Cindy debe investigar misteriosos círculos de cultivos y cintas de video, y ayudar al presidente a prevenir una invasión alienígena.Cindy debe investigar misteriosos círculos de cultivos y cintas de video, y ayudar al presidente a prevenir una invasión alienígena.Cindy debe investigar misteriosos círculos de cultivos y cintas de video, y ayudar al presidente a prevenir una invasión alienígena.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 2 premios ganados y 4 nominaciones en total
- Kate
- (as Jenny McCarthy)
- Carson Ward
- (as Tim Stack)
Opiniones destacadas
The second one was no improvement on the invention of the first. But this installment is a completely different beast. It is as different from the others as any in the 'Alien' is different from the others.
The Wayons are comics in the old-fashioned, standup sense. They make fun of life. When they poke fun at black stereotypes, they are poking fun at how things really are. So they have a big following in that community because their comments often 'ring true.' I really liked their work because it gave me double value for all that money I spend on bad movies.
But the Zuckers are film comedians, a wholly different species. When they poke fun, they are poking fun not at life, but at the movies. Its a completely different sort of humor. The opening, for instance. In previous films, the dumb blond jokes were about dumb people. In this one, the jokes are about characters and are particularly complicated. Pammy pokes fun at herself, especially herself in the famous porn video. And all is in the context of a tape that haunts.
Indeed, 'Ringu' was a movie about movies, and it forms the basis for this. Layered on that is '8 Mile,' a performance about a performance, here parodied by another layer of performance.
Sheen and Nielson are there to poke fun at their prior appearances, and their skits are as deliberately (I think) as flat as the white rapper's. To further the film-about-films idea, we have a parade of outside references: the Michael Jackson bit as a Scoopy Doo character is pretty prime stuff.
This kind of structure means that you have to make the targets deliberate. So instead of ratatat touching on over a hundred films, they focus on 3 or 4, so you know the score.
I laughed a few times. But I laughed more when scanning the web and being reminded of certain skits, like the wake, which is a minor masterpiece of editing. My only regret is that the Weinsteins decided to de-raunch the whole thing. I would have tolerated the few score childish jokes for the few really clever, cutting ones that would have made it through.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
It was great to see that David Zucker can still make a really funny parody movie. It was even more refreshing to see an attempt being made to not just out-gross, out-filth the previous film, and simply focus on making a truly funny comedy.
This movie is directed by David Zucker (Ruthless People) and stars Anna Faris (House Bunny), Charlie Sheen (Major League), Regina Hall (Girls Trip), Pamela Anderson (Barb Wire), Jenny McCarthy (Dirty Love), Kevin Hart (Ride Along) and Anthony Anderson (The Departed).
This movie is way better than it gets credit for. This is a tremendous horror parody with a fun mashup of Sixth Sense and Signs (with a few others mixed in like The Ring). The acting is excellent and Charlie Sheen and Anna Faris are tremendous. The horror skits are awesome and the cameos thorough out are impressive. Kevin Hart, Queen Latifah, Eddie Griffin, George Carlin, Leslie Nielsen and Anthony Anderson all deliver strong cameos that are hilarious.
Overall, the focus on M. Night Shyamalan, especially during this era, was brilliant. This is more creative than it gets credit for. I would score this a 7-7.5/10 and strongly recommend it.
I used to make it a point to not read any other reviews before I wrote my own, but recently, I've become curious when I watch a film I really enjoy, like Scary Movie 3, that many other people seemed to dislike. I find it informative to read the negative reviews to try to figure out why people dislike the film.
The negative reviews for Scary Movie 3 weren't very helpful. The most popular complaints seem to be that the trailer ruined the film by "giving away the good parts" and that the film has fun at the expense of some people's sacred cows. Additionally, many people made a comment to the effect that you'd only enjoy the film if you're, say, 13 or under.
I never watch trailers before I see a film any longer. I have also had trailers ruin many films for me in the past, so I just stopped watching them; I recommend that you do the same. If you don't know already, think about commonalities in the films you tend to like. Get an idea for the genres, directors, actors and so on that you usually enjoy. That's the only guide you really need to determine if you should see a film. It's not a guarantee, but what is? I actually look away when trailers appear on screen before the feature when I'm watching a film in the theater, and I try to mentally block out the sound. It's pretty easy to do, as trailers tend to be heavier on sound effects than dialogue. If trailers appear on television, I quickly change the channel. At any rate, it doesn't make the film you're considering any worse just because you watched a trailer first. Scary Movie 3 isn't bad because the trailer ruined it for you.
Next, it's not a good idea to watch these kinds of comedies (we might call them "absurdist comedies", or "outrageous comedies") if you have any sacred cows--that is, anything that you feel one should not joke about, or that one could go too far in joking about. I don't see it as the film's fault if you haven't analyzed yourself and/or if you do not research the kinds of films you're considering viewing so that you don't expose yourself to something that you're going to consider offensive. If you're sensitive about certain things then you need to learn how to avoid them. If you're allergic to nuts or shellfish, you're going to be careful to not eat anything containing nuts or shellfish, right? It's not the chef's fault.
Finally, I'm definitely older than 13--I'm in my late 30s, and I loved Scary Movie 3. I came very close to giving it a 10 out of 10--it was at that score until the climax, which I felt unfortunately lost a bit of the comic momentum that preceded it, and which arrived a bit too soon for my tastes (I prefer longer films).
It helps to be familiar with the films being spoofed. Believe it or not a lot of the jokes are fairly subtle jabs at elements of the source material--for example, the pillow fight of the opening scene, which has connections to the almost lesbian subtext of the same scene in the original Japanese version of The Ring, Ringu (1998); or the character and camera "spins" when Tom first exits his farmhouse, which pokes fun at the stylistic cinematography of Signs. There are also many quicker references to other films. These will have far less payoff if you're not familiar with the source material. For example, during the climax of Scary Movie 3, there's not only a reference to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), but also the climax of Motel Hell (1980), which features an infamous chainsaw "duel".
There is a stylistic difference between the first two Scary Movies and this one, which is undoubtedly correlated to the change in directors. Rather than the Wayans Brothers, David Zucker directs here. Zucker is the exclamatory wiz who also helmed Airplane! (1980), Top Secret! (1984), and The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988). Scary Movie 3 is much more in the vein of Zucker's previous work than the other Scary Movies. I can't imagine why someone would like the one style and not the other, but if so, that might help you decide which Scary Movies to see, if any.
Finally, there were also some complaints over the plot of this film, especially the combination of such seemingly disparate plots from the source material. It's important to remember that this is absurdist comedy, with an emphasis on absurd. The crazy segues from one plot to the other, with them meeting in the middle thanks to Cindy, President Harris and a number of other crazy devices, was beautifully ridiculous. I want ridiculous when I watch a film like this. That's largely what attracts me to the genre. If you're at all a fan of absurdism, you should find much to enjoy here.
Of course you'll recognize several famous movies again. This time they are making fun of "The Ring", "Signs", "8 Mile",... but also other aspects from showbiz will be treated. You'll find Michael Jackson and references to the sex tape with Pamela Anderson in it as well, but the main difference with "Scary Movie 2" is that this time it all has been written into one solid and hilarious story. And the story isn't the only thing that has been improved, so has the acting. With some famous actors like Charlie Sheen and Leslie Nielsen, who both have a solid record full of humorous TV-series and / or movies, you know that you can expect the best of the best again when it comes to this kind of humor. But people like for instance Pamela Anderson and Jenny McCarthy were an excellent surprise and did give this movie something extra. I'm not saying that they had some very difficult roles, but what they did really worked and that's all I'm asking.
Overall this movie is a lot better than the previous one. Once again it is full references to other movies, but it is the humor that makes the difference. It's probably because they have chosen a new director and have taken more time to come up with a new story, that the concept works again. I'm looking forward to "Scary Movie 4" and give this one a solid 7.5/10, perhaps even an 8/10.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAnthony Anderson's character, Mahalik, turned out so popular in test screenings, additional scenes for him were quickly written and shot while the film was already in post-production.
- Errores(at around 9 mins) When George gets on the bus and his head gets stuck in the bus door, he loses his cap. In the next shot of him, his cap is back on his head.
- Citas
Mahalik: I heard Jamal from 90th street watched that tape last week and this mornin' he woke up dead!
CJ: How the hell do you wake up dead?
Mahalik: Cause' you're alive when you go to sleep.
CJ: So you're telling me you can go to bed dead and wake up alive?
Mahalik: You can't go to bed dead! That shit would've been redundant.
CJ: No it would'nt cause' you can go to bed and not be dead, and you can die and not be in the bed.
Mahalik: But you are in the bed. That's how you wake up dead in the first place fool!
CJ: Damn! that's some quantum shit right there man! You should be teaching classes!
- Créditos curiososMidway through the credits, there is a line that reads: WE ARE ABOUT HALF WAY THROUGH THIS THING!!
- Versiones alternativasAlso released in an unrated version which runs 76 seconds longer.
- ConexionesEdited into Making 'Scary Movie 3' (2004)
Selecciones populares
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Scary Movie: no hay dos sin 3
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 48,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 110,003,217
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 49,700,000
- 26 oct 2003
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 220,673,217
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 24 minutos
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1