Scream 3 is the one where the franchise ran out of steam, and it is not hard to see why. Written without Kevin Williamson, shot under the shadow of the Columbine shootings which prompted significant tonal softening, and set in Hollywood in a way that prioritises celebrity cameos over genuine horror, it is the weakest entry in the original trilogy by some distance. It is not unwatchable. But it is a significant step down from what came before.
At a Glance
Director: Wes Craven
Runtime: 116 minutes
Starring: Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Patrick Dempsey, Scott Foley, Lance Henriksen
Release: 2000
Critics Rating: ★★ (2/5 stars, the weakest of the original trilogy)
Audience Rating: ★★½ (2.5/5 stars, disappointing)
Review Breakdown
Plot
Sidney Prescott, living in isolation under a false name, is drawn back when a new Ghostface begins killing the cast of Stab 3 in Hollywood. The Hollywood setting is a fun idea that the film does not develop with enough wit or enough genuine horror to justify. The Ghostface revelation is the franchise's least satisfying, a villain whose backstory feels contrived and whose motivation generates almost no emotional impact. The film's rules-of-a-trilogy discussion is the franchise's least inspired piece of meta-commentary.
Characters
Neve Campbell does her best with material that does not give Sidney much to do until the final act, and her performance is the film's most reliable element. Courteney Cox and David Arquette are given the franchise's most purely comedic treatment of their characters, which is fun but feels like a distraction from what the film should be doing. Scott Foley's Roman Bridger is the franchise's least interesting major villain, a character whose reveal generates more confusion than satisfaction.
Tone
The film is considerably lighter and less frightening than its predecessors, a consequence of both the post-Columbine tonal adjustments and the absence of Williamson's sharp screenplay. It is more of a horror comedy than a genuine horror film, which would be fine if the comedy were sharper. The celebrity cameos, including Carrie Fisher and Roger Corman, are amusing but feel like the film is more interested in winking at the audience than actually scaring them.
Direction
Craven directs competently but without the invention and energy of the first two films. The Hollywood setting gives the film a distinctive visual identity, but the horror sequences lack the spatial intelligence and tension of the franchise's finest passages. Marco Beltrami's score remains reliable.
Cultural Reception
Scream 3 received mixed reviews on its release and was a commercial success despite the critical disappointment, though it grossed less than its predecessors. It is now widely regarded as the franchise's low point in the original trilogy, and the absence of Kevin Williamson's screenplay is frequently cited as the primary reason for its creative shortcomings. It did, however, prompt Craven and Williamson to reunite for Scream 4 eleven years later, which proved considerably more worthwhile.
Who Should Watch
Franchise completists who want the full picture. Go in knowing it is the weakest of the original trilogy and you will find it perfectly watchable, if not particularly memorable. The Hollywood setting is fun, and Campbell is always worth watching.
Final Verdict: The franchise's weakest original trilogy entry, a film that traded genuine horror for comedy and celebrity cameos and ended up with neither in sufficient quantity. Campbell is reliable as ever, but Roman Bridger is the franchise's least interesting villain and the meta-commentary is the series' least inspired. Scream 3 needed Scream 4 to remind everyone what the franchise was capable of.
0 comments