Quantcast
Connect with us

Reviews

[TV Review] The Killer in ‘Scream: Resurrection’ Makes a Mockery of Horror Fans Everywhere

Published

on

Scream: Resurrection Cast

Well, there you have it: the possible conclusion of the Scream franchise, which will be remembered as the television equivalent of a wet fart in the annals of horror. The lengthy delay between seasons (almost three years) should have been all we needed to know: this “Three-Night Event’ was VH1’s way of dumping a turd of a season and wiping their hands clean. But their hands are not clean. Not. One. Bit.

Two days ago, I wrote the following in my review of Scream: Resurrection‘s first two episodes:

Scream: Resurrection benefits from not being boring. It’s bad, but at least it’s entertaining.”

My, what a difference four episodes can make. Each set of episodes was worse than the last, with the finale being a particularly egregious miscalculation of viewer expectations (Did you want Deion’s football scholarship drama to take up half of the finale’s runtime? Scream: Resurrection seems to think that you did.). I could spend this review picking apart the series scene by scene, but that would be a waste of my time and yours. This is a bad show and that’s all you need to know. However, it would be prudent to discuss the one aspect of the finale that likely won’t sit well with many horror fans (you know, the show’s target audience).

***SPOILERS for the finale of Scream: Resurrection***

As revealed in the sixth and final episode of Scream: Resurrection, the killers are revealed to be Deion’s (RJ Cyler) step-brother Jamal (Tyga) and Goth-girl horror expert (and Resurrection‘s Randy stand-in) Beth (Giorgia Whigham). Jamal was upset because his father married Deion’s mother (Mary J. Blige) and began to treat Deion like more of a son than Jamal. When he met Beth, who reveals herself to be a sociopath, she fostered his jealousy into a murderous rage and used him to start a killing spree because, well, she just likes killing people.

Yes, out of all of the Scream films to rip off, Scream: Resurrection chose to rip off Scream 3. Jamal’s motive is essentially the same as Roman’s (Scott Foley): He’s upset because his daddy loved his stepbrother more than he loved him. It’s certainly a (boring) choice, but Jamal isn’t the problem with Resurrection‘s finale. You see, while Beth being the killer seems clever (unless you count Scream 4‘s Charlie, Scream has never had the Randy-type character be the killer before), Beth’s motive monologue is problematic to say the least. Her explanation is as follows:

“I was born bad. Unlike you and your little “Deadfast” besties, I don’t lie to myself about it…[When I take my mask] off, nothing changes! I always knew I was a sociopath. I mean, why do you think I love horror movies so much? I watched every single one I could get my hands on until I realized it just wasn’t quite enough. Why should Michael Myers get to have all the fun when I could be a better monster because I’m not just some actor behind a mask. This is who I really am on the inside. [Silence] C’mon, that was a killer monologue! Literally!

Focus on that part in bold, would you? Because no other line of dialogue spoken in this finale matters. In case you glossed over it, here it is again:

“I always knew I was a sociopath. I mean, why do you think I love horror movies so much?”

Do you feel mocked? You should. It’s a tiny line that takes up mere seconds of screen time, but screenwriter/showrunner Brett Matthews is being insulting at best and downright irresponsible at worst. That one bit of dialogue reinforces the stereotype non-horror fans associate with us all too often and because of it, Scream: Resurrection now has the distinction of not only being one of the most boring horror television shows ever created but also one of the most offensive.

Never before have I seen a television series disparage its audience to this degree. Did you know that sociopaths love horror movies? No? Well, Scream: Resurrection is here to school you on that subject. To top things off, the series suggests that horror films can be used to appease or tame sociopathic tendencies in its (sociopathic) viewers, but when they’re not hardcore enough to satiate our vicious bloodlust, we’ll go on a killing spree. Alright.

It’s as if no one on the creative team had ever watched a Scream film before. The films have always done an excellent job of distancing the sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies of their killers from horror fandom. While it is true that the two are not mutually exclusive (obviously, a sociopath can be a horror fan and vice versa), the films took great care to ensure that they were sending the proper message (i.e., horror fans aren’t automatically sociopaths). Do I believe that this was an intentional message? No. I just don’t think anyone put any thought into it (something that could be said about this entire season). Scream is smart. This isn’t smart.

In Scream, Billy (Skeet Ulrich) says “Movies don’t create psychos. Movies make psychos more creative.” In Scream 2, Mickey’s (Timothy Olyphant) motive is to blame the movies for his killing spree, all the while noting that that isn’t the real reason he is killing. It’s just the reason that will make him the most famous. The same applies to Jill (Emma Roberts) in Scream 4. She doesn’t like horror movies because she is psychotic. She just wants to be famous and uses the original Scream (er, Stab) as a blueprint for her master plan. The distinction is important, and Scream: Resurrection does not make that distinction.

At the end of the day, Resurrection delivers an extremely problematic message to its viewers and goes against everything the film franchise stood for. The films respected horror fans. Scream: Resurrection shits on them. At least we now know that whatever the next entry in the Scream franchise is it can’t possibly be worse than this dreck.

To hear more of my thoughts on Scream: Resurrection, check out this week’s bonus episode of the Horror Queers podcast, in which Joe Lipsett and I read the series to filth:

A journalist for Bloody Disgusting since 2015, Trace writes film reviews and editorials, as well as co-hosts Bloody Disgusting's Horror Queers podcast, which looks at horror films through a queer lens. He has since become dedicated to amplifying queer voices in the horror community, while also injecting his own personal flair into film discourse. Trace lives in Denver, CO with his husband and their two dogs. Find him on Twitter @TracedThurman

Click to comment

Reviews

‘Hungry’ Review – Finally, a Film Brave Enough to Call Out Hippos for the Monsters They Truly Are

Published

on

Hungry Review

When it comes to the animal attack subgenre of horror, there’s a hierarchy of sorts with the wildlife in question. Killer shark movies are easily the most ubiquitous, while alligators/crocodiles, dogs, bears, and snakes probably lead the rest of the pack.

It’s often worth paying attention, though, when a filmmaker targets a more atypical animal threat, including the likes of Jonathan King’s Black Sheep or Juan Piquer Simón’s Slugs. A new contender rumbles its way onto the screen this month, and while we all grew up thinking hippos are rotund cuties, the truth is far more frightening – this hippo is Hungry.

Sistine (Madison Davenport) and her best friend, Hannah (Olivia Bernstone), are enjoying a vacation in New Orleans, hoping to drown out their troubles back home. They sign up for an early morning bayou tour known for its alligator sightings and are joined by four other tourists and the boat’s skipper, Rodrigo (Michel Curiel). An uneventful trip sees Rodrigo take the group off the beaten path, but when an animal in the water capsizes their boat, the group finds themselves trapped in the swamp by something unexpected and deadly.

It’s a hippo. There’s a hippo in the bayou, and it’s not happy about all these pesky people.

From Joy Houck’s Creature from Black Lake to Walter Hill’s Southern Comfort to Adam Green’s Hatchet, the movies have warned us time and again not to go into the swampy bayous of Louisiana. Those cautionary tales are appreciated, though, as bigfoot, inbred hicks, and undead serial killers are a very real threat. But hippos? In the bayou? Well, that just seems silly.

And yet, Hungry plays its blubbery, big-toothed threat with deadly seriousness, and it’s all the better for it. “But Rob,” I can already hear some of you saying, “just yesterday you reviewed the new shark attack film, Chum, and said it suffered from taking itself too seriously. What gives?” For one thing, you’re misquoting me, but more importantly, the reference there was more of an observation on the animal attack subgenre successes as a whole. The “fun” ones tend to succeed more often than their more serious counterparts, but a dramatic and thrilling time can still be found with filmmakers who know what they’re doing.

Chum may be serious, but it’s also poorly written/performed, lacking in any degree of tension, devoid of personality, and so on. By contrast, Hungry lets its suspense build on the backs of engaging characters, good performances, and believable writing. Only one of its ensemble is obnoxious – a major feat for this kind of film – but even then, their motivations are both well-written and understandable.

The rest of the characters are people you’d be happy to see survive the night, and rather than looking forward to the next kill, director James Nunn and his cast leave us uncertain and nervous about who’s going to go belly up. The nervous business traveler wanting to get back to her kids? The family of three celebrating lost loved ones while on their vacation? Joaquim de Almeida’s Walker, an old hunter, is introduced saying, “The only cute hippo is a dead hippo,” so you pretty much know where he’ll end up.

To that end, the film teases out its hippo’s first appearance until well into the ninety-minute running time. We get ripples and splashes, but it’s only around the midway point that we get our first real look at the beast, and it looks fantastic. Nunn goes on to show the hippo in all its glory, and it’s a convincing antagonist brought to life through practical prosthetic effects and digital work. From the ear twitches to the beast’s giant maw opening wide with awe and malice, the hippo’s presence feels part of the action. There’s a tangible nature to it, something practical effects excel at while digital effects sometimes fail to convince of, and both succeed here with quality work from all involved.

While we get brief exteriors early on and some visually appealing drone shots, the bulk of the film unfolds on what looks to be a highly believable, set-dressed water tank (but could very well be an actual location, in which case, kudos to the team). It’s wholly convincing as a section of the bayou, complete with shoulder-high water and arching, twisting trees emerging into the sky. The film was shot in Malta, which is, coincidentally, where Chum was filmed as well.

Nunn, who also wrote Hungry, is now ten films deep into a fairly interesting career as a genre filmmaker. He’s made four movies with Scott Adkins, three of which are certified action bangers (with 2016’s Eliminators in particular being an underrated gem). He dipped a toe into the animal attack subgenre back in 2022 with the aforementioned Shark Bait, and it’s clear he learned some lessons from that endeavor, as its first hour is an engaging, attractively shot feature that sinks fast as soon as its poorly rendered shark becomes a lead character. Hungry improves on every aspect of that film, with its biggest step up being in regard to the effects.

If there’s an area or two where Hungry lacks bite, it’s in both its gore and its ending. There are numerous kills here, but the nature of the attacks and the choices made by Nunn mean none of them result in gory assaults or outcomes. We’re shown the torn apart corpse of an alligator early on, but most of the human kills see them attacked and dragged underwater, leaving nothing but a blood spill behind. Similarly, while the ending encounter satisfies, it still feels like it should have been a bigger confrontation. Neither of these aspects really hurt the film, but a bolstering of the gore and ending antics would have definitely upped the film’s ultimate entertainment value and rewatchability.

When all is said and done, Hungry is a genuinely solid animal attack film that succeeds in making its creature threat thrilling, entertaining, and, dare I say, educational? Title notwithstanding, the film acknowledges that hippos are vegetarians, meaning the five hundred or so people they kill every year – a true fact! – are slaughtered not out of hunger, but out of spite, self-defense, or a desire to play “land orca” while tossing around us fragile humans like we’re little more than seals in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Characters are grounded and engaging, the film moves well between suspense, character beats, and action, and the effects used to bring the hippo to life are highly effective and never feel like distractions. Drop those expectations of a Hungry Hungry Hippo romp, and settle in for a terrific little survival thriller about an angry, angry hippo instead.

Chomp chomp.

Hungry releases in select theaters today, June 3, before arriving on VOD on June 23, 2026.

3 skulls out of 5

Continue Reading