Review of Scream 3 (2000) by Inês M — 28 Aug 2011
About Scream 3, there isn't much to say - since the essential was already said about Scream 2. What does this mean, you wonder ? It means that the third installment of Scream was as bad as the second one. The story is lame and nothing new. On the other hand, it also had a few positive points, that once again involve the cast and a few characters that added some glow to the movie.
Where shall I start ? Oh, that's right - the story. Not that there's a lot to say about the story: it's essentially more of the same. A psycho killer chases Sidney Prescott and kills everyone around her - what's new with this ? Nowadays, Sidney has a quiet life in the middle of nowhere, working as one of those women with kind voices on the help lines. Oh, and her name is Laura. While Sidney lives her quiet, lame little life, some new murders start happening at the set of Stab 3 - a movie ironically based on a book written by Gail Weathers, that is about the Woodsboro murders. So the story hasn't got much to it, if is wasn't for Randy, the nerdy movie guy who warns them about trilogies. And this is the final chapter - let's not get that out of our minds.
Acting was quite good. Once again, thumbs up for the fact that the movie maintains most of it's original cast (Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox and David Arquette), or the three main characters. This gives a lot of consistency to the trilogy. Also, thumbs up for Patrick Dempsey as a detective, (since most of us only know him from Grey's Anatomy).
Overall, it isn't brilliant or great, but it's worth watching (if you're up to making your own judgment of it).
This review of Scream 3 (2000) was written by Inês M on 28 Aug 2011.
Scream 3 has generally received mixed reviews.
Was this review helpful?
