eve Campbell and Courteney Cox present a pre-movie entreaty to audiences, pleading with them not to spoil the ending to others. This suggests, of course, that the big reveal at the close will be quite the shock – something unguessable or entirely surprising. It also puts a lot of pressure on that conclusion; it promises to be so alarming that it could make or break the film as a whole.

The story itself opens with a landline phone call – how could it begin any other way? Once again, a young woman (Jenna Ortega as Tara), all alone in an isolated house (located in Woodsboro), attempts to stave off tormenting trivia questions from an unseen stalker, before realizing that the caller is inside her home, wielding a knife, and disguised in a phantasmal mask. “You love scary movies.”

Those slasher factlets concern “Stab,” which is the fictional movie based on the events surrounding the first “Scream” release, though determining an exact universe that all of this takes place in is troublesome, considering that “The Babadook” and “Friday the 13th” are also real movies seen and referenced by the lead characters. That’s perhaps of little concern, since this franchise is largely designed around analyzing slasher tropes, making them evident to the personas, and then having those roles succumb to them anyway. At least the setting has been updated to accommodate the prevalence of texting, number cloning, and smartphone-controlled security systems, though these technological advances prove worthless in the face of the unrealistically tech-savvy and nimble Ghostface killer.

Despite a few amusing cinematographic choices that focus on wide shots to reveal empty spaces that the murderer could lunge from or simply appear from spontaneously, as well as aggravatingly invasive close-ups that prevent viewers from seeing surrounding areas – which are just as likely to house the dagger-swinging maniac – it’s not long before “Scream” resorts to excessively familiar territory. Ghostface is clumsy, but not in an overtly slapstick way; graphic violence is the end result of desperate bids to avoid sharp objects; and modern rock/pop music segues from deaths to the next locale or character introduction. Equally as anticipated is the new cast, a group of young adults who are nearly indistinguishable from one another in their outrageously stereotypical qualities – so much so that it’s impossible to take any of their interactions seriously. Samantha Carpenter (Melissa Barrera), Tara’s sister, returns to Woodsboro with boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid) in tow, intent on uncovering her sibling’s attacker, while also tying together links to the past, which unavoidably involve the culprits and victims from the original film.

“It sounds a lot like ‘Halloween.’” Instantly, the protagonists are aware of their placement in a slasher plotline, verbally acknowledging how they’re prime victims for Ghostface, how any one of them could be Ghostface, and how historically there are always two people in cahoots to conduct the slayings. With so much repetition, particularly with the general conceit that the premise follows the rules of a boilerplate serial-killer flick, it’s a perpetually uphill battle for “Scream” to reason with viewers as to how this latest chapter is different from before. And, sadly, it’s absolutely not. It’s no more or less gruesome; the jump-scares are exactly as they were in previous entries; and the mystery, based on deeply interconnected family secrets, is purposely unsolvable (and nonsensical). Even if audiences could guess the outcome prior to the final revelations, “Scream’s” biggest downfall is that they likely won’t care enough to try; so many derivative, reused happenings occur so frequently that it’s tough not to be thoroughly bored by the conversations and utterly unaffected by the bloodshed.

“Something about this one just feels different.” Serving as a product somewhere between a sequel and a reboot (a “requel,” as one of the teens puts it), this pitifully-named follow-up sees the return of Campbell, Cox, and David Arquette (as well as Marley Shelton from “Scream 4”), though their reappearances are so much less charming when juxtaposed against characters comparing their involvement to that of Jamie Lee Curtis in 2018’s “Halloween.” It’s merely the next step in the evolution of futilely trying to rejuvenate tired horror series, but it’s less effective when spelled out to viewers who simply want to be entertained by seeing the aging stars of a 26-year-old movie reprise their roles (with an 11-year gap between parts 4 and 5). Unlike the humorous lampooning seen in Wes Craven’s last iteration, which took the self-reflexive viewpoint to levels of total parody, this revamp isn’t funny or fresh. No one behaves as if they’re consistently aware of their placement in a slasher context, while time stands still (and free from the interference of law enforcement or anyone else) during sequences of terrorization, complete with easy access to restricted locations or convenient solitude in typically bustling environments; there are always opportunities for haughty explanations by the villains or sass from victims about to take a knife to the throat.

In the end, it ought to be frustrating that the killer is always impervious to harm and smarter than the heroes, but those protagonists are so deliriously unsympathetic and downright imbecilic that they muster only indifference. This is most definitely the type of film that inspires rooting for the villain; no matter who it is, they should off ever greater numbers until no one is left standing; how unexpected it would be if everyone perished! As “Scream” pretends that being grossly unoriginal and extremely repetitive is some purposeful, clever decision, it winds up only being grossly unoriginal and extremely repetitive. Just because it concedes that that’s what it’s going for doesn’t make it a sound choice; it’s ultimately just uninteresting. “You really need some new material.”

– Mike Massie