Scream 3 Reviews

Page 1 of 386
Super Reviewer
December 30, 2010
The conclusion of the "trilogy" is this unimaginative installment that relies too much on cheap scares followed by a deafening chord and is too witless to know how to play with the clichés of the genre as the first movie - and it comes up with a ridiculous, illogical revelation in the end.
blkbomb
Super Reviewer
May 7, 2011
Detective Wallace: This is great! Ten more murders and we can publish a calendar. 

"Someone has taken their love for trilogies one step too far."

Scream 3 is an obvious and sad step down from the greatness of the first two movies. Still, it's better than about 90% of slashers out there, especially when franchises get deeper into their runs. Williamson not writing the script hurt the movie most, but it's still his story, so at least he is there in some way. The film is still very tongue in cheek and relies on humor,  as a way to parody the genre. I'll admit that, even me, someone who likes this movie, can see why a lot of people don't. Especially given that the first two were instant classics. 

Describing a plot for a movie like this is kind of a waste of time, especially when it's pretty much the exact same plot as the first two. This time however the killing isn't going on in Woodsboro, but in Hollywood, where Stab 3 is being made. There's a lot of Hollywood humor thrown into the movie and in a way Craven makes some good references to what Hollywood really is, but it's still vastly inferior to his previous commentaries.

The cast is pretty good with a lot of returning faces and some new ones including Parker Posey, Emily Mortimer, Scott Foley, and Patrick Warburton. The movie has its problems, but that is normal for the genre. It's just more disappointing because the first two were so good. Had Scream and Scream 2 never been made and a movie of this quality came out, we would probably view it in a different light. That's the hardship of success though. When you do great, more is expected from you.

Overall, I still enjoy this movie every time I see it. Did I expect more from it the first time I watched it? Yeah, but I've come to respect it for what it is. It's not a genre changing film like the first two were. It's just an add on for the people that really love the Scream franchise. Scream 4 was more of the same. So in the end, this franchise is still the best slasher franchise out there from start to finish in my eyes. Although it helps that most of them suck right from the get go.
Super Reviewer
June 24, 2007
A shoddy, unnecessary sequel to an overall impressive series concerning horror films and their construction, this time dealing with the production aspect of it where Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is drawn back into a sadistic killer's cross-hairs yet again. The thing that made the 'Scream' movies so enjoyable was its self-referential sense of humor. Unlike the first two installments, this one really does not contain any of that and instead sprints ahead into exactly the kinds of movies it is supposed to be making fun of. Not very memorable performances from anyone, and a lot of predictability that makes it boring after awhile. A real disappointment considering the fact that "Scream 2" was arguably better than "Scream", so the creators of these films definitely showed they had the potential to get better as they went along. This is not the case.
FilmFanatik
Super Reviewer
½ January 29, 2008
With the success of the Scream series, the powers that be decided to make the film into a trilogy (for the time being anyway) and bring Wes Craven back to close out the series with a bang. Unfortunately, this is likely the least film of the entire series. What started out as a slasher film poking fun at the genre quickly descends into schlock, and feels very much like it lost touch with what its original intentions were. Scream 3 reunites Wes Craven with Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox and David Arquette from the first three films, but missing altogether is Kevin Williamson, the writer of the first two films. The dialogue is incredibly bad and the film is so poorly acted that it's amazing. The story also takes so many steps backwards and feels the need to dig into the first film for ideas instead of coming up with something fresh that moves the series along. I was also simultaneously laughing and pissed off at Jamie Kennedy's reappearance. I was thrilled when he was killed off in the second film, but now they have to go back and dig him up for comments about the film being the third in a trilogy. It's really hackneyed and awful. Overall, the film failed to impress or entertain me as much the previous films, and here's hoping that the fourth film can improve upon that.
Super Reviewer
March 11, 2008
About as good as the other two movies, really. I'm not the biggest fan of the Scream series, but like the preceding movies, Scream 3 is entertaining enough to make it worth watching. I did think the ending was slightly disappointing, though.
Super Reviewer
August 3, 2006
Predicted rating: 2 Stars

Milking the original storyline for as much as possible, it's hard to believe how far this series has gone and with another just made, which direction can it possibly take. with that said, sequels are my guilty pleasure and whilst I don't hold out good hope, I've no doubt I will see it along the line somewhere.
Super Reviewer
½ August 6, 2011
Things are just getting pretty old now.
Super Reviewer
November 18, 2009
For me, Scream 3 takes things a little too far. Sure, it's nice to see the characters back and all, but you don't have the precision and style that part two built up. That one had the ability to be still original and play with expectations. This goes back closer to that fine line of "is this a spoof or an actual horror movie?", even though it's literally centering around a film within a film. What is missing is the writing from Kevin Williamson and the fact that these characters are too familiar and predictable now. We all know who's going to live and die before it happens and the idea of horror satire just isn't realistic on the third outing. Wes Craven's directing only goes so far, but when you're dealing with a movie that's highly dependent on precise dialogue and film geek references it's almost impossible to come out with an exact matching in quality. It fares best when it has the returning characters back together. What didn't help was the idea of changing all the rules; that's just a little too much. Scream 2 works so well because it threw subtlety out the window, this goes back and forth. It sort've blends the style of the first two movies together and that's going to give mixed results. In my opinion it's just lazy and another excuse to limp off the success and fan base of the first two.
murphmann93
Super Reviewer
July 6, 2008
All of the Scream's are fanstastic! They all have twist and turns you don't expect! A must see film!
Super Reviewer
April 17, 2011
When this come out this was my favorite of the 3. I absolutely loved the ending as I felt it really tied the trilogy together and gave some closure to the 1st movie's ending that I felt was missing. Going back, the movie is the worst of the 3 but has the best ending I feel. There are quite a few laughs, but overall, just a standard horror sequel that a lot of horror franchises fall into. There is one thing about the original Scream trilogy(haven't seen 4 yet, so I can't include it quite yet) that I like and really separates it from most other horror franchises. It never strayed from the original story or characters. Take "Halloween" for example, the first 2 were about Laurie Strode. The 3 through 6 strayed completely from the original concept except for Michael Myers(well 3 didn't even have him in it). So kudos for tieing them together, but overall not the best horror series, but not the worst either. I'd definitely say there somewhere in the middle of the pack, but I'm looking forward to number 4.
Super Reviewer
½ October 1, 2010
Scream is back, and more boring and cliche than ever! Sadly, I thought that this third instalment was going to be just as great as the first two films, because Wes Craven proved that he knows hows to make at least a duo of terrific films; However, he definitely does not know how to spawn a trilogy. It still has the style that I have come to love in the previous films, which is why I give it some credit, but when a film is supposed to be satirizing horror film cliches, and it just flat out gives you the same scares over and over again with no real terror that the first films had proven, it just falls by the wayside. Still, I love the scream character, the actors are great, but I just cannot see this franchise going any further. Craven will have to pull something from his ass to get this franchise back to superstardom. I am very upset to see one of the greatest horror flicks of all time be given such a cheesy threequel.
cosmo313
Super Reviewer
June 9, 2006
While the second film could have doen a lot more with it's premise and dealing with the issues of sequels, this once really could have done a lot more with the concept of the trilogy and the issues with third parts. Much like the fictional Stab films, I feel like this was a rushed quick cash in made with as little care or thought as the previous ones. That's funny in the referential sense, but it is a disappointment since this was meant to be the last one. Yeah, it does wrap some stuff up, and, even though it makes little sense and is convoluted, it does connect back to the first, so that's cool.

Still though, they could have done better justice to things. I blame the lack of Kevin Williamson. Taht, and the lack of mayhem. Yeah, it had the same body count as Scream 2, but far less blood this time. Here's some comparisons: Scream used 50 gallons of fake blood, Scream 2 used 30 gallons, and this one used 10. Ive got no problem with leaving stuff to the imagination (especially if you trade gore for atmosphere and suspense), but this film is the least thriilling of the trilogy and the funniest. It feels like a slap in the face.

I mean, there were some things I enjoyed, and I'm close to giving it a mild pass, but I dunno. I hate getting on the bandwagon and hate on this one, but they just seemed to not really care with this one, and that's unfortunate. See it just to complete the original saga, but don't expect to be blown away.
DreamExtractor
Super Reviewer
April 14, 2011
The cliches were overwhelming. Not only did the acting and horror suck, the plot was boring and dumb. Although the ending was good, I still cant get past how badly made this was, and I love Wes Craven, so that makes me mad.
stevenecarrier
Super Reviewer
½ April 14, 2011
For a second sequel, "Scream 3" is surprisingly good. While it's not as clever as the previous two films (due to Kevin Williamson not writing the script) it's still a zany and energetic film. The "Scream" meta horror formula is still very much front and center but this time we get a healthy dose of good old fashioned Hollywood satire. It's an aspect that helps "Scream 3" stand on it's own over the others. With the satire there are some very funny comedy bits, especially from scene stealer Parker Posey. The film has it's most fun pitting the original characters against their movie versions, creating some fun dynamics. "Scream 3" may be a little overstuffed but it's still a nifty, effective and ultimately underrated film.
Super Reviewer
January 15, 2007
Compulsively watchable, but it just doesn't feel all that clever. I feel like the highest words of praise I have for it are "it didn't completely suck." Parker Posey is hilarious, though.
Super Reviewer
½ April 13, 2011
By the third installment, most - no, scratch that, all horror movie franchises have run so fast out of steam that when you walk out of the theatre, you usually vow that when the fourth one comes out, you won't be caught dead watching it. Oddly enough, Scream 3 is much more fun than you would expect. Maybe it's because I'm writing this review ten years after Scream 3 first hit theatres, and compared to the crap that passes for horror these days, this feels like actual quality work.
I remember not liking Scream 3 back in 2000. Maybe it is crap, and I'm more fond of it because crap back then was still higher quality than crap today. Maybe not. The film definitely has its flaws, the most obvious being the way the film packs on its critiques of sequels, more so here than in the other two, which seems more like an excuse to have the plot follow a formula and get away with it.
Scream 3 calls itself the concluding act of a trilogy. So essentially, it isn't a sequel. It's going back to the beginning. It brings all the events from the first two films full circle, and sheds a whole new perspective on them. Likewise, if the characters recognize they're in a trilogy, they can survive. But the characters of Scream 3 are dumb, wanna be celebrities only concerned with themselves. They don't have the slightest clue they're in a horror movie, so unlike Sidney, Dewey, Gail, and the new police detective played by McDreamy from Grey's Anatomy, they're all as good as dead.
At times the way events unfolded did frustrate me. But at the same time, I had a lot of fun. I think the film was made with a sensibility that if you understand how the movie is going to work early on, it's a lot easier to turn off your brain and just go along with the ride. Only a film in the Scream franchise could get away with that.
sanjurosamurai
Super Reviewer
½ January 11, 2007
this film is more laborious and less memorable for me than the first two, but its a decent addition to a decent series.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
½ June 9, 2010
Scream 3 is more of the same as the first two, more violence, screams more everything. This film is slightly better than the second, and in my opinion its a good way to end a tired series, but I heard they were making a fourth entry in this series. Anyhow, the film is a bit of an improvement from the second and really you could say that it does inject new blood in the series, however, it's too little, too late.
LorenzoVonMatterhorn
Super Reviewer
½ October 21, 2009
"The final Scream is going to be the loudest!"

Sidney visits the set of "Stab 3," after pictures of her mother become the clue to a series of murders around Hollywood.

REVIEW
Years after the horror that occurred in Scream and Scream 2, Campbell is living a life of isolation in fear that the nightmare that was her past will come back to haunt her. The public awaits in anticipation as the newest film depicting the incidents is set to hit theaters, but it's put on hold when a serial killer suddenly strikes targeting actors, family members, and everyone else even remotely connected to the past murders. A clever scenario with some good twists, and a capable cast, but the film is lacking in scares and lacks the truly spine-chilling atmosphere that it needs to make it work. Almost plays out like a convoluted murder mystery that's in desperate need of adrenaline.
Super Reviewer
June 2, 2009
note that scream 3 was not written by Kevin Williamson so it doesnt seem as witty as it could be... also Jamie Kennedy and Liev Schreiber are only in it for 5 minutes... LAME!
Page 1 of 386