Scream 3 has some major problems but I didn't think it was that bad. The production values are great, the score and sound are still effective and the direction and performances are credible. Not to mention GhostFace returns and is still as iconic and creepy as ever. However, the story is unoriginal and rather pedestrian, and the script is weak with too many unfunny and clichéd lines. When it comes to the scares, there were moments but too many weren't as strong or as genuine. The ending is also silly and predictable, and apart from GhostFace the characters are not as interesting. All in all, not bad but disappointing. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Add a Review
-
hitchcockthelegend4 March 2008After 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 -
Movie-1218 February 2000SCREAM 3 / (2000) ***
Starring: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox Arquette, Parker Posey, Patrick Dempsey, Scott Foley, Lance Henriksen, Matthew Keeslar, Jenny McCarthy, Emily Mortimer, Deon Richmond, Patrick Warburton, Liev Schreiber, and Carrie Fisher Directed by Wes Craven. Written by Ehren Kruger, based on characters by Kevin Williamson. Running time: 116 minutes. Rated R (for strong horror violence and language).
By Blake French:
"Scream 3" is not as satisfying as the original horror masterpiece "Scream," but what can we expect from the final chapter in a slasher trilogy? The first film was a superior horror thriller--one of the most loved slasher movies of the past decade. That was a picture with some hard standards to live up to. However, Wes Craven, director of the trio, accomplished another success with the sequel of "Scream." Usually this kind of movie would fade into the Hollywood recycle bin by now. But "Scream 3" still produces chills, thrills, and lots of surprises--even though we have been receiving the same kind of story for the past four years. This film is marginally passable, although the most flawed film of its series, that fairs as recommendable, but not substantial in quality.
The film's opening once again provides the audience with a pre-credit murder sequence that is almost the highlight of the entire production. The "Scream 3" writers take advantage of one of the movie's old and important characters to arrange this very effective, and scary, sequence.
The setting is several years after the second film. The small college town of Woodsboro is where we are placed. Neve Campbell again stars as Sidney Prescott, a tormented young woman who was the target of the killing sprees in the past. She has attempted to move on with her life with her father, and has an anonymous hotline operation that offers assistance to those in need. Also, television reporter Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox Arquette) has experienced a big career jump, now working for a network called Total Entertainment. While the wrongly accused murder suspect of Sidney's mother, Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), has his own trashy TV talk show.
The central presence that connects the events here is the production of "Stab 3: Return to Woodsboro," a movie the characters are creating that follows a horror trilogy based on the terrors experienced by Sydney. The masked murderer may or may not be found on the set. Besides police Detective Kincaid (Patrick Dempsey), and the arrogant bodyguard Stone (Patrick Warburton), concluding the list of suspects, there is Dewey Riley (David Arquette), a former cop who is now an advisor for "Stab 3," Roman Bridger (Scott Foley), the film's director, John Milton (Lance Henriksen) the film's producer, as well as acting counterparts Sarah Darling (Jenny McCarthy), Tom Prinze (Matthew Keeslar), Angelina (Emily Mortimer), Gabe Tucker (Deon Richmond), and Gales's reciprocal (Parker Posey).
Certain plot points lead our suspicion to believe one of several characters is the killer. We are fooled again, however. But does the killer's identity really matter here? As long as we receive a speech on why he or she is responsible, we would be satisfied and any of the character's could have been the killer. None of the characters have any shape or construction. We care only about the order that the victims will be picked off at, not about who hides behind the ghost mask. The identity is actually pointless when the slasher is finally revealed.
Once again, a key success in "Scream 3" is the scary sequences that build up momentum and thus work well, usually where the slasher kills his victims. What makes these scenes so effective is how we know that characters are three dimensional; they put up a firm fight for their lives, unlike victims in most slasher films. However, the plot seems to revolve around the murders, instead of the murders branching off from the story. "Stab 3" seems to be a central presence to connect the film's somewhat desperate through line.
Some of the plot points are fun and revealing. We see a videotape of a past character describing the possibilities of the movie's final outcome. This event programs our imaginations to suspect the unexpected. The plot does desperately attempt to fill in missing pieces of the previous screams, however, showing some signs of contrived foreshadowing. Each scene moves the story forward, though, replenishing the plot with freshness and ability around every abrupt corner.
"Scream 3" is a close call, and is given somewhat of a mixed review, but I still am giving the movie a marginal recommendation. It contains more startles, more surprises, and more effective scary material than most slasher movies. Although I believe it was a wise move to make this film the final installment of its series.
Brought to you by Dimension Films. -
MOVIEFAN4339 September 2001Director Wes Craven and writer Ethen Krueger (taking over for Kevin Williamson) helped make this film happen. This time we're taken to Hollywood, California where Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) is now a talk show host, Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox Arquette)is a t. v journalist, Dewey Riley (David Arquette) is a technical advisor for the Stab 3 movie, and Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is under a different name in order to protect herself. This time however there is a new killer(s) trying to get to Sydney, but it someone from her mother's past can Sydney survive another blood-bath as it seems the killer(s) is killing the cast members of the Stab 3 movie and won;t stop until Sydney is dead! My thoughts a great ending to the trilogy it definately has a few good scares and fills a lot of plot holes of why Maureen was killed. I won't give anything away but the killer(s) was a big surprise.RECOMMENDED! ***1/2 out of *****
-
freemantle_uk13 July 2013The Scream series became a popular series with critics and audience due to the fact it was a self-aware slasher film that knew the clichés of the genres whilst still working as a slasher film. But the third film of the series is considered the weak link of the franchise.
After the events of the Woodsboro and Windsor College, a third film is being made in Hollywood to complete a trilogy. But a new killer is stalking has donned the Ghostface mark, targeting both the film cast and survivors of the Woodsboro killings, leading to Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) and her ex-boyfriend, Dewey (David Arquette) to investigate as Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is forced out of hiding after she suffers from visions of her deceased mother.
The Scream series has always had a self-aware/meta element to it, but with Scream 3 its satire is taken a step too far as it takes jabs against Hollywood. The big jokes are about the production include constant re-writes to the film suffers, an actress saying she is playing a character that is 14 years younger then her, a music video director forced to make Stab 3 as his directional debut before he can make the film he wants, actors having to sleep with people to get roles and producers debating violence in films influencing real-life violence. The film just got too meta as an actor and the person she is meant to be playing arguing and talking about the rules of a trilogy. This is a film was much more focused on being a satire on Hollywood as a whole then a spoof of the horror genre.
Tonally Scream 3 is lighter then previous films. There was always a comic undercurrent to the series, but it becomes much more pronounced in Scream 3 with the characters interactions and the deaths themselves were less gruesome and more over-the-top, particularly with a house getting blown up which was done in a unrealistic way and there is a sequence when Ghostface throws hi s knife and the handle hits Dewey on the head. There was even an occasional comical musical moments in score and a very overt cameo from the characters Jay and Silent Bob.
I found the best bits were when Scream 3 was more serious, when we see Sidney living an isolated life in the countryside, with tons of security and works as a women's crisis counsellor: it felt like a good continuous to her story. But it does not blend well with the more comic tone and the film as a whole was struggling to justify her presence in the film. There are long period where she is not involved in the film, she is not involved at all in the first act and forces a reason to be in the film.
Much of the problems of the lay at the feet of the new writer Ehren Kruger who replaced Kevin Williamson. It felt like Kruger was trying to copy Williamson's style and directed Wes Craven wanted to remake New Nightmare. The characters did feel a little compared to the previous movies and the satire/self-aware elements of the film was not as sharp to the first two movies.
The acting also felt weak, with many of the actors either phoning in their performances or shouting and screaming, including a scene where the Stab actors end up acting clichéd horror victims/targets.
Whilst Craven's directing is solid for the most part, a big criticism some of the sequences involving Ghostface's attacks looks like there was more then one killer, but the conclusion shows there was only one killer.
At the time Scream 3 was originally meant to be a conclusion for the series and it was a disappointment due to poor script and overly comic tone. It is not the worst film, it's not even bad by horror standards. There are good moments, but it is disloyal to certain aspects of the previous films, including the character revisions, which you would have thought Craven would have noticed. -
Tweekums2 October 2019Following 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. -
unbend_544025 July 2001The killer in Scream 3 is.............. WES CRAVEN! Because he probably killed the careers of every actor in this movie. The first Scream was pretty decent, the second was disappointing, but not all bad, and Scream 3 is just plain DULL! There's nothing left in this franchise to hold my interest. You'd think since the first Scream was fairly original and innovative, that there'd be something new and fresh in Scream 3. But it's all the same boring scenes and killings that were in the first two, just with different actors. In the original Scream film they made a point to almost mock and make fun of typical slasher films. Now this series has just become everything that the first film set out to make fun of. I knew about 30 minutes into this film that I was going to hate it. But once they revealed the BIG SHOCKING ENDING, all I could do was laugh. Laugh really loud, and really hard. And I wasn't the only one in the theatre doing so. If you're going to waste your time and rent this, you'll at least be entertained by the music. That's about all that kept me watching.
-
"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. -
staff-65 February 2000This film was not written by Kevin Williamson and it shows. From its non-humorous dialog to its fragmented plot, this film does not do much justice to the 'Scream' franchise. If this is to complete the 'Scream' story, then I hope that Williamson does to the franchise what he did to the 'Halloween' franchise, completely ignore the piece of trash that this sequel is and write a new conclusion. One can only hope. If you're looking for something to do for the evening, do yourself a favor and rent the original.
-
SKG-210 February 2000WARNING: 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. -
MagnusBuchan5 February 2000*****WARNING: SPOILERS*****
As Randy says in a video tape he so luckily made before he was offed in Scream 2, anyone, including the lead actor/actress, can die. A cop (Good to see Patrick Dempsey working again) says to Sidney, for the final chapter of a trilogy, all bets are off. These two scenes got my hopes up. This movie should have ended with Sidney being the killer. Or Gale or Dewey, the only returning cast after Cotton gets it in the first five minutes. Or at least one of these (Sidney, Gale or Dewey) people should have died. They needed to die or kill. This would have given Scream 3, the final movie of the trilogy, enough oomph to be different than the other two. To be better than the second (As if that would have been a challenge). Even better than the first, which actually would have been tough to do. Instead, we get a film that is worse than it's predecessors. Why, you ask? Simple. It's a sissified cop-out. Aside from not even being scary at all, (O.K., in Dewey's trailer when Patrick Warburton gets it made me jump) the only people who die in this load of crap are bit players. People you barely see and don't have any clue who the hell they are. So why should I care if they die? They're new, one dimensional characters, who've been on screen for about 4 minutes a piece. Then we get to the end. The biggest dissapointment of an ending I have seen in a long damn time. The killer is a new character to the trilogy (I'm telling you, it shouldn't have been someone new), and again, one that's on screen for literally 10-11 minutes before he's unmasked. And then, it turns out it's Sidney's god damned long, lost brother, who it turns out, had Maureen Prescott killed before the events in the original Scream. Of course, Sidney saves the day. Boring. Boring, boring, boring. And then, to add unexcusable sap to a let down, Dewey proposes to Gale, the woman who was broken his heart twice already. This scene was just too much. Overall, what a crock of shit. Ehren Kruger, who wrote a great movie and excellent ending for Arlington Road, should have done better. Instead, he wusses out. Think about it, after the events in the first two movies, Sidney snaps and by the third movie...is the killer!!! That would rock! Or how about this...Gale Weathers, wanting a pulitzer prize so bad, dons the mask and knife and begins murdering just to get a story!! Or Dewey, having his heart broken by Gale twice now, snaps and begins a killing spree!!! (O.K., sure that's a little weak, but still...) Those would have been great endings. Plus, it would have gotten originality points, of which Scream 3 gets 1/2 out of a possible 5 in my book (Getting 1/2 a point, even though it was lame, for the long, lost brother which was at least somewhat creative). Now, why is it a cop-out, you ask? Simple. All those annoying teeny-boppers who are getting picked up by your moms outside the theater right after the movie in the Winstar minivan, so they can all pick up their soccer uniforms we unfortunately have to share a theater with would whine and complain about how much "it like totally blew" that this movie had the courage to do something different and kill off/make the killer one of the main characters because a few 7th graders don't like anything new or dark. Damn shame. Oh well, at least it wasn't as bad as the I know what you did last summer movies. -
lee_eisenberg17 March 2006Maybe "Scream 3" doesn't have quite the same ring as its predecessors, but it's still really neat. This one features Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) living in LA as a crisis hot-line operator when the murders start all over again. In the process, Sidney discovers a hidden part of her family history.
Remember how in the first one, we learn the rules for slasher movies (never have sex, never drink or do drugs, never say that you'll be right back)? And how in the second one, we learn the rules for sequels (higher body count, death scenes are more elaborate)? Well, now we have a rule for trilogies: all bets are off. And you'd better believe that they are here.
David Arquette, Courtney Cox, Liev Schreiber, and Jamie Kennedy reprise their roles from the previous installments. The new additions here are Parker Posey as the woman playing Courtney Cox's character, and Lance Henriksen as a B-movie director. -
ashe-916 February 2000I'm a huge fan of Scream and thought the 2nd was good for a sequel but the 3rd just plain sucked. I was worried when Kevin Williamson wasn't the writer on this one but I figured Wes Craven was smart enough to get a good script but sadly I was wrong. The series went from being smart and funny to an unoriginal slasher movie that was mocked in the original. It seems they just added a higher body count to make up for the lack of a good script. At least I cared or knew something about the victims in the previous two but I was just glad or just plain forget who most of the victims were in this one. I'm hoping Wes, Courtney, Neve and David Arquette did this out of a sense of closure and a thank you to Kevin Williamson for reviving and/or making them names in the Hollywood.
-
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.
-
gabriellecatf17 April 2023Was very good suspense and kept you wondering who the killer was the whole movie but the reveal was so disappointing and ruined it a bit for me.. I was watching the movie with my friend and at the reveal I asked her who's that because they weren't in the movie enough for me to even remember them or consider them as a killer which was a big disappointment for me but it's still worth a watch if your a scream fan but in my opinion its the worst of the franchise. It's definitely worth it to watch to continue onto the fourth one and onwards but the best movie will always be the first one. Is still a good watch for suspense.
-
marcus_stokes200023 October 2006*Scream 3 SPOILERS*
It has been a while since the events of Scream 2, and Sydney (Neve Campbell) lives in hiding. But the new Ghostface killer is trying to draw her back to him by murdering the actors of the latest movie in the 'Stab' saga, 'Stab 3: Return To Woodsboro', directed by aspiring filmmaker Roman Bridger (Scott Foley), beginning with talk show host Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) and his girlfriend Christine (Kelly Rutherford), then offing actress Sarah Darling (Jenny McCarthy) and leaving photos of a young Maureen Prescott, during a period of her life no-one, excluded maybe the ambiguous producer John Milton (Lance Henricksen) knows anything about.
Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox Arquette) is actually called on for help by the detective assigned to the cases, Mark Kincaid (Patrick Dempsey), because of her expertise with the Woodsboro Murders, and meets up again with Dewey (David Arquette), which we found out she had left to pursue her career.
He hasn't been waiting for her, though; he's involved with the actress Jennifer Jolie (Parker Posey), who *coincidentally* plays Gale in the movie.
And as more and more actors (played by Matt Keeslar, Patrick Warburton, Emily Mortimer and Deon Richmond among others) fall victim to Mr. Ghostface, Sydney is forced out of her hiding and face this killer for the final battle...
As a third part, Scream 3 is a little ho-hum, especially because of the decision of having Dewey and Gale as the main characters in this movie, which doesn't exactly work well since 'Scream' is all. About. Sydney.
Dempsey hasn't got an exactly big role, but hey, he lives, and isn't a jerk (mostly). Schreiber is very good as usual and everybody seems well in part, with the exception of Emily Mortimer, who wails and annoys.
Ehren Kruger (who also wrote 'The Ring') has a very different style, which doesn't always work, but when it does, it actually does, and Wes Craven's direction makes it all a little better.
Not bad, but not memorable either.
Scream 3: 6 1/2/10. -
Zalman6664 June 2003I don't know what sucked about this movie the most. Everything about this movie was a huge disappointment. After falling in love with her in such illustrious comedies like House of Yes, Waiting for Guffman, and Best in Show, Parker Posey's acting was at an all time low in this movie. While I was being thoroughly disgusted with this rag, I kept thinking: "She went from The Daytrippers to this." Also, Courteney Cox's costume designer and hair stylist should have been fired. Granted that her character Gale Weathers was still nothing more than a "tabloid twit," she did not look the part of someone determined to win the Pulitzer Prize. Despite the fact that Neve Campbell has never been a first rate actress, she does well enough playing someone still troubled by her past. But what was probably the most disappointing aspect of the entire movie was the identity of the killer. Not to give it away, but I remember wishing it wasn't so when the movie came to it's long-overdue ending. The things that make Scream 3 bad can probably be attributed mainly to the fact that Kevin Williamson didn't write the screenplay like he did the first two. However, the most redeeming part of this movie was Jenny McCarthy who provided a line that reinstated the Scream trilogy was meant to be a parody of horror movies. She put it nicely when she said: "I'm thirty years old and you keep sending me in to play teenagers." Too bad that alone doesn't make this movie worth a rental fee.
-
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- -
Pjtaylor-96-1380442 March 2021'Scream 3 (2000)' represents a marked drop in quality from the previous 'Scream' outings, slipping into relatively dull and repetitive territory after its fairly strong opening sequence. However, Wes Craven's top-quality direction keeps things feeling fresh and fast-paced even when the narrative is at its least effective, and it actually isn't too long before the picture finds its footing as an enjoyable and engaging slasher. Though the change in writer is evident, the movie's 'trilogy' satire still works rather well and its core characters are as compelling as ever. There's a lot less of Sidney this time around, though, which is a shame; it's when she enters the picture more prominently that things really start to pick up. The film does a good job at wrapping its series up in a self-aware yet satisfying way, revisiting moments from the first flick in a suitably meta fashion. Though a couple of its retroactive reveals do overreach ever so slightly and come close to detracting from the original's stand-alone brilliance, the finale ultimately manages to tie everything off in an entertaining and, for lack of a better word, respectful way. Though it certainly isn't as good as its predecessors, it's still a solid entry in the overall series and a fun horror movie in its own right. 7/10
-
hanniballe1175225 January 2001Totally unmemorable movie,chock full of tepid one-liners(the only good zingers in the flick were the ones Deon Richmond ad-libbed,and they certainly are not worth the ticket price!),'impact-less' deaths,cartoon characters for leads,a host of extras who arrive out of the blue to deliver an important plot point,and then just as suddenly disappear again,it goes on,and on- In short,this is a very cold,prefunctory movie,folks-a paint by the numbers,cash-in sequel to a series clearly no one has their heart in anymore(most especially not Craven,and Campbell who's Dinner theater theatrics-'sob,sob'-grow less amusing with each installment).And the characters are all such annoying caricatures,we feel nothing when they die-well,maybe gratitude,but I don't think that was intended. Worst of all,neither Gale,nor Dewey,nor Sidney die!Call me cruel,but this excruciatingly formula movie could have used it.All during the length of the movie,I begged for a surprise,a neat twist-anything!To no avail.It's just a dumbed down version of scream(a not too smart movie itself,as it only serves to point out VERY obvious slasher movie conventions!)without that movie's suspence and scares(few that there were after the famous opening with Drew Barrymore). And of course the killer could be anyone-the butler,the cook,the best friend,the neighbor.It's the luck of the draw.No clues are ever given as to who it could be-and of course when we finally find out whodunit,the movie inevitably looses the meager credibility it had to begin with,as none of the dastard's behavaior prior to his unmasking make any sense when put in context. SPOILER******
Early in the film,the killer is whining about how the studio wants to shut down production on his film,because of the killings.He's very obviously p***ed,but then we find out he's the one pulling the strings(not to mention,Sid's half brother is a very soap-opearish 'twist').Is her sabatoging his own flick intentionally or what?The question,and many others,is raised,but never answered.Perhaps to allow room for (God forbid)Scream 4.
END SPOILER******* AVOID THIS STINKER,and watch Scream 1 again instead(or better yet wes Craven's New Nightmare,which takes the same premise and does more with it than any flick in this series ever did).1 out of 10. -
ivo-cobra818 February 2018Scream 3 is so underrated and bashed from fan boys. I love this film to death I enjoy this film I have watch it with my dad. It is an underrated gem my personal favorite sequel in the "Scream" franchise series. It is an improvement over the second one. Sidney Prescott is a such a bad-ass, you have for the first time in the movie an explosion you see a house been blowed up. The plot and the story is set the first time in Hollywood. I love that it is an original story, it does not copy the second or the first film, it doesn't mess with the first two movies. It does finish the trilogy and brings an ending conclusion to the franchise. I enjoy this film, I love this film to death. Wes Craven did a great direction debut. Ehren Kruger replaced Kevin Williamson thank god and he did much better job to make an original story and make an conclusion to end the trilogy.
I love with what happened next with the characters: Sidney now is a crisis counselor, I liked that. Ghostface returns he has unfinished business with Sidney and he wants her back. Dewey Riley is now working as an film adviser In Hollywood. I love his character, this time around David Arquette was better actor in this movie. I love that they did something new with his character, he wasn't annoying, he wasn't useless, he was good. He shot with a hand gun and killed the killer on the end, a real hero in this movie. Patrick Dempsey as detective Mark Kincaid was great he was likable and I have enjoyed him. I love his character. I love Jenny McCarthy as Sarah Darling she was believable. The movie was not dull, lame, or repainting the same story again, it had less humor, more horror, mystery and action it was mixed it had that what the second movie didn't had.
The story is set three years after Scream 2 Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), who has gone into self-imposed isolation following the events of the previous two films is drawn to Hollywood yet again she returns again to face the past and find out who is responsible for her mother's death. The new Ghostface begins killing the cast of the film within a film Stab 3 and has a score to stale with Sidney Prescott. Dewey Riley and Gale Waethers are trying to find out who is responsible for the killings. Gale has an unlikely sidekick Parker Posey as Jennifer Jolie. Courtney Cox is excellent as always as Gale Weathers.
10/10 I personally enjoy this sequel it is my favorite sequel in the franchise. Lance Henriksen is in this movie too and he is believable. I love the setting, the story and I love Sidney she is a bad-ass and I love happy ending, I love the trilogy to death and I love this movie to death sue me! -
PedroPires905 January 2022Clearly the worst of the Scream films. Clearly much better than the majority of the slashers.
It's a bit stupid and the "filming a film" formula is a bit repetitive, but this is still fun has hell, funny, super meta, big surprises, good dialogue and un unexpected reveal. -
morro31610 June 2001This film should NEVER have seen the light of day. It is only the movie studio's greed that allowed this dire film to be released. Everything about it sucks from the plot to the fact that even Courtney Cox looks awful in it (where did she get that hair cut!?!?!).
Wes Craven should just deny he directed this and say it was just someone he knew nothing about!
Just make sure you never ever see this film and if you do - make sure you do not spend any money on it!