Scream 3

I give Scream 3 the same score i give for the first Scream, and even though that's the case i do like Scream 3 a bit more than the first Scream, Scream 3 have the best acting performance by all the cast especially the main one in the franchise so far, the first 20 minutes i'm still not sure and kinda thought that at the very least the rest of the movie was just gonna be OK, but i was quite surprise on how i really enjoyed the rest of the film, how i was so invested to the story, and even excited at one point, so the rest of Scream 3 is surprisingly a good fun intense time and i really do like it for that, it wasn't like a new groundbreaking things in terms of a horror films but it still good.

This is the final piece of the puzzle to the murder mystery surrounding Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), who this time is hiding in the woods. But, a string of murders related to the Woodsboro case take place on the set of Stab 3 and it's the return of GhostFace, screams, chases and phone calls once again.

Filmed in a Hollywood setting, on the set of the fictional movie Stab 3, the actors went all out in pulling another dramatic and suspenseful horror film. Like the previous two films, the movie has its corny moments, but is watchable and and will give you several good scares from its creepy and jumpy scenes.

Like his horror films, Director Wes Craven has kept the unknown and whodunit culprits a big mystery, leaving this film unpredictable and full of surprises and twists. Overall, it's another pretty good one for a scare.

Grade B-

Following the events of 'Scream' and 'Scream 2' Sidney Prescott is living a reclusive life in rural California. That doesn't mean the killing has stopped though... the film 'Stab 3', inspired by the original murders is being shot in Hollywood and a new Ghost face is targeting its stars. At each murder scene a photograph of Sidney's mother is found. The killer is trying to get to Sidney but before she breaks cover and goes to LA more people will die. Sidney isn't the only character from the original films to return; Dewey is already working as an advisor on 'Stab 3' and a police officer invites reporter Gale Weathers to help him with his investigation.

I enjoyed this sequel despite the fact that it lacks the expected level of gore and even though it is stated that anybody can die in the third part of a trilogy I didn't really think any of the returning characters would be likely to die. The film does deliver some scares and it nicely plays with the 'movie of the movie' within the movie idea; especially fun were scenes where characters interacted with the actor's playing them in 'Stab 3'. The scenes between Gale and the actress playing her were particularly amusing as the latter kept accusing the real Gale of being out of character... it all gets very meta at times! The cast, both regulars and new members are solid; never taking things too seriously but similarly not playing it too tongue-in-cheek. Overall I'd say that this is weaker than the first two films but it is fun enough if you are a 'Scream' fan.

Scream 3 does not have the same writer of the first two, which explains the lack of comedy it had compared to the first two Scream films. It does not have the same great dialogue as the first two, nor the witty and playful tone. However, saying that, Scream 3 is probably still better than 95% of slasher films today. It has suspense and mystery, and although it sometimes goes overboard with how the script handled the 'actual' history of Maureen Prescott, I think it overall works well. Neve Campbell once again gives it all she has, and the supporting characters are actually well rounded, especially Parker Posey, which gives the film it's much needed humor. David Arquette and Courtney Cox are both solid, but I cannot help but question how much their characters( or maybe their motivation as actors) changed, since it really does seem that both feel awkward in a lot of scenes. I suspect it is the writing since a lot of their brilliant dialogue from Scream 2 was missing. Saying that, and while it is true that it is the weakest of the trilogy, it is still a lot of fun and does have it's clever moments here and there. I do not think there can ever really be a 'bad' Scream film.

WARNING: PLOT POINTS ARE GIVEN AWAY, SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE OR DON'T WANT TO KNOW, PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE READING

As I've said before, I have little use for sequels, which was I was surprised to find myself going to SCREAM 2, and even more surprised that I enjoyed it. Like the first one, it was fast, scary, funny, and took some nice satiric jibes. Even the much debated identity of the killer in the second one made sense as a satiric swipe at horror movies, so it didn't bother me. I didn't know if they'd be able to keep it going for a third movie, especially when hearing Kevin Williamson's involvement was going to be minimal(he's a producer, and he wrote an outline which eventual writer Ehren Kruger worked from), but I liked the first two, I was especially pleased to see Scott Foley(from FELICITY) and Parker Posey in the cast, and I was intrigued to see what happened. In retrospect, I probably should have waited for video.

Certainly the opening shows a little promise; instead of the usual celebrity cameo, we have a spoof of that, with Cotton Weary(Liev Schrieber), who's now a Geraldo-type talk show host, complaining about having to do a cameo in STAB 3(the movie within a movie here), so we know it's spoofing itself. The problem, of course, is we know Cotton's going to get killed, but Craven is able to draw suspense throughout the scene. We also get the stated purpose here during the phone call(which, also a bit clever, starts out with a woman's voice before the familiar tone of Roger L. Jackson as THE voice kicks in); the killer wants to find Sidney.

Sidney, of course, is living in seclusion, under a new name and barely going outside the house(which, of course, is under heavy alarm), so at first, she's almost like an afterthought to the movie. Instead, the center is on Gail Weathers, the tabloid reporter, now an entertainment reporter, who uses her reporter skills to play detective when Cotton is killed, and she decides to assist the police, specifically Detective Kincaid(Patrick Dempsey), in the case. Then there's Dewey, who's a technical advisor to STAB 3, the movie, and they of course worry about what's going to happen.

There's all kinds of potential here, and it's directed well, but it isn't written as well as I think Williamson would have done. There are scares which still work, and while the Dewey/Gail relationship seems a little old hat, the two Arquettes obviously like working with each other, and their familiarity with us helps smooth that over. Also, while Campbell is disconnected, she's still sympathetic, and while she doesn't have the same fun with herself as she did in the first one, I understood that. And there is humor, most of it coming from Posey as the actress playing Gail in STAB 3; few actresses can make contempt funny like she can. There's also the standard satiric bite(the bodyguard who guarded Julia Roberts and Salman Rushdie but ends up toast here).

But as I said, it isn't written as well, and the primary weakness is the killer. In some senses, I guess, having the director(Foley) be the killer makes sense, because he has the technical expertise to handle things. But it seems to come out of nowhere, and perhaps to distract us from that, Kruger gives us the idea of him being a long-lost relative of Sidney's, which is ridiculous. Perhaps because of that too, Foley goes way over the top, which is funny at first, but then becomes tiresome. Also, Kruger cribs not from other horror movies here, but from the first SCREAM(the cloning of the cell phone being a prime example). And while Williamson's red herrings were pretty clever, this one seems not thought out. Emily Mortimer's character(she plays the actress who plays Sidney) is a perfect example; there are two indications she might be the killer(three, if you count the woman's voice to Cotton), and yet she's killed off almost as an afterthought. Finally, as to compensate for all of this, there are a lot more killings to cover up. Which begs the question; if all he wanted was to find Sidney(as stated early on several times), why not just take Dewey, Gail, and Cotton et al hostage? The first two movies mocked the Idiot Plot Rule; this one mostly personifies it.

It's a shame, because there could have been something made from all this(oh, almost forgot; Dempsey, who I normally don't like, is surprisingly good, and also unrecognizable here). But this certainly doesn't break any rules. Even the Jamie Kennedy cameo seems obligatory rather than fresh. This suggest they should have stopped at the second one.