Connect with us

Reviews

‘Scream’ (2022): A SPOILER-FREE Review

Published

on

A continuation of the series that reminds people why they love ‘Scream’, bringing a lot of laughs and a whole lot of blood.

In my previous Scream article, I mentioned that I was grateful the series never got swamped down in trying to relive its glory days. I’m going to be honest and say that I feared 5 might kill that track record when the series was picked up by a duo other than Craven and Williamson. It would have been the easier option to ape what made the original great and try to just play the hits; it’s a theme this film touches on quite a bit in fact. But rest assured, directors Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett have not succumbed to this pitfall.

This movie, rather, is a defiant rejection of the trend that regurgitates our old favorites for the sake of nostalgia, and it’s very telling how often Vanderbilt and Busick’s dialogue serves to drive that home. The movie feels at home with the rest of the franchise, even with some of its more significant changes. Those changes are the reason it’s my current second favorite in the franchise, and it’s not just because of its perfect use of “Red Right Hand”. (If you thought this was going to dethrone Scream (1996), I commend your optimism but question your predictive skills.)

This film has two things going for it that pull it up in my rankings. For one, it’s arguably the funniest in the franchise, and it doesn’t act like some of its dialogue isn’t silly. It has lines that stand out as ridiculously corny, but it’s all very tongue in cheek and doesn’t suffer from rapid tonal shifts trying to take itself too seriously. Those with a distaste for goofy dialogue may walk away unsatisfied, as it’s a good chunk of what makes the film funny, but I think it’s a great change, mood-wise, and it doesn’t detract from the dark humor written into the film or its more brutal moments.

The other prize it takes, alongside most funny, is most gruesome. I would need to marathon them all again to be sure of this assertion, but this is, in my mind, the bloodiest of the films. Keep in mind, this is a franchise that opens on Drew Barrymore and her boyfriend being gutted, so that’s saying something. There were a few kills that made me sink back into my seat from their detail alone. This film definitively has my favorite death in the franchise, usurping Anthony Anderson’s forehead becoming a knife cradle in 4. When you see it, you’ll know what death it is; it felt like all the air got sucked out of the room when it happened at my screening. The opposite could be said of our Ghostface reveals this time around, as we heard some actual screams in the theatre when those bombs dropped.

Advertisement

Each kill and scene flow into the next smoothly, and the pacing never errs on the side of dragging. The technical issues with this film are mainly in the editing. Bettinelli-Olpin and Gillett didn’t take their cues from how Craven depicted the speed of a Ghostface attack, opting for more cuts. There is one moment in a fight during the film’s final act that becomes muddled by a smear of quick cuts where I couldn’t tell what was going on, but that is the most egregious instance and not a common occurrence.

In the traditional Scream fashion, we get a whole lot of humor based on commentary on horror films. The funniest scene in the film, however, has less to do with clever dialogue and more with cinematography. It toys with our traditional sense of telegraphed scares in one sequence that is very clearly a lampooning of the worst of modern horror. It’s a breath of fresh air to see pure comedy without a single word said; the camera work and blocking of the shot make for a very memorable gag that leads into a gnarly death.

Of the old blood in the cast, Campbell, Cox, and Arquette have the same stage presence they’ve had throughout all the films. Sidney displays confidence and expertise as always, and her on-screen interactions with Gale are a treat. Jenna Ortega’s performance as Tara is great, as she seems to be having a whole lot of fun with the role. Jack Quaid also brings his special comedic delivery that he had in The Boys as the awkward love interest, Richie. However, things kind of fall flat in his chemistry with our main character Sam, played by Melissa Barrera.

Overall, I’m not the biggest fan of Barrera’s acting. Some of her lines feel downright wooden, but I suspect this is primarily due to the dialogue she’s given. Her very interesting origin story is also conflicting, to say the least. I can’t discuss it without spoilers, but I feel very torn on how they incorporate her past into the story. Still, when she’s cut loose in the final act, she hits her stride in a major way. She grew on me slowly, but it’s just a shame it takes as long as it does for that to kick in.

RATING: 8.5, leaning towards 9 (REDACTED SPOILER RATING JOKE)/10. In the end, this is a great Scream film, through and through. It’s bloody, laden with mystery and comedy, and has that classic charm in spades. Is it a perfect film? No, but not many are. Is it one of the best in the franchise? You bet your Buck 120 and voice changer it is.

Advertisement

Luis Pomales-Diaz is a freelance writer and lover of fantasy, sci-fi, and of course, horror. When he isn't working on a new article or short story, he can usually be found watching schlocky movies and forgotten television shows.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

‘Shadow of God’ Review: A Bold Indie Horror That Falls Short

Published

on

Whether they land or not, it’s hard not to appreciate how impressive it is that Shudder gives a platform to myriad independent films. While Screambox struggles to finish the race, Shudder is doing a victory lap. Even the greats trip up occasionally. Shadow of God is a film I heard minor rumblings about across the interwebs, and as someone who isn’t into exorcism-like films, it still piqued my interest enough to seek it out. Then I watched it.

Shadow of God: A Promising Premise Falls Flat

Shadow of God follows alcoholic exorcist Mason Harper (Mark O’Brien) as he travels back to his hometown following a death during an exorcism. Mason meets up with his ex-beau, Tanis Green (Jacqueline Byers), who gives him a place to stay while he’s back. The semi-happy reunion between Mason and Tanis is cut short when the dregs of Mason’s deceased father’s cult learn of his arrival. Everyone’s faith will be tested as something more sinister than anyone could imagine rears its ugly head.

It feels like there was a disconnect between writer Tim Cairo and director Michael Peterson, as Shadow of the God feels nothing more than scattered parts of better films clumped together into a heaping mess of something. While full of awful dialogue, Cairo’s script tells a compelling and somewhat unique take on the religious horror subgenre. The bones of a better film exist deep within the script. A rewrite (or three) could have helped to trim the fat and identify the elements of the story that truly work. On the other hand, Michael Peterson seems to have little to no control over whatever he was doing here.

Digital Effects Ruin Emotional Depth

The real issue with the film is the unfortunate digital effects slapped on before the final cut. Any semblance of an okay film quickly flew out the window with the slapdash effects. Nothing takes you out of a well-crafted emotional moment like a giant, badly composited white light shooting out of someone’s forehead. I was so checked out by the end that my final note written about the film simply says, “barn effects BAD.” To be completely honest, I don’t even know what I meant by that.

Not a singular solid performance graces the screen during this hour and 27-minute series of images. I get that independent films face difficult and unique challenges that larger budget films don’t. But the performances feel as if the cast were given the script seconds before the scenes were shot. Mark O’Brien was a huge sell for me with this film, as I adored him in Ready or Not, and it feels like [maybe] his agent dropped the ball on this one.

Advertisement

The Potential Buried in Shadow of God

Shadow of God had the trappings of a film that could stand out from the exorcism slop that floods Tubi’s recommended feed, but ultimately failed to do anything of note. As I said, Shudder takes chances on films, and that’s commendable. There’s a need for streamers like Shudder to give a voice to filmmakers who are trying to change the game. I can see what Tim Cairo was going for here, and I think a different director could have taken this film to the next level. Shadow of the God is, sadly, a huge swing and a miss for me.
Continue Reading

Reviews

‘Jurassic World: Rebirth’ Review: Show Me Your Teeth

Published

on

It has been just three years since Jurassic World: Dominion put the latest trilogy in the franchise on ice with the bite force of a smurf, but like any money-maker in Hollywood, no IP stays extinct for long. Universal decided to revisit the franchise’s roots, heading back to the lab to poke and prod at its barely fossilized remains in an attempt to mix up its DNA enough to warrant a reboot. Jurassic World: Rebirth promised a thrilling return to form – a journey into dino-infested waters that put the terror back in Tyrannosaur. With horror-adjacent auteur Gareth Edwards (known for Monsters and Godzilla) directing and writer David Koepp (who adapted Jurassic Park and The Lost World), returning after a nearly thirty-year absence, expectations were colossal.

What they delivered is a glossy, crowd-pleasing theme park ride into nostalgia that never fully commits to genuine horror or the deeper scientific soul of the 1993 original. It’s enjoyable for fans who love every iteration unconditionally, but it is sure to frustrate those with a more critical eye who expected something closer to a cold-blooded classic.

Jurassic World: Rebirth – A New Chapter or Nostalgic Retread?

For those needing a refresher on the events leading up to Rebirth, you can snag yourself an honorary degree in paleontology with our handy Jurassic Horror 101. After closing out the first reboot trilogy with a whimper, Universal needed to steer the narrative away from pseudo-science and half-baked existentialism toward a more visceral experience; nothing will compare to Spielberg’s masterpiece, sweetie!

The elements for success are all here: Edwards has a strong resume in titanic horror, Koepp is the man behind the original film adaptation, and the fresh faces of Scarlett Johansson, Jonathan Bailey, and Mahershala Ali bring star power to the tropics. Yet, whether due to studio interference or simply buckling under nine tons of pressure, they still haven’t figured out how to catch lightning in a bottle twice.

Dinosaurs, Big Pharma, and a Tropical Mission

Set five years after dinosaurs were left to coexist with humans, we learn that the prehistoric beasts are once again facing extinction, both physically and metaphorically. Unsustainable living conditions within Earth’s rapidly changing ecosystems are eliminating them faster than an ice age, and – perhaps in a nod to our apathy in a digital world – the humans around them largely do not give a damn. As dino merch turns to ash and people avoid the roaming beasts like an invasive flash mob, pharmaceutical company ParkerGenix recruits mercenaries Zora Bennett (Johansson) and Duncan Kincaid (Ali), along with soon-to-be-unemployed paleontologist Dr. Henry Loomis (Bailey), for an adventure their wallets can’t resist.

Advertisement

It seems that dinosaurs are still thriving on small islands surrounding the equator, and ParkerGenix has discovered within these surviving creatures a medical miracle that may provide a cure for heart disease. However, this being a Jurassic movie, our beautiful trio is tasked with retrieving this biomaterial from an island overrun by failed genetic experiments abandoned by the infamous company that started it all – InGen.

Rebirth’s script does touch upon the ethical dilemmas of serving Big Pharma for a seven-figure payout. Still, these moral quandaries are explored no more deeply than a child kicking at sand on the beach, hoping to uncover something shiny underneath the silt. Thematically, the franchise has painted itself into a corner since 1993. The existential wonder, quiet pathos, and scientific stakes have since been mined dry, which makes the shift toward more human-scale horror a welcome pivot. Two reboots in, we may never see a film that so effortlessly balances terror and philosophy as the original did. So, while I could continue to rip the script to shreds, why bother? Instead, let’s get to why you’re really here and tear into the horror of it all.

Does Jurassic World: Rebirth Deliver on Horror?

As is common with blockbuster films, Rebirth finds itself at odds with its behind-the-scenes talent and the studio executives at Universal. They clearly chose Edwards for his experience with films of kaiju proportions, and Koepp’s portfolio includes its fair share of bangers, including 2025’s critically acclaimed Black Bag. The marketing heavily features the newly hatched D-Rex, a “Xenorancor rex” level monstrosity that by all accounts should be the scariest thing this franchise has ever seen. However, the cold open, which includes a Final Destination-like mishap that allows the D-Rex some bloodlust, is all too brief. And that is the film’s biggest flaw: They have to let it linger, and they don’t.

A certain sense of style and cinematic flair that horror’s best know how to use is simply missing. Is this a creative misstep, or is the studio afraid to alienate families? The hallmark sequence that strands our heroes — a franchise staple — lacks the dread felt in the original’s historic T-Rex attack or even the epic trailer cliff dive from The Lost World. Since the human characters in these movies survive far more often than they should, they could at least leave us a bit shaken after such a spectacle. That said, the film does include a tense river raft sequence from Michael Crichton’s novel that fans have been begging for since the 90s, and it is undoubtedly the movie’s highlight.

CGI vs. Practical Effects in Jurassic World: Rebirth

I could overlook the lack of scares, or at least choose to politely ignore them, if they had gone back to basics and incorporated quality practical effects. Most are aware that OG’s lasting reverence is at least partly due to its extensive use of lifelike, tangible dinosaur prosthetics and robotics. In 2025, a solid combination of quality CGI and practical magic would go a long way. Backed by Edwards’ love of lighting a dramatic silhouette, the D-Rex does have some ominous and visually impressive moments as we catch glimpses of her amidst fire and fog. Then you see mother monster full frontal without the filters, and it feels like catching sight of a sweaty drag queen after a summer brunch performance.

Advertisement

The editing does the film’s attempts at horror no favors either, exhibiting strange spatial logic during tense beats where dinosaurs seem to vanish between cuts and human characters appear to ignore the massive beasts that were chasing them moments earlier.

A Love Letter to Jurassic Fans

As mentioned, fans of the franchise do have a lot to love here, despite Rebirth flopping in the horror department. Instead of the over-the-top fan service found in Dominion, we are given plenty of self-referential nods and visual echoes, from mirror messages to rescue flares and raptors in the kitchen. The excellent score by Alexandre Desplat likewise resurrects a familiar tune that accompanies a sequence featuring mutated Brachiosauruses that look ripped from Annihilation, which almost brought a tear to the eye of this longtime fan. What the movie lacks in scares, it makes up for in charm, and moments like these, along with a central trio of likeable characters, are enough to keep the formulaic plot moving along.

It’s no surprise that Wicked’s Jonathan Bailey, as the eager and inexperienced Dr. Loomis, is as charming as ever. The flitters of interaction between him and Johansson’s gruffy mercenary, Zora, are endearing, and Mahershala Ali’s characterization of Kincaid rounds out the trio with enough wit to establish them as the reboot’s next generation. A paper-thin backstory helps us understand why these would-be heroes are risking their lives for the better part of two hours, leaving room for improvement in potential sequels.

There’s also a forgettable family with the personality of wet rags who get caught up in the action, serving more as catalysts for set pieces than as developed characters. Still, their scenes provide some comedic relief through Gen Z’s himbo boyfriend, Xavier (David Iacono), and a cute baby dinosaur named Dolores (could a Labubu crossover be on the way?).

Is Jurassic World: Rebirth Worth Watching?

Overall, Jurassic World: Rebirth is more entertaining than innovative. It won’t convert any skeptics into dinosaur enthusiasts, but true fans can find plenty to enjoy in this sweaty jungle romp. It’s predictable and lacks the horror elements that readers of Horror Press crave, but I had a good time despite it all. The franchise still has teeth, albeit buried deep within its gums. Hopefully, Universal will allow some creatives the freedom to yank them out in bloody glory for the next one.

Advertisement

Jurassic World: Rebirth is now in theaters!

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement