Review of Scream 3 (2000) by Berc — 03 Jul 2016

The artistic medium of film is very subjective. Every audience member has a different set of criteria they use to measure their viewing experience. Not everyone shares the same set of criteria. If we did, what a bland and uninspired world this would be.

What I Personally Liked About "Scream 3":

The most likeable attribute of this third film in the franchise is Neve Campbell portraying Sidney Prescott. Of course, she could probably play the role blindfolded with one hand tied behind her back and in a half vegetative state at this point, she seems to know the character so well. Some recognizable faces were also brought in for this supposedly final chapter. Some of them work and some of them don't. Lance Henriksen and Roger Corman are such professionals that they're able to elevate the thin material they're given to work with. Jenny McCarthy and Parker Posey also do well as victimized supporting players. Well, they're both slightly hammy, but at least they're better than the majority of (over)actors in the second movie. To add to their credit, they do provide some decent comic relief. Seeing the video return of Jamie Kennedy's Randy is another big plus in this picture's favor. It just wouldn't feel like "Scream" if he wasn't there to lay down the ground rules. The "death" of Sidney and the death of Roman Bridger were definitely my favorite moments in the film. Everything just fell into place from the music to the lighting to the pacing to the tension to the uncertainty over the fate of the leading lady to Sidney's ability to ruthlessly stab someone else after all of the grief and loss she has been through. It's just a shame there wasn't a better film building up to this fantastic sequence of events.

What I Personally Disliked About "Scream 3":

Unfortunately, the death of Cotton Weary came too soon in the picture. Liev Schreiber was one of the best parts of the second chapter in this series and I would have loved to see more from him here. I know that killing off an established character is status quo for horror sequels, but for the love of God why didn't they kill off David Arquette? Why? Why?! WHY?!?! You're supposed to trim the fat not arrange it as a centerpiece on the plate. Oh well. At least Cotton tried to put up a good fight before his untimely demise. Dewey Riley, on the other hand, could have been written out of the movie and I obviously wouldn't have missed him. His relationship with Gale Weathers becomes more unbearable with each passing film. Seriously. Weakest subplot ever. I should also stress the fact that I hate pointless cameos just for the sake of having pointless cameos. Jamie Kennedy's was necessary for the film; most of the others were not. Carrie Fisher's cameo particularly bothered me as she looks bored out of her skull being there. That boredom seeps through every celluloid pore of the scene's skin and infects the viewer with a case of the ho-hums. Last, but certainly not least, trying to shoehorn in the half-brother angle at this point with no prior basis to do so was just unacceptable. If this had been a preplanned trilogy and some little clues had been thrown into the first two installments, it might have been a different - and more cohesive - story.

My Overall Impression of "Scream 3":

Yes, the half-brother/sister storyline was a bit of a stretch, but some of the surrounding material makes this film look like it's trying harder than the second film did to break genre molds and point out flaws in the scary movie system instead of partaking in them itself. It doesn't try to be "one of the boys" in the way that "Scream 2" did. While it's not a successful film by any means, it's still not nearly as bad as some of its detractors make it out to be.