Reviews
‘Scream’ (2022): A SPOILER-FREE Review
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.
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.
Reviews
‘Them That Follow’ Review: A Bleak and Brilliant Thriller
From Blood Shine to now, I’ve really been eating my words with my “don’t like cult horror” attitude. Maybe all I needed was a gigantic break from the hundreds of cult-based horror films that were being churned out. Or, maybe the subgenre just needed some space to find its footing? Anyway, imagine the shock on my face when I was researching snake-based horror films and came across Them That Follow, starring Walton Goggins, Olivia Coleman, Kaitlyn Dever, and *checks notes* Jim Gaffigan!
Lemuel (Walton Goggins) is the pastor of a snake-fearing religious group, tucked away deep in the Appalachian mountains. His daughter, Mara (Alice Englert), is set to marry Garret (Lewis Pullman), a man she seemingly has no interest in. As their young love comes into question, Johnny Law starts breathing down their necks. With her best friend Dilly (Kaitlyn Dever) on her side, Mara questions everything she’s known about her life thus far. Will she go forward and marry a man she may not even love? Or, will her former fling, Auggie (Thomas Mann), win her affection and get her to leave this awful life behind?
A Slow-Burn With Style
Writer/directors Brittany Poulton and Dan Madison Savage bring a wholly unique feature to the table with Them That Follow. At first, the film’s meandering and lackluster pace is grating. WHEN will something happen? WHAT will move this story forward? Slowly but surely, Poulton and Savage’s story serpentines its way into nihilistic horror. If you have zero control over your life, what kind of life is it? Them That Follow is a harrowing, albeit slow, exploration of grief in a way that “elevated horror” typically fails at doing. Rather than forcing audiences into its grief, Poulton and Savage craft an excellent story around it.
Them That Follow explores not just grief, but groupthink. In a world where deeply religious political parties storm pizza restaurants with automatic weapons and kill in the name of their god, this film acts as a harsh mirror. YOU may not be aware that groups like this exist…they do. One of my favorite articles is written by someone who embedded himself in a Q-adjacent cult as he chronicled just how broken some of these groups are. (I wish I could remember the title/author, sorry!) Them That Follow does an incredible job at visualizing some of the things I read in that article. Those who believe Lemuel see nothing wrong with letting one of their friends get bitten by a venomous snake and slowly drift into a quiet death in the name of their god.
Outstanding Performances and a Surprising Cast
What really excited me about Them That Follow is how wonderfully miserable the cast is. Never have I seen people portray misery as entertainingly as this cast. Walton Goggins embodies his violent optimism in a way I haven’t seen him do before (though I haven’t seen Justified). Olivia Coleman is brilliant as always. But it’s everyman comedian Jim Gaffigan who really caught my eye. His performance is subtle and refined, something I didn’t think he could pull off. And if you ever thought you would see the day where Jim Gaffigan and Olivia Coleman play husband and wife on screen, you’re lying.
It’s not until the final act that the film goes from stagnant (positively) forwardness to amped up energy. I was concerned Them That Follow wouldn’t nail an interesting stinger, but Poulton and Savage wrapped a bloody brilliant bow on the end of this gift. I did wish they had gone in a different, less realistic angle to the film’s ending; something more grotesque. But I can’t fault them for leaving the film grounded in a reality that is justified and believable. Not all films like this have to end with a supernatural, Lovecraftian twist. And for that, I tip my ten-gallon hat to them.
Why Them That Follow Deserves More Attention
Them That Follow was an incredible surprise, and a wonderful change of pace for what cult-based horror films typically are. With a stacked cast, brilliant writing, and stunning performances, I’m shocked more people haven’t stumbled across this film. It utilizes its snake-based horror well and doesn’t vilify those slithery sneaks in a way many snake-based horror films do. At the very least, watch this film to see what it would be like if Olivia Coleman and Jim Gaffigan were married.
Reviews
‘Five Nights at Freddy’s 2’ Review: Fanservice Wrapped in Mess
I have no illusions that Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 entertained me due in no small part to personal bias. There was genuine enjoyment to be had for how silly and fun it was and enjoy it I did. I, of all people, am not immune to nostalgia. But there’s no mincing words: the second outing at the cinemas for creator Scott Cawthon’s behemoth horror franchise is, in no uncertain terms, a movie of mixed to low quality. It’s kind of bad. And that’s okay.
Its effects are simultaneously better and worse, its dialogue ranges from alright to atrocious, and its performances are all over the place. The premise it runs with, remixing the second game with its shiny new Toy versions of the Fazbear Entertainment gang, is a fun time fueled by fan service and busting at the seams to try and accommodate it all to an under two-hour runtime. But it’s messier than the backrooms of the pizzerias it takes place in.
A Remix of Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 (And Others), Heavy on Fanservice
This time, the primary antagonist puppeteering a cast of aggressive animatronics is literally a puppet; the Marionette, a scorned victim of the previous film’s antagonist William Afton. Slain and bound to the very first restaurant Afton started, a group of ghost hunters unleash its evil when a recording of their show goes horribly wrong. It’s up to Mike (Josh Hutcherson) and Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail) to try and seal it away again, or risk their lives being torn apart by the supernatural once more.
For the game fans this film was crafted for, it will satiate any lore craving they might have. Well, at least until the third film, when Mike will combat oxygen deprivation that causes him to hallucinate phantom animatronics (no, that sentence is not a joke, that actually happens). There are tidbits of foreshadowing for sequels, confirmations of theories, retcons, and somewhat amusing cameos. For everyone else, you’ll get a good laugh and the occasional scare, but you will have a plethora of questions.
The Screenplay Has Been Springlocked
The script for this sequel is riddled with oddities, nothing characters, and genre cliches that are in a quantum state of “good because it’s hilarious” and “bad because it’s genuinely bad” depending on who is delivering them. The story isn’t always predictable just because of the adaptation factor it relishes in, but its dialogue is undeniably silly and hamstrings what could otherwise be good performances with a need to rush along lore and forced character development.
Hutcherson’s go around as Mike this time is phoned in, and it doesn’t help that he wasn’t given anything to work with other than being a stereotypical single father figure to his kid sister. It’s not all bleak; Lail does actually deliver the film’s best bits in a genuinely frightening dream sequence delving into Vanessa’s backstory. She also gets a few fun final girl moments, but hasn’t reached the level of iconic that would garner calling her a scream queen; we’ll see if that changes in 3 given the radical shift in character she goes through here.
Great Villains Hamstrung by an Imperfect Script (And Effects)
Piper Rubio is once again fit to her role as Abby, though the character she’s playing is oddly one note for a child who is psychic friends with the ghosts of dead kids. The brief voice lines for the animatronics by guest stars garner little in the way of memorability, but long-time Freddy voice actor Kellen Goff does manage to make a solid impact with the one or two lines he receives.
While we’re on the topic of those new fiendish animatronics, they are much better than anticipated. Their practical puppetry bases and how they’re composited with the CGI isn’t bad at all, with game designs translating well and moving nicely. The Marionette’s myriad forms, however, do feel exceptionally goofy despite the terrifying concept of a slithering octopoid puppet ghost with no concrete skeleton. They’re the lowlight of the film’s effects, but it’s kind of endearing how silly they look.
The biggest victim of the film, however, is Freddy Carter. He plays the creep factor of his character up to a thousand in a way that absolutely would work with better writing and a darker tone. But he’s shackled by the lore implications of being a character people have been waiting for, in a way that feels more offensive to the story than the constant easter eggs. Every word that leaves his mouth feels comically bad, laden with exposition or just outright limp and cold linework.
We Underused Matthew Lillard Again (And Skeet Ulrich This Time Too)
Which is a shame, because our minor villain does get to have fun. Matthew Lillard’s brief screen chewing time in the sun as William Afton once more is delightful, playing a deranged killer in a yellow bunny costume with all the glee that visual would indicate.
Skeet Ulrich as fan favorite character Henry Emily, however, doesn’t get nearly enough time to shine. Despite being a perfect casting for the role and delivering a convincing turn as a grieving father, he’s relegated to just delivering a plot device that gets 30 seconds of screentime. Here’s to hoping the next film reunites the Scream alums, allowing the long-time rivals of the game to finally cross paths.
Can Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 Be More Than Fan Service?
I suppose the constant reiteration of that last point is important to address: the current train of thought is that hopefully, eventually, the kinks will be worked out as far as the Five Nights at Freddy’s films go. Though I’m not holding my breath.
There are no reservations that this is, first and foremost gateway horror for younger audiences, with a nostalgia barbed fishhook to sink into in older fans as well. My humble prediction is that almost all of these films will remain roughly the same level of quality (middling to poor), the same level of frightening (more than you’d think and much less than you’d hope), and the same level of entertaining for the segments of the population it hits for (a fairly fun time).
And maybe that’s enough. To simply be entertaining gateway horror is fine, I don’t think there’s a screaming necessity for these to be masterpieces. This movie is kind of bad, and that’s okay if all you need is some fleeting entertainment or to see your favorite game adapted to film. But films with this much franchise potential should be treated as all others. They can be strong horror films with great iconography rather than features beholden entirely to that iconography.
Five Nights at Freddy’s 2 fails to wow in any particular department other than being “for the fans” and much of its unintentional humor. Still, there’s a glimmer of hope here in its silvery eyes that this can all be something more down the line.


