Scream 3 Reviews
Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus reads, "Scream 3 has become what it originally spoofed. Despite some surprising twists, the movie seems to have lost its freshness and originality by falling back on the old horror formulas and cliches." Time Out London was particularly critical of the film, calling the film's metafiction commentary a poor imitation of Craven's own horror film Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994). Of the characters, Roger Ebert said "[the characters] are so thin, they're transparent" but praised Campbell's appearance saying, "The camera loves her. She could become a really big star and then giggle at clips from this film at her AFI tribute." In a positive review, the Los Angeles Times called the film, "Genuinely scary and also highly amusing", and the BBC stated that "as the conclusion to the trilogy it works more effectively than anyone had a right to expect". Variety also praised the film as the end of the Scream trilogy, saying "Aficionados will be the best able to appreciate how wittily Craven has brought down the curtain on his much-imitated, genre-reviving series" while Empire called it "satisfying" though believed the premise of the series had worn thin.
The first "Scream" had something fresh and new to offer, being a self-aware meta slasher film, but in the process of pushing out sequels something got lost. "Scream 3" takes a stab (he he) at Hollywood and the focus on spoofing horror films gets lost. The comic/slapsticky undertones are too many and the more serious ones are few, which creates a bit of a unbalance in my point of view. The acting is so so and the same goes for the direction. To be honest I am not sure why this film was made in the first place. It doesn´t add anything to the genre. The only thing I did enjoy was Neve Campbell.