Scream 3 (2000) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
742 Reviews
Sort by:
Underrated gem enjoyable my favorite sequel in the "Scream" franchise series
ivo-cobra818 February 2018
Scream 3 is so underrated and bashed from fan boys. I love this film to death I enjoy this film I have watch it with my dad. It is an underrated gem my personal favorite sequel in the "Scream" franchise series. It is an improvement over the second one. Sidney Prescott is a such a bad-ass, you have for the first time in the movie an explosion you see a house been blowed up. The plot and the story is set the first time in Hollywood. I love that it is an original story, it does not copy the second or the first film, it doesn't mess with the first two movies. It does finish the trilogy and brings an ending conclusion to the franchise. I enjoy this film, I love this film to death. Wes Craven did a great direction debut. Ehren Kruger replaced Kevin Williamson thank god and he did much better job to make an original story and make an conclusion to end the trilogy.

I love with what happened next with the characters: Sidney now is a crisis counselor, I liked that. Ghostface returns he has unfinished business with Sidney and he wants her back. Dewey Riley is now working as an film adviser In Hollywood. I love his character, this time around David Arquette was better actor in this movie. I love that they did something new with his character, he wasn't annoying, he wasn't useless, he was good. He shot with a hand gun and killed the killer on the end, a real hero in this movie. Patrick Dempsey as detective Mark Kincaid was great he was likable and I have enjoyed him. I love his character. I love Jenny McCarthy as Sarah Darling she was believable. The movie was not dull, lame, or repainting the same story again, it had less humor, more horror, mystery and action it was mixed it had that what the second movie didn't had.

The story is set three years after Scream 2 Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), who has gone into self-imposed isolation following the events of the previous two films is drawn to Hollywood yet again she returns again to face the past and find out who is responsible for her mother's death. The new Ghostface begins killing the cast of the film within a film Stab 3 and has a score to stale with Sidney Prescott. Dewey Riley and Gale Waethers are trying to find out who is responsible for the killings. Gale has an unlikely sidekick Parker Posey as Jennifer Jolie. Courtney Cox is excellent as always as Gale Weathers.

10/10 I personally enjoy this sequel it is my favorite sequel in the franchise. Lance Henriksen is in this movie too and he is believable. I love the setting, the story and I love Sidney she is a bad-ass and I love happy ending, I love the trilogy to death and I love this movie to death sue me!
77 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not as effective as the original "Scream," but still produces enough scares and thrills. *** out of ****
Movie-1218 February 2000
SCREAM 3 / (2000) ***

Starring: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox Arquette, Parker Posey, Patrick Dempsey, Scott Foley, Lance Henriksen, Matthew Keeslar, Jenny McCarthy, Emily Mortimer, Deon Richmond, Patrick Warburton, Liev Schreiber, and Carrie Fisher Directed by Wes Craven. Written by Ehren Kruger, based on characters by Kevin Williamson. Running time: 116 minutes. Rated R (for strong horror violence and language).

By Blake French:

"Scream 3" is not as satisfying as the original horror masterpiece "Scream," but what can we expect from the final chapter in a slasher trilogy? The first film was a superior horror thriller--one of the most loved slasher movies of the past decade. That was a picture with some hard standards to live up to. However, Wes Craven, director of the trio, accomplished another success with the sequel of "Scream." Usually this kind of movie would fade into the Hollywood recycle bin by now. But "Scream 3" still produces chills, thrills, and lots of surprises--even though we have been receiving the same kind of story for the past four years. This film is marginally passable, although the most flawed film of its series, that fairs as recommendable, but not substantial in quality.

The film's opening once again provides the audience with a pre-credit murder sequence that is almost the highlight of the entire production. The "Scream 3" writers take advantage of one of the movie's old and important characters to arrange this very effective, and scary, sequence.

The setting is several years after the second film. The small college town of Woodsboro is where we are placed. Neve Campbell again stars as Sidney Prescott, a tormented young woman who was the target of the killing sprees in the past. She has attempted to move on with her life with her father, and has an anonymous hotline operation that offers assistance to those in need. Also, television reporter Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox Arquette) has experienced a big career jump, now working for a network called Total Entertainment. While the wrongly accused murder suspect of Sidney's mother, Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), has his own trashy TV talk show.

The central presence that connects the events here is the production of "Stab 3: Return to Woodsboro," a movie the characters are creating that follows a horror trilogy based on the terrors experienced by Sydney. The masked murderer may or may not be found on the set. Besides police Detective Kincaid (Patrick Dempsey), and the arrogant bodyguard Stone (Patrick Warburton), concluding the list of suspects, there is Dewey Riley (David Arquette), a former cop who is now an advisor for "Stab 3," Roman Bridger (Scott Foley), the film's director, John Milton (Lance Henriksen) the film's producer, as well as acting counterparts Sarah Darling (Jenny McCarthy), Tom Prinze (Matthew Keeslar), Angelina (Emily Mortimer), Gabe Tucker (Deon Richmond), and Gales's reciprocal (Parker Posey).

Certain plot points lead our suspicion to believe one of several characters is the killer. We are fooled again, however. But does the killer's identity really matter here? As long as we receive a speech on why he or she is responsible, we would be satisfied and any of the character's could have been the killer. None of the characters have any shape or construction. We care only about the order that the victims will be picked off at, not about who hides behind the ghost mask. The identity is actually pointless when the slasher is finally revealed.

Once again, a key success in "Scream 3" is the scary sequences that build up momentum and thus work well, usually where the slasher kills his victims. What makes these scenes so effective is how we know that characters are three dimensional; they put up a firm fight for their lives, unlike victims in most slasher films. However, the plot seems to revolve around the murders, instead of the murders branching off from the story. "Stab 3" seems to be a central presence to connect the film's somewhat desperate through line.

Some of the plot points are fun and revealing. We see a videotape of a past character describing the possibilities of the movie's final outcome. This event programs our imaginations to suspect the unexpected. The plot does desperately attempt to fill in missing pieces of the previous screams, however, showing some signs of contrived foreshadowing. Each scene moves the story forward, though, replenishing the plot with freshness and ability around every abrupt corner.

"Scream 3" is a close call, and is given somewhat of a mixed review, but I still am giving the movie a marginal recommendation. It contains more startles, more surprises, and more effective scary material than most slasher movies. Although I believe it was a wise move to make this film the final installment of its series.

Brought to you by Dimension Films.
42 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
MOVIEFAN4339 September 2001
Director Wes Craven and writer Ethen Krueger (taking over for Kevin Williamson) helped make this film happen. This time we're taken to Hollywood, California where Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) is now a talk show host, Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox Arquette)is a t. v journalist, Dewey Riley (David Arquette) is a technical advisor for the Stab 3 movie, and Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is under a different name in order to protect herself. This time however there is a new killer(s) trying to get to Sydney, but it someone from her mother's past can Sydney survive another blood-bath as it seems the killer(s) is killing the cast members of the Stab 3 movie and won;t stop until Sydney is dead! My thoughts a great ending to the trilogy it definately has a few good scares and fills a lot of plot holes of why Maureen was killed. I won't give anything away but the killer(s) was a big surprise.RECOMMENDED! ***1/2 out of *****
31 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
YOU! Like I'm ever going to win an award playing YOU!-Parker Posey in Scream 3
briabba28 December 2003
Welcome back Neve, David and my personal favorite, Courteney, to one of the best horror series ever to hit the big screen. All three are back and are in top form. As a huge FRIENDS fan, it's always fun to see the non-Monica, Gale Weathers, and to see another side of Cox-Arquette's talent.

The finale in the Scream trilogy, and while perhaps not the scariest of the three, it is certainly the most funny. That is thanks largely to the brilliant casting of the satiric roles belonging to Parker Posey and Jenny McCarthy.

Parker Posey playing Courteney Cox Arquette's "Gale" in the movie Stab 3 within this movie, Scream 3, was a stroke of genius. For those not familiar with Posey's work I strongly recommend checking out "The House Of Yes."

Another welcome attribute to this third and final (?) chapter in the series is the way in which they tie up the loose ends and allow certain characters a sense of closure.

You definitely need to view these 3 in order, but it's all scary fun!
53 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Welcome to the final act!
Elliot-710 February 2000
Scream 3 will not disappoint fans of the first two unless your expectations are unrealistically high. All the Scream movies follow a pattern - one of the criticisms I read of Scream 3 was that it was a Xerox copy of the first two - but all sequels are basically remakes of previous films that preceeded it e.g. the Bond series. The success of the Scream films is that Craven and Williamson (and now Scream 3 scribe Kreuger) have blended the ingredients differently each time - you'll definitely enjoy the "Hollywood" flavour of this one!
70 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh the irony of it all...
Spikeopath4 March 2008
After surviving the second wave of ghostface killings, Sidney Prescott has retired to the mountains to live in peace and work as a phone call therapist. Sadly for her she is about to be dragged back into the nightmare because the production of Stab 3 is rocked by murder and the killer is leaving pictures of Sidney's dead mother at the crime scenes.

I have to admit that I once never gave this film much love, I loved the first two to such a degree that I felt this third and final instalment was way off being a fitting closure to what was at the time a trilogy. Yet as time has wore on I have really grown fond of the film, Parker Posey no longer annoys the hell out of me, the once jarring itch of watching the makers kill off a fave character of mine in the opening sequence is something I now view as a masterstroke, and the twisty ending that was once an irksome pest has moved on to be the perfect "trilogy" closure.

Scream 3 has its tongue firmly in its cheek, it's aware of its number and it's aware of its formulaic root, so in spite of treading familiar ground (I mean come on gang, have you not learnt nothing from your previous experiences), the returning characters still have our undivided attention. While the transporting of the story to Hollywood, with its movie within a movie structure, is fresh and adds a new dimension to proceedings. New additions to the scary fun are Patrick Dempsey, Emily Mortimer, Lance Henriksen and the afore mentioned Parker Posey, and all of them add greatly to the mysterious plot unfolding.

The death quotient is still high, and the Wes Craven school of whodunitry is well and truly open, and I personally feel that this one is easily the funniest film of the three, witness Jay & Silent Bob turning up, a Carrie Fisher sequence that once heard will never be forgotten, and a video appearance by passed on geek god Randy Meeks. Scream 3 closes the "trilogy" just fine, it's got bags of energy and a glint in its eye, now if only I could get a copy of the uncompleted Stab 3 off the internet - and if only there wasn't to be a part 4 further down the line... 7/10
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The best Scream!
fpf18 August 2000
Since I am a Scream fan, i no doubt, loved this movie. I thought the first Scream was funny, original, scary, and witty. after seeing the first one several times, I was so excited to see the second. But, i came out a little disappointed. There was no way, you could've guessed one of the killers. I found that the killers were minor characters, as in Scream1 they were not main, but have good screen time, and was not that scary. But, the more i watched the movie, the more i liked it. So, by the time i heard about the third in the Scream series, I was counting down the days till it came out. I ended up seeing it the day after it came out with my best friend. I found that it was scary, original, and had some really good fight scenes and unforgettable characters (PARKER POSEY'S "JENNIFER JOLIE"). The voice changer this time was really unique and very clever. I also thought the buddy/hatred-ness between Courteney Cox and Parker Posey was hysterical. Mainly i thought Parker fueled most of the movie with her comedic preformances. I thought the ending at Roman's birthday was truly the best. And i was also surprised to see Jenny McCarthy give such a good performance for just the short time she was in it. David Arquette also gave a good performance, along with the rest of the cast. Neve Campbell was great with her lines like "It's your turn to scream, ***hole!" and "You want me, mother******, come and get me!" I found those to be effective if not cliched. So, if you are a fan (or not) of the Scream series, you MUST, i repeat, MUST see this movie. I will guarantee you will have a good time watching it, as i did. 10/10
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So-so finale
Sean Gallagher10 February 2000

As I've said before, I have little use for sequels, which was I was surprised to find myself going to SCREAM 2, and even more surprised that I enjoyed it. Like the first one, it was fast, scary, funny, and took some nice satiric jibes. Even the much debated identity of the killer in the second one made sense as a satiric swipe at horror movies, so it didn't bother me. I didn't know if they'd be able to keep it going for a third movie, especially when hearing Kevin Williamson's involvement was going to be minimal(he's a producer, and he wrote an outline which eventual writer Ehren Kruger worked from), but I liked the first two, I was especially pleased to see Scott Foley(from FELICITY) and Parker Posey in the cast, and I was intrigued to see what happened. In retrospect, I probably should have waited for video.

Certainly the opening shows a little promise; instead of the usual celebrity cameo, we have a spoof of that, with Cotton Weary(Liev Schrieber), who's now a Geraldo-type talk show host, complaining about having to do a cameo in STAB 3(the movie within a movie here), so we know it's spoofing itself. The problem, of course, is we know Cotton's going to get killed, but Craven is able to draw suspense throughout the scene. We also get the stated purpose here during the phone call(which, also a bit clever, starts out with a woman's voice before the familiar tone of Roger L. Jackson as THE voice kicks in); the killer wants to find Sidney.

Sidney, of course, is living in seclusion, under a new name and barely going outside the house(which, of course, is under heavy alarm), so at first, she's almost like an afterthought to the movie. Instead, the center is on Gail Weathers, the tabloid reporter, now an entertainment reporter, who uses her reporter skills to play detective when Cotton is killed, and she decides to assist the police, specifically Detective Kincaid(Patrick Dempsey), in the case. Then there's Dewey, who's a technical advisor to STAB 3, the movie, and they of course worry about what's going to happen.

There's all kinds of potential here, and it's directed well, but it isn't written as well as I think Williamson would have done. There are scares which still work, and while the Dewey/Gail relationship seems a little old hat, the two Arquettes obviously like working with each other, and their familiarity with us helps smooth that over. Also, while Campbell is disconnected, she's still sympathetic, and while she doesn't have the same fun with herself as she did in the first one, I understood that. And there is humor, most of it coming from Posey as the actress playing Gail in STAB 3; few actresses can make contempt funny like she can. There's also the standard satiric bite(the bodyguard who guarded Julia Roberts and Salman Rushdie but ends up toast here).

But as I said, it isn't written as well, and the primary weakness is the killer. In some senses, I guess, having the director(Foley) be the killer makes sense, because he has the technical expertise to handle things. But it seems to come out of nowhere, and perhaps to distract us from that, Kruger gives us the idea of him being a long-lost relative of Sidney's, which is ridiculous. Perhaps because of that too, Foley goes way over the top, which is funny at first, but then becomes tiresome. Also, Kruger cribs not from other horror movies here, but from the first SCREAM(the cloning of the cell phone being a prime example). And while Williamson's red herrings were pretty clever, this one seems not thought out. Emily Mortimer's character(she plays the actress who plays Sidney) is a perfect example; there are two indications she might be the killer(three, if you count the woman's voice to Cotton), and yet she's killed off almost as an afterthought. Finally, as to compensate for all of this, there are a lot more killings to cover up. Which begs the question; if all he wanted was to find Sidney(as stated early on several times), why not just take Dewey, Gail, and Cotton et al hostage? The first two movies mocked the Idiot Plot Rule; this one mostly personifies it.

It's a shame, because there could have been something made from all this(oh, almost forgot; Dempsey, who I normally don't like, is surprisingly good, and also unrecognizable here). But this certainly doesn't break any rules. Even the Jamie Kennedy cameo seems obligatory rather than fresh. This suggest they should have stopped at the second one.
48 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The weak link of the series
freemantle_uk13 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The Scream series became a popular series with critics and audience due to the fact it was a self-aware slasher film that knew the clichés of the genres whilst still working as a slasher film. But the third film of the series is considered the weak link of the franchise.

After the events of the Woodsboro and Windsor College, a third film is being made in Hollywood to complete a trilogy. But a new killer is stalking has donned the Ghostface mark, targeting both the film cast and survivors of the Woodsboro killings, leading to Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) and her ex-boyfriend, Dewey (David Arquette) to investigate as Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is forced out of hiding after she suffers from visions of her deceased mother.

The Scream series has always had a self-aware/meta element to it, but with Scream 3 its satire is taken a step too far as it takes jabs against Hollywood. The big jokes are about the production include constant re-writes to the film suffers, an actress saying she is playing a character that is 14 years younger then her, a music video director forced to make Stab 3 as his directional debut before he can make the film he wants, actors having to sleep with people to get roles and producers debating violence in films influencing real-life violence. The film just got too meta as an actor and the person she is meant to be playing arguing and talking about the rules of a trilogy. This is a film was much more focused on being a satire on Hollywood as a whole then a spoof of the horror genre.

Tonally Scream 3 is lighter then previous films. There was always a comic undercurrent to the series, but it becomes much more pronounced in Scream 3 with the characters interactions and the deaths themselves were less gruesome and more over-the-top, particularly with a house getting blown up which was done in a unrealistic way and there is a sequence when Ghostface throws hi s knife and the handle hits Dewey on the head. There was even an occasional comical musical moments in score and a very overt cameo from the characters Jay and Silent Bob.

I found the best bits were when Scream 3 was more serious, when we see Sidney living an isolated life in the countryside, with tons of security and works as a women's crisis counsellor: it felt like a good continuous to her story. But it does not blend well with the more comic tone and the film as a whole was struggling to justify her presence in the film. There are long period where she is not involved in the film, she is not involved at all in the first act and forces a reason to be in the film.

Much of the problems of the lay at the feet of the new writer Ehren Kruger who replaced Kevin Williamson. It felt like Kruger was trying to copy Williamson's style and directed Wes Craven wanted to remake New Nightmare. The characters did feel a little compared to the previous movies and the satire/self-aware elements of the film was not as sharp to the first two movies.

The acting also felt weak, with many of the actors either phoning in their performances or shouting and screaming, including a scene where the Stab actors end up acting clichéd horror victims/targets.

Whilst Craven's directing is solid for the most part, a big criticism some of the sequences involving Ghostface's attacks looks like there was more then one killer, but the conclusion shows there was only one killer.

At the time Scream 3 was originally meant to be a conclusion for the series and it was a disappointment due to poor script and overly comic tone. It is not the worst film, it's not even bad by horror standards. There are good moments, but it is disloyal to certain aspects of the previous films, including the character revisions, which you would have thought Craven would have noticed.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decent Finale, But Can't Compete With The First Two.
Mr_Ectoplasma9 June 2007
"Scream 3" takes us to the Northern California hills, where Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is living in seclusion and immense fear due to the traumatic events that she survived in Woodsboro and at Windsor College. Meanwhile, a Hollywood movie studio is producing a film called "Stab 3", the third installment in a movie series based on the events that Sidney has survived. But when cast and crew members begin to die off one by one, it seems another killer has returned, and goes after the fragile Sidney (who is having terrifying visions of her dead mother). Sidney teams up with Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) and policeman Dewey (David Arquette), two people who survived the massacres with Sidney, and try to uncover the new killers identity, which may be linked to Sidney's past.

The last installment in a very popular horror series, "Scream 3" brings this trilogy to end on an entertaining but rather weak note. The script for this film is nowhere near as good as the other two, which is unfortunate considering this film was the "finale" of the series. It would have been nice to end the series with a better film - not that this sequel is unbearably bad, but it could have been better. I will admit there are some decent scare moments and a handful of suspenseful scenes, but it seems to me that there's almost too much going on in this sequel for it's own good. The script juggles the Sidney character, Sidney's past, the Dewey/Gail relationship, the cast members of the "Stab 3" movie, and more, and the jumping around hurt the film a little. It didn't seem to have a central point within it, and that was a problem, for me at least.

Besides the problems that it has, I still have to say that I enjoyed this movie, mostly because of the entertainment factor. The writing wasn't amazing, but it did manage to continue to have some nice plot developments and a few good twists, plus some decent scares and more slight mocking of the genre and it's rules. The setting is mainly Hollywood, so this film has a completely different atmosphere than the second or the first film. I'm not sure if it necessarily hurt the film, but it seemed a little too "Hollywood" for me. The cast is good here, with more returning characters and some new ones as well, mainly added for body count, while the others do develop somewhat during the movie. The twist-ending (which is the revelation of the killer's identity) made sense in terms of the story, but I found it to be a little unsatisfying.

All things considered, "Scream 3" is an enjoyable but problematic ending to an above-average horror trilogy. You'll be entertained undoubtedly, but this movie can't compete with the second or the first films, because it just isn't as good. I enjoyed it for the most part and I have trouble over-criticizing it, but most people will agree when I say that it can't compare with the original film. 6/10.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A success...In the spirit of the first two
dan-30311 July 2000
I have to say that this was a rather satisfying conclusion to one of my favorite films. Scream 3 strengthened the relationships between its three original stars, squeezed in some catchy one-liners and kept me on the edge of my seat. While I can't exactly say it matched the quality of the first Scream, it's easy to forget how fresh the original must have seemed at the time. In that sense, comparisons made between Scream 3 and its predecessors are not fair. While the horror genre is more stale than it was in 1996, Scream 3 works with the material leftover from the first two films and comes out a winner.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Scr3am breaks all the rules to make a Masterpiece.
Amerika Kracka29 June 2000
I walked into the theater already expecting something superb. The movie opens up scary you right away. The guy I thought would be the killer is killed first.Every time expecting the usual scare it would not be there, every time you were not expecting a scare it would be there. The acting is the absolute best it could be. Critics and some people just cannot understand change is what you need to break all the rules and make a Masterpiece. Before I ending this review I thank scream 3 in the future will be appreciated like Hitchcock masterpieces.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Scream 3 transcends all genres, and has a good time doing it!
jaws3-d3 May 2000
Scream 3 is approaching a 100 million dollar gross. That will definitely put it within the top 10-15 highest grossing films this year. Very exciting! How many third part installments in a horror genre are this successful?!?!

However, you have the usual number of skeptics who are afraid to say they enjoy such a film. Thats really too bad. They might be more comfortable renting "Shakespeare in Love" and laughing at just the right parts so all their friends can see how clever they are. If thats why you see a movie, well more power to you.

Scream 3 transcends all genres. It does exactly what it wants, and does it well. It has thrills, definitely laughs, and a cast who looks like they are having a lot of fun. Parker Posey is hilarious!!! On opening night, everyone in the packed theatre was having a great time. Isn't that why we go to the movies? No, my life wasn't changed by this film, but did you expect this to be a life altering film? Heck, I enjoyed "American Pie" for what it was, but it didn't change my life, or the way I look at film.

I think people expect too much from a movie these days. I want to help people to understand Scream 3. Some people think, "well, I laughed a lot and I wasn't really scared, so it must have been a bad movie." This is an inaccurate assessment. The movie definitely has more laughs than scares, Parker Posey is in the film for crying out loud!!! It laughs at itself!! Its like a Scooby Doo mystery. It also has a few parts that make you jump. Thats the beauty of it, this film doesn't fit snugly into a perfect little category. I mean, is Forrest Gump a comedy or a drama? Well, it certainly has both elements. One really must free their mind and accept that this film is not just a scary movie. Its a FUN movie!!

I would also like to mention that a lot of people seem to think the film should have been different. For instance, I hear a lot of "The movie should have had this happen" or It would have been a lot scarier if this took place". Well, it didn't. The movie did its own thing, and its still making millions. You can find these same type of people quite often commenting on "The Phantom Menace"... "Lucas should have done this." Well guess what? He doesn't care because its his movie. Remember? You just paid a few bucks to sit on your butt and watch it!!! Nothing can satisfy these people.

In closing, Scream 3 will be enjoyable to anyone who's looking to have a good time! Everyone else, lighten up! Never be afraid to have fun!!!!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lived Up To My Expectations
Ash1195 February 2000
The movie begins with Cotton Weary driving in L.A. while talking on a cellular phone. And of course someone clicks in and you can only guess who it is-thus begining the traditional Scream opening murder suspense scene. Sidney Prescott has moved down to the Los Angeles area and has basically gone into hiding, working out of her house as a crisis-hotline operator. Gale Weathers is the same as always of course as a bitchy tabloid news anchor. She has written a new novel though which is what the movie inside Scream 2 (STAB) is based except Stab 2 has already been released and they are in production of Stab 3. Dewey is also on the scene as a type of helper on the set. One by one the cast of the film turn up murdered according to script. The old hollywood mansion as the final scene makes a great setting as the surprise twist-final deaths take place. Definately a satisfactory ending that kinda wraps it all up, with some great cameo appearances especially with the video of Randy that was a great touch to keep the 'trilogy-movie buff' type of thing in the movie. The movie goes back to its roots and fills in all the little holes of the first one. Of course the movie may have been a little better with Kevin Williamson's touch but overall it was still great. I went into the movie without having very high expectations at all. I am a very big fan of the original Scream, yet going into Scream 2 I was expecting it to be very good and I was extremely disappointed with the outcome. So going into Scream 3 I just didn't set myself up for the disappointment. But I was very very pleased it was AWESOME Go see this movie if you are a fan of the original.

I'd give it a 9.5 out of 10
35 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fun film but not as good as the original
dirtychild19 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Scream 3 is the final chapter of the Scream trilogy - a series of films that not only mocks and lampoons on other films, but also mocks itself.

Scream 3 picks up the story a couple of years after the events of the first film. The production of "Stab 3" grinds to a halt as a killer picks off the cast in the order that their characters die in the film. This draws the three main protagonists of the series together as they determine who is behind these murders.

Scream 3 is a definite improvement over the disappointing second entry. It not only takes the p!ss from other scary movies but also takes the p!ss out of itself and the Scream films. You get a perverse enjoyment out of the actors playing the characters from "real life" (eg: Parker Posey doing a Courteney Cox impersonation). It sort of reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where the characters of the pilot episode "Jerry" interact with the "real life" Seinfeld characters.

There are plenty of brilliant in-house film buff jokes too (eg: Jay and Silent Bob making an appearance and a Carrie Fisher look-a-like).

Anyhows - this is a horror film - and although there are a couple of scares - it doesn't reach the terrifying level of the original. And the film seems pretty tame on the gore front! But if you go in with an open mind (ie: don't be expecting it to be as good as the first) and you might have fun.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Still has it's touch
IIscr3amII12 August 2002
Altough Scream 3 is not the best of the SCREAM trilogy, it is still very entertaining and great to watch. Courteney Cox Arquette, David Arquette, and Neve Campbell perform just as wonderful as they did in the last two. It had its twists and turns, and the ending is surprising. Scream 3 is a clever, scary, thrilling, and entertaining concluding chapter. It is a great ending to the much loved SCREAM trilogy.
22 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great horror film to a great trilogy
DunnDeeDaGreat19 November 2001
Scream has to be one of the best endings to a trilogy in trilogy history. The film has humor and lots of pop culture references which is cool. Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courtney Cox are all good and the film has some geuine scare moments. Jamie Kennedy has a hilarious cameo and for that the film earns **** out ****.
21 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A very worthy finale to an awesome trilogy
Jerry Ables24 May 2002
I think this film is great and serves as an excellent way to close out the awesome Scream trilogy. It was very well written and acted and has every bit of the creepy thrills and excitement that made its predecessors such a great thrill to watch. Highly recommended to any horror fan.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A very good entry into the Scream franchise....
Red_Identity19 May 2010
Scream 3 does not have the same writer of the first two, which explains the lack of comedy it had compared to the first two Scream films. It does not have the same great dialogue as the first two, nor the witty and playful tone. However, saying that, Scream 3 is probably still better than 95% of slasher films today. It has suspense and mystery, and although it sometimes goes overboard with how the script handled the 'actual' history of Maureen Prescott, I think it overall works well. Neve Campbell once again gives it all she has, and the supporting characters are actually well rounded, especially Parker Posey, which gives the film it's much needed humor. David Arquette and Courtney Cox are both solid, but I cannot help but question how much their characters( or maybe their motivation as actors) changed, since it really does seem that both feel awkward in a lot of scenes. I suspect it is the writing since a lot of their brilliant dialogue from Scream 2 was missing. Saying that, and while it is true that it is the weakest of the trilogy, it is still a lot of fun and does have it's clever moments here and there. I do not think there can ever really be a 'bad' Scream film.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ending In Style!
Young_PSC26 May 2003
Scream 3 is the perfect way to end the series, with it's bloody scenes and funny humor.This is a great trilogy which I am sad won't carry on.

The Movie mixes with the production of Stab 3, where various characters of that film are getting picked off one by one and, again, up to Sidney and the rest of the crew to catch the masked crazed killer, with the most shocking ending in the whole series!

Along with it's Hilarious Cameos, Scream 3 is a perfect ending to the so-loved series. If you haven't seen this one, Go!
15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ghostface is Back AGAIN?
Alyssa Black (Aly200)9 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, that masked psycho with the "Scream" mask has returned for a third round of murderous rampaging. The first victim of his wrath is duo film survivor Cotton Weary (played by a pre "X-Men" Liev Schrieber) when he fails to reveal the whereabouts of the reclusive survivor, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell)who is now hiding on an isolated estate as a crisis hot-line operator. When the murderer begins to leave pictures of Sidney's deceased mother, Sidney is soon drawn to the set of "Stab 3" (based on her experiences from the previous films)alongside her fellow survivors, reporter Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox-Arquette) and retired officer Dewey Riley (David Arquette). Other players such as Parker Posey, Emily Mortimer and Scott Foley as members of the film-within-a- film join the three original cast members (with a brief cameo by Jamie Kennedy as Randy Meeks with posthumous advice to survive a trilogy). However, this third installment lacks the real scares that unnerve audiences in the first two films. You can easily predict the timing of the phone calls and the murders. If you want actual scares, then watch the first and/or second film.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Solid, satisfying ending to the trilogy
spawn7774 February 2000
I was extraordinarily impressed with this movie, mainly due to the continuity displayed with the rest of the series despite the absence of the series creator, Kevin Williamson. Equally funny and scary, it was definitely a fit ending to the series. Aside from the main returning characters, Parker Posey and Patrick Dempsey stood out as excellent additions to a series that is unbelievably adept at snagging character actors that rise above their usual efforts. The story stretched further than the first movie, but it developed an excellent back-story to tie everything together and still remain self-referential. Randy's cameo was great, and definitely helped raise the stakes for the usual surprise ending. If only all fun movies could be made this rich.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
btwright4 February 2000
I just got back from watching this and... wow. I expected some cheese and a little bit of light amusement. Instead I got what I consider to be one of the best of the trilogy. Randy's advice from the grave was great. My only complaint was the way the supporting cast was shuffled off to the side after a while. And it's about time some one figured out that a handgun might just be a good defense against a knife... especially if every time you turn around your friends are getting turned into fish food. Overall a great film and as Wes Craven's last horror movie (by his own words) a fine way to go out.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews