Review of Scream 3 (2000) by Chris W — 14 Apr 2011

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.