(Image: Paramount SkyDance)
(Warning: This article contains spoilers.)
During a talk at Oxford University earlier this year, Conan O'Brien lamented that the American comedy scene has devolved into simply railing against Donald Trump—a trend he sees not as humor, but as pure anger. "You have to find a way to channel that anger into some kind of an expression... because good art is always a powerful weapon, it's always the perfect weapon against power," O'Brien said. "But if you're just screaming and yelling, you've lost the best tool in your toolbox." Unfortunately, "Scary Movie 6" is exactly the kind of comedy that has lost its way, unable to channel its rage into anything remotely funny.
"Scary Movie 6" marks the first time the Wayans family has returned to the helm since the second installment, and it seems they've been bottling up a lot. They have a lot to say and a lot of people and things to complain about. Perhaps too much. Their pent-up frustration boils over, and they're in such a rush to vent that they forget to "channel" it first. They're fed up with the extreme division between the left and the right, the foolish antics of influencers chasing clout, and the prevalence of DEI policies. So they go on the attack. And it’s not satire; it feels more like a lecture. While it may be framed as parody, the raw, impatient annoyance makes the whole thing feel preachy.
(Image: Paramount SkyDance)
Some will inevitably defend the film, asking, "DEI has been infuriating for so long, what's wrong with 'Scary Movie 6' letting off some steam for us?" But to argue that is to miss O'Brien's point entirely. Comedy isn't just shouting; it's a performance, and a performance requires craft. The craft in "Scary Movie 6" is sorely lacking, to the point of being crude. Of course, I know this has always been the Wayans' style, from the very first film to their "A Haunted House" series. But the crudeness is different this time. In the past, I could accept it as their signature because they occasionally showed restraint. In this sixth entry, however, they're like wild horses that have been cooped up for too long and finally broken free.
This unbridled approach is polarizing. If you're in the camp that defends the film, you'll probably have a blast. But if you value quality comedic performance, you'll likely feel like you paid to watch someone throw a tantrum. The irony is that the very people who would defend this film—many of whom constantly complain about "woke" culture—are the same ones who hate the blunt, humorless anti-Trump jokes made by left-leaning talk shows that O'Brien criticized. "Scary Movie 6" is just as crude, only its target is the left.
(Image: Paramount SkyDance)
Although Marlon Wayans insists that "Scary Movie 6" punches both left and right, with no one spared, it's clear to any discerning viewer that the film hits the left much harder. Most of the jokes are designed to mock progressives. I guarantee that if the film had aimed its fiercest attacks at the right, its defenders wouldn't be laughing. They would finally realize that the Wayans have become completely consumed by their own anger. I can also easily predict that someone reading this will sneer, "You must be a woke liberal who's just mad that 'Scary Movie 6' made fun of you, so you're calling it bad!" If I were, I probably would have boycotted all of the Wayans' movies, since their work almost always clashes with progressive values. Why would I pay to torture myself?
In the first two films, the Wayans brothers had the self-awareness to not spell out every joke. Take Shannon Elizabeth's scene at the beginning of the first movie: one moment she's talking about feeding starving children, and the next she's telling a homeless person begging for money to get lost. The joke works because it shows the character's hypocrisy through action without explicitly stating it. But in this installment, the Wayans suddenly feel the need to explain every punchline. In any politically charged gag, a character has to shout out their identity or party affiliation. This even happens with the movie parodies. Their commitment to political commentary has almost completely overshadowed the film's original purpose: spoofing other movies.
(Image: Paramount SkyDance)
For example, in the finale where Anna Faris parodies "John Wick," we all know they're referencing John Wick. But having Ghostface ask, "I didn't kill your dog!" followed by Faris retorting, "The dog is a metaphor for his dead wife!" shatters the unspoken understanding between the creators and the audience. Once you break that, it's not funny. The bit is also disconnected from the plot and weak on its own; the setup and punchline are both flat. Why are you explaining the dog's symbolism in the original film to me? Are you trying to mansplain cinema? The problem is, there was no setup for this. When Ken was mocked in "Barbie" for mansplaining "The Godfather," it was built up and connected to the plot, which made the joke work.
The verbal sparring match between Regina Hall and her son's girlfriend at the school gate is another cringeworthy "film-splaining" showdown. It's incredibly forced. I've seen all the movies they reference and get what they're trying to do, but I couldn't crack a smile. The scene feels like those online comment sections where nerds self-indulgently explain a ton of background info about a movie, thinking they're adding to the conversation when the original poster already knew it all. The Wayans brothers have done this before, but it was milder. This time, the condition has worsened significantly.
(Image: Paramount SkyDance)
Another issue that was present before but is now much worse is the Wayans' control over narrative pacing. Many fans actually prefer the third and fourth films, in which the Wayans were not involved, because the jokes were more methodically structured and the rhythm was better. They felt more like coherent movies rather than a jumble of disconnected skits. Ironically, while the Wayans brothers resent being kicked off the franchise by The Weinstein Company, their return with "Scary Movie 6" only proves that replacing them with parody master David Zucker ("The Naked Gun," "Top Secret!") was the right call. The Weinsteins' actions were deplorable, but Zucker's adjustments did improve the series.
Speaking of being kicked off, that old off-screen grudge becomes the central mystery of this film's plot, used as a parallel to the toxic fandom storyline in "Scream V." As a concept, it's a good idea and possibly one of the few things in the movie that made me laugh. Even though the finale is just the cast sitting around complaining about industry drama—almost completely breaking character—it feels more natural than their earlier, over-the-top attempts at comedy precisely because they stopped "acting." In a final flourish, the old guard ties up all the new-generation characters and sets them on fire, a move that felt true to the spirit of parody and managed to salvage the ending just a little.
(Image: Paramount SkyDance)
Honestly, it was satisfying to see those new characters go up in flames. But my satisfaction didn't come from the intended satire of modern films forcing legacy characters to pass the torch. It came from the fact that the new actors were absolutely terrible. They were so bad it was infuriating, ruining every single joke—jokes that weren't even that funny to begin with. And to make matters worse, they had a ton of screen time. Their performances were so aggressively bad it felt physically uncomfortable, like they were pressing their faces against mine and forcing the corners of my mouth into a smile.
Their acting was so atrocious that I started to wonder if the Wayans brothers directed them to be this bad. Was it a ploy to make the original cast look better by comparison, to make audiences despise the newcomers so they'd cheer when the veterans finally burn them alive? If that was the plan, it was a terrible one. That single punchline wasn't worth sacrificing an entire movie for. To be blunt, even though the fifth film is widely considered the worst, I think it's far superior to this one. At least it functioned as a proper parody film.
(Image: Paramount SkyDance)
Don't tell me, "You're just watching it for the nostalgia." If you want nostalgia, why not just rewatch the earlier films? Don't tell me, "You didn't think it was funny because you didn't get the references." By that logic, does the poor reception of the fifth film mean that audiences hadn't seen the "Paranormal Activity" series, a franchise so successful it spawned eight movies? And don't tell me, "You're just venting your anger in this review, so who are you to criticize?" I'm writing a film review, not making a comedy. I have no obligation to control my emotions.
And please, don't tell me, "It's just a comedy, why are you taking it so seriously?" Well, if it's just a comedy, why are you taking my comment so seriously? If it's just a comedy, why did the Wayans brothers say in interviews that they were strict in the editing room, cutting anything that wasn't genuinely funny? If it's just a comedy, why not just leave every joke in and drag the movie out? Hollywood is just making movies, right? They're just for entertainment. So why do you care if they cast a white or Black actor as the lead? I'm just stating my subjective opinion. Why are you taking it so seriously? Right?