many issues.

Without getting into spoilers, let’s discuss the film’s successes and failures. The most significant issue is the balance between meta-humor and actual horror. There are many successful attempts at humor and genuine horror, but the two sometimes overshadow each other. Often, something that might be a parody comes across more as a genuine mistake or misstep. Aspects of scenes that attempt to be serious feel less so due to the comedic nature of the film, or rather how the balance of comedic elements is handled. While being a parody, the film fails to address some of the most annoying horror tropes despite falling into these tropes itself. It prefers to discuss audience expectations toward the rules characters must follow and how the killer behaves over the frustrating decisions of characters. It plays with some of the audience’s expectations but doesn’t always land in doing so. It often outright succumbs to expectations without hinting at being satirical. Sometimes, the outright dialogue bordering on fourth-wall breaking feels corny rather than funny.

There are also issues with attempts to build suspense in weird parts using a dramatic soundtrack and wide-angle lenses. The odd lens use puts me off the most because it feels random and is so subtle that I can barely imagine it. I respect subtlety, but how it is used feels more like bad camera work than a proper visual cue. The soundtrack often feels straight out of the Goosebumps show, which makes sense for the period but hasn’t aged well. The intensity of the soundtrack often doesn’t match the scene, making it feel less intense and less comedic.

While there are impressive performances, not all are created equal. There is a mix of subtle, more realistic acting and over-the-top acting. While this could be seen as an attempt at nuance, the over-the-top acting feels out of place and corny.

Spoilers

Although the film is nearly 30 years old, I will issue a spoiler warning for the section ahead. This film relies heavily on mystery, so I recommend watching it before reading on.

First, let’s discuss specifically what the film does well. In many areas, it balances the horror and humor well. The first two murders feel both ridiculous and tense. The over-the-top acting feels appropriate, and the overly brutal murders set the tone nicely. The nods to classic horror films also clearly establish the film as self-aware early on.

Later on, there are subtle nods to other films through direct mentions and easter eggs. There are also outright discussions, particularly involving the character Randy, about how the events of the film relate to other films and horror tropes. Sometimes, these discussions are well executed. Other times, they feel overly obvious. My favorite part is the “physical” meta-humor. One great example is when Randy is watching a film, saying “look behind you” to the character in the film, commentating exactly how the audience feels watching him as the killer prepares to strike. Another more subtle example is when Billy stumbles down the stairs with a bloodied shirt. There is just enough time to realize that his shirt is not ripped or cut around the blood. At first, this may seem like a common, lazy effects mistake, but it is instead a clue.

I have mixed feelings about the conversation between Randy, Stu, and Billy in the movie store. While it does feel a little obvious, I appreciate that the film addresses that Billy acts creepy, like a killer. However, it fails to address the typical whodunit trope of the first suspect never being the killer. While this film is aware of its slasher nature, it fails to recognize its whodunit nature. Anyone slightly versed in whodunit stories would certainly write off Billy as a suspect purely for being too obvious. So, some of Randy’s assertions feel forced because, in many stories, Billy would be the least suspected by the audience. Maybe Randy admitting that he would be most likely is a nod to that. That admission feels more like Randy trying to save his skin in front of Billy, a killer in his eyes. However, the film still plays with this trope by clearing Billy as a suspect. My issue isn’t that Billy was actually the killer, but how Randy oddly felt so sure about it, even though the trope says otherwise.

The film fantastically handles the virgin trope, allowing Sidney to survive not because she is “pure” but because she has wit and resourcefulness. It’s funny how Randy is instead the “final girl” because he is a virgin. The reveal of two killers also feels fresh and exciting, breaking the expectation of one killer. It’s also fresh to see that the killers are a little clumsy and human. However, the film still falls into frustrating tropes without acknowledging them. While it does reference characters making dumb decisions, it doesn’t recognize the logical pitfalls of many events. There is no nod to how obvious it is to give Sidney, the apparent target, her own weapon. Maybe it’s just me, but this frustrated me greatly because of how convenient it felt. Also, Tatum’s death was laughably unrealistic despite no indication of that being intentional. Garage doors are very finicky, so the weight of an entire human would likely prevent it from going up. Also, they aren’t very strong, so the garage door would likely just stop with Tatum hanging there. Finally, even in the 90s, garage doors had sensors to prevent such an accident. I would especially expect this to be the case in an upper-class house. It would have been more effective and funnier if, just before getting crushed, the garage door stopped, leaving Tatum to hang there, breaking the trope. Then, there could be a comedic moment where the killer struggles to get to her but eventually does anyway.

I also find Billy’s reasoning for killing Sidney’s mom corny and melodramatic. His reasoning was more effective when it was simply that there doesn’t have to be a reason. Even his reasoning that Sidney’s mom’s infidelity was the cause was better. Also, Sidney’s line, “not in my movie,” after Billy jumps out and is shot again, feels corny and unnecessary. There are several similar lines that would be better left out.

Lastly, I appreciate the film's touch on darker themes of grief and trauma, but those themes are underexplored and overshadowed by the comedy. While this isn’t surprising, given the film is a parody, it is still disappointing, given how heavy the topics are.

 

Scream (1996) sets out to challenge the horror tropes of its time and revive a genre. While it has flaws, the result is respectable and undoubtedly entertaining. It mostly accomplishes what it set out to do, propelling it to iconic status. If you are a fan of the horror or slasher genre, this film is a must. Even if you don’t typically watch horror, you’ll likely still find this film thrilling and funny. It certainly was not my favorite, but I’m glad I watched it.