Scream 3

"Scream 3" takes us to the Northern California hills, where Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is living in seclusion and immense fear due to the traumatic events that she survived in Woodsboro and at Windsor College. Meanwhile, a Hollywood movie studio is producing a film called "Stab 3", the third installment in a movie series based on the events that Sidney has survived. But when cast and crew members begin to die off one by one, it seems another killer has returned, and goes after the fragile Sidney (who is having terrifying visions of her dead mother). Sidney teams up with Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) and policeman Dewey (David Arquette), two people who survived the massacres with Sidney, and try to uncover the new killers identity, which may be linked to Sidney's past.

The last installment in a very popular horror series, "Scream 3" brings this trilogy to end on an entertaining but rather weak note. The script for this film is nowhere near as good as the other two, which is unfortunate considering this film was the "finale" of the series. It would have been nice to end the series with a better film - not that this sequel is unbearably bad, but it could have been better. I will admit there are some decent scare moments and a handful of suspenseful scenes, but it seems to me that there's almost too much going on in this sequel for it's own good. The script juggles the Sidney character, Sidney's past, the Dewey/Gail relationship, the cast members of the "Stab 3" movie, and more, and the jumping around hurt the film a little. It didn't seem to have a central point within it, and that was a problem, for me at least.

Besides the problems that it has, I still have to say that I enjoyed this movie, mostly because of the entertainment factor. The writing wasn't amazing, but it did manage to continue to have some nice plot developments and a few good twists, plus some decent scares and more slight mocking of the genre and it's rules. The setting is mainly Hollywood, so this film has a completely different atmosphere than the second or the first film. I'm not sure if it necessarily hurt the film, but it seemed a little too "Hollywood" for me. The cast is good here, with more returning characters and some new ones as well, mainly added for body count, while the others do develop somewhat during the movie. The twist-ending (which is the revelation of the killer's identity) made sense in terms of the story, but I found it to be a little unsatisfying.

All things considered, "Scream 3" is an enjoyable but problematic ending to an above-average horror trilogy. You'll be entertained undoubtedly, but this movie can't compete with the second or the first films, because it just isn't as good. I enjoyed it for the most part and I have trouble over-criticizing it, but most people will agree when I say that it can't compare with the original film. 6/10.

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.

After surviving the second wave of ghostface killings, Sidney Prescott has retired to the mountains to live in peace and work as a phone call therapist. Sadly for her she is about to be dragged back into the nightmare because the production of Stab 3 is rocked by murder and the killer is leaving pictures of Sidney's dead mother at the crime scenes.

I have to admit that I once never gave this film much love, I loved the first two to such a degree that I felt this third and final instalment was way off being a fitting closure to what was at the time a trilogy. Yet as time has wore on I have really grown fond of the film, Parker Posey no longer annoys the hell out of me, the once jarring itch of watching the makers kill off a fave character of mine in the opening sequence is something I now view as a masterstroke, and the twisty ending that was once an irksome pest has moved on to be the perfect "trilogy" closure.

Scream 3 has its tongue firmly in its cheek, it's aware of its number and it's aware of its formulaic root, so in spite of treading familiar ground (I mean come on gang, have you not learnt nothing from your previous experiences), the returning characters still have our undivided attention. While the transporting of the story to Hollywood, with its movie within a movie structure, is fresh and adds a new dimension to proceedings. New additions to the scary fun are Patrick Dempsey, Emily Mortimer, Lance Henriksen and the afore mentioned Parker Posey, and all of them add greatly to the mysterious plot unfolding.

The death quotient is still high, and the Wes Craven school of whodunitry is well and truly open, and I personally feel that this one is easily the funniest film of the three, witness Jay & Silent Bob turning up, a Carrie Fisher sequence that once heard will never be forgotten, and a video appearance by passed on geek god Randy Meeks. Scream 3 closes the "trilogy" just fine, it's got bags of energy and a glint in its eye, now if only I could get a copy of the uncompleted Stab 3 off the internet - and if only there wasn't to be a part 4 further down the line... 7/10

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.

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.