Review of Scream 3

Scream 3 (2000)
2/10
They should have stopped after two
5 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, so it's been a while since this one was in the theatre. But back then I didn't think it was worth paying eight bucks to go see, and now that I've seen it on the dish, my opinion has been reaffirmed.

Scream was once one of the better thriller-type movies, deriving originality from using the rules in order to break them. This made it at least slightly more innovative than the standard slasher flick. The first time, anyway. Even the second one was liveable.

The third Scream, though, the so-called finale of the trilogy, was just plain terrible. There's no way around it. Firstly, it wasn't even remotely scary. And this is a supposed scary movie. I didn't even jump once. Secondly, it began with the making of a movie to imitate the Woodsboro murders. Um, hel-lo, that's exactly how the second one began.

It's a shame they killed off Randy in the second movie, because he was sorely missed. Even the writers realized this because they brought him back for a "video from beyond the grave" cameo. Can you say lame? The worst part was, his scene was one of the best parts of the movie.

Another highlight was a two-second cameo by Jay and Silent Bob, but only people familiar with Kevin Smith caught that. The rest was typical: Neve Campbell scared, Courtney Cox bitchy, David Arquette fumbling around while everyone around him is getting killed.

The plot attempted unsuccessfully to delve into the past to bring up skeletons from the closet. But they weren't even innovative skeletons. So Mommy was an actress in the past. Big deal. In trying so hard to add plot twists, the writers of Scream 3 made a cardinal mistake: bending the facts to fit the story.

In short, that's what's wrong with Scream 3: they ran out of originality. They really should have stopped after two.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed