Scream 3 [2000]

Review

Scream 3 poster

My what a difference a couple of years (not to mention more than $200 million at the box office) makes.

When I attended the Manhattan Fangoria Weekend Of Horrors in January of 1997, Dimension Films' modestly produced Scream had only debuted a few weeks earlier (December of 1996, in fact) and was being hailed by fans, journalists, and even the odd non-too-competitive filmmaker as the fright genre's singular savior.

Exactly one year later, I attended another Fangoria convention and when the title Scream 2 was mentioned by one of the guests, there were more "boos" hurled at the stage than when Dylan first went electric. The same crowd, btw, applauded loudly when it was announced that Freddy vs. Jason was going into production (ultimately, it didn't). Curious.

We saw it happen this past summer with The Blair Witch Project: the inevitable backlash. Usually excessively harsh, and more in response to the amount of profit and visibility a film or film personality generates than to the content of the work itself. I've never understood this curious reaction: why are some fans so possessive of a work, that when it's embraced by others, they feel the film has to be not only dumped, but stepped on, eviscerated, and left for carrion in the desert? No one owns these movies--not even the filmmakers (often, ESPECIALLY the filmmakers!)--so why the feeling of violation or betrayal when the masses clue into what you had the good taste to champion in the first place (I'd feel flattered and vindicated, if anything)? EVERY film has a following: visit the Internet lately? I've found misty-eyed fan sites celebrating the likes of Yor, Hunter From The Future, Xanadu, and Chuck Norris' Braddock saga. Some things in this world are more frightening than ol' Ghosty face.

Talk Back

I've gotten off the point here, but those of you who know my past contributions probably aren't too surprised. What I've been basically setting up here, is the controversial announcement that Scream 3, the much jeered/loathed/argued-about third and final chapter in Kevin Williamson's planned "trilogy" is a pretty good little film that makes absolutely no bones about the fact that it's running on stale fumes. Does that defend the film's shortcomings? No, but shortcomings do not necessarily mean a bad or lackluster film. Scream 3 isn't very frightening, but it is lively and frenetic and more "Scooby Doo" than Halloween. That being said, if you're a movie buff who doesn't spend much time arguing in chat rooms and sending hate mail to George Lucas, you'll have a blast with the in jokes and various set pieces and emerge from the cinema with a smile.

With essential lead Neve Campbell holding out on the project until the 11th hour, the screenplay casts a wide net across the ensemble of returning characters and Hollywood sendups, as if the initial drafts were prepped to accommodate her absence. What's odd about the sequel is that while the story is very much about Sidney and her Woodsboro past, Sidney herself isn't in the film very much and a good part of the film's first and second act tracks the amateur sleuthing of reporter Gail Weathers and former beau (and now Hollywood security specialist) Dewey [More ]

Talk Back