rated R

Way back in 1997, when the first sequel in the “Scream” series came out, it carried the tagline, “Someone has taken their love of sequels one step too far.” Who’d have thought that 14 years later we’d be saddled with “Scream 4,” an unnecessary retread that’s taken director Wes Craven, screenwriter Kevin Williamson, and producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein’s love of sequels (or paychecks) yet another step too far. At best, “Scream 4” is a decade too late—“Scream 3” was released in 2000, and it’s not as if anyone was clamoring for a return visit to the sleepy-yet-murderous town of Woodsboro. At worst, it’s a sad attempt by Craven and company to recapture some long-gone glory and stake out a place in the remake-heavy field of horror flicks.

That glut of remakes seems to be Craven and Williamson’s primary target in “Scream 4.” While the original “Scream” lampooned the low-budget slasher flicks of the 1980s, the latest film in the franchise has it out for the remakes, reboots, and retreads of all the movies “Scream” poked fun at back in 1996. The movie starts with a double fake-out, showing us the first few moments of “Stab 6” and then “Stab 7,” the film-within-a-film franchise in the “Scream” universe, proving that the fourth “Scream” is just as self-referential and preoccupied with post-modern gymnastics as its predecessors.

Somewhere within all the references, call-backs, and fake-outs, there’s a story. It’s been 10 years since “Scream 3,” and Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is back in Woodsboro to promote her new autobiography/self-help book about surviving the events of the last three movies. Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) and his wife Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) are still in town, and so is Sidney’s cousin, Jill (Emma Roberts). And, of course, the Ghostface murderer is still hanging around, making phone calls, stabbing teenagers, and trying to get at Sidney. 

OK, so there isn’t much of a story, after all. What little screen time Sidney gets, though, goes a long way and gives “Scream 4” its few good moments. Campbell is a tough, confident heroine and has more talent than the rest of the mostly anonymous teen cast. Had Craven and Williamson kept the focus on Sidney and let the movie get out of its own way, “Scream 4” might not have been so bad.

Instead, the film ends up turning into a half-assed indictment of Hollywood’s penchant for remakes, with some token attempts at mocking reality TV culture thrown in for good measure. Williamson built his career in the mid ’90s on writing super-slick teen dialogue, but in the intervening decade, he seems to have lost touch with the very characters he’s trying to capture. A handful of references to Facebook and Twitter don’t make for a “modern” screenplay, and Williamson’s stabs at relevancy in “Scream 4” are just embarrassing.

So, too, are the movie’s attempts to wring laughs out of Hollywood’s addiction to remakes. The fact that “Scream 4” is just a sequel and not a remake is enough to set it apart from a lot of movies. But even then, it still has nothing to say about this sort of creative redundancy because, well, it’s also creatively redundant. In one scene, a character rattles off the titles of the last five years’ worth of remakes, a list that includes four of Craven’s own films. There’s no point to it, though. “Scream 4” seems to say, “Well, there sure are a lot of unnecessary remakes out there. Here’s an unnecessary sequel, instead!” 

The first “Scream” was a solid scary movie, one that lampooned its predecessors while nicely subverting the genre. “Scream 4” could have been a return to form—the remake boom, the glut of low-budget zombie flicks, and the “Saw” franchise all could’ve provided a wealth of comedic fodder. But Williamson and Craven stuck with what worked 15 years ago. This time around, “Scream 4” carries the tagline, “New decade. New rules.” If only Craven and Williamson had been paying close enough attention, they might have figured out how to make it so.