Read Mixed User Reviews for Scream 3

4

grandpajoe6191Sep 24, 2011

They say third time's a charm. Well, wait until you see "Scream 3", and then you WILL 'scream'.

4 of 13 users found this helpful49

All this user's reviews

4

SpangleOct 29, 2017

The third entry in the iconic slasher movie spoof franchise, Scream 3 is a film that still maintains the same level of fun as its predecessors and is mildly scary, but it is such a mess in execution that it is hard to claim Scream 3 isThe third entry in the iconic slasher movie spoof franchise, Scream 3 is a film that still maintains the same level of fun as its predecessors and is mildly scary, but it is such a mess in execution that it is hard to claim Scream 3 is actually a good film. Due to horrible acting, too many meta references to the series itself, and an annoying continuance of calling out classic slasher tropes only for that exact element to be included in the film, Scream 3 falls apart. However, where the film truly sputters is in how it strives to just re-create the original film through not just references, but by literally returning to the set itself. Trying too hard to be irreverent and funny in depicting that level of metahorror, Scream 3 just winds up stepping in the same footprints as the original and the sequel, while falling into all of the same pitfalls along the way.

One of the worst elements of this franchise is the inclusion of Randy or anybody who explains what this entry of a horror franchise typically includes. It is funny to some degree in calling out classic horror franchises and how true it often is, but in the context of the film itself, it just serves to sum up this film too much. Scream 3 is one of those spoof franchises that believes it can use the same tropes as the films it spoofs as long as it calls out how it is a trope and places its tongue firmly against its cheek. Unfortunately for Scream 3 and any other film that tries this, it only winds up being incredibly annoying to watch. Scream 3 knows exactly how silly the third entry in a horror franchise can get with unstoppable killers and revisionist history in the series, yet it opts to go full bore into both issues and more. It hardly even spoofs them anymore either, it just mocks the tropes and then uses those same tropes, which somehow makes it worse than the films it mocks due to this self-referential angle. In the same vein, Scream 3 cannot help but mention the events of the past films. Though it creates a compelling case in this film with the resurgence of a killer who leaves behind pictures of Maureen Prescott, the film's continuous referencing of the prior films feels like the new writer trying to remind himself of what happened as it progressed through the script. Every scene seems to have at least one reference to past events that brings newcomers to the series up to speed and allowed the writer to remember for himself. For those who watched the first two, Scream 3 winds up embodying the worst quality of many sequels in how it wrongly believes that just because it tosses in this fan service, it can get away with not being that good in its own right and just rehashing what made the originals so good. This does not work in the film and, together with its meta humor about the horror genre as a whole, Scream 3's reliance upon plot rehashes and refusal to innovate on its general narrative (once more, the film is just Sidney running from Scream with the help of Gale and Dewey, which is tiresome by this point) winds up turning this sequel into a poor re-enactment of its predecessors. Though still mildly fun and scary, Scream 3 just plays like a reminder that, if you do like these characters and scenarios, your time would be better spent watching its predecessors.

Where Scream 3 is successful, however, is in its setting. While it does derive some horror from the inclusion of Maureen's ghostly voice, Scream 3's setting on the set of the fictional film Stab 3 and how it uses it to critique Hollywood is rather fun to watch. In many ways, Scream 3 is almost more of a critique of the Hollywood system than it is of horror films. Critiquing the way in which women have to sleep with men for parts, the way in which they are abused by powerful men, how serious directors have to make crappy sequels to get clout, and how stupid sequels are in general, Scream 3 is a film that is deeply Hollywood and yet it is unafraid to mock Hollywood and call out the abuses in place. The irony that Harvey Weinstein produced the film does seem lost on Scream 3, however. Fortunately, the smart critiques of Hollywood are not lost with the film having a fun time traversing the minefield that is Hollywood and mocking the absurd system that gave rise to a third, unnecessary Scream film.

Mildly funny and occasionally scary, Scream 3 is a film that is too caught up in calling attention to horror tropes and referencing its predecessors to carve out its own path as either a horror film or a member of the Scream franchise. As a result, it just spoils itself by calling out exactly what will happen and it does so while just following a very similar to the original. Fortunately, the added twist of the Hollywood setting is a nice touch, even if its reveal of the killer and its revisionist history about the previous films is really stupid (dumber than usual too since it said it would happen).… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

4

MovieMasterEddyApr 6, 2016

They say the third time's a charm. In the case of the Scream movie series, the Wes Craven/Kevin Williamson collaboration credited for having revived the slasher genre in the '90s, this cliché proves to be a falsehood. The most recent (andThey say the third time's a charm. In the case of the Scream movie series, the Wes Craven/Kevin Williamson collaboration credited for having revived the slasher genre in the '90s, this cliché proves to be a falsehood. The most recent (and hopefully final) chapter in the comedy/horror trilogy comes across as a lame regurgitation of material already presented. There are no real surprises, and the whole affair has the feeling of something left too long in the pot to stew. The life and energy is gone. What began as a lively, intelligent series suffused with self-referential humor has turned into just another slice-and-dice-by-numbers affair. Scream 3 isn't just the weakest of the movies, it's the kind of thing that the original Scream lampooned with affectionate glee.

Scream 3 features three good moments, but they're hardly enough to save the movie from the tedious spiral of repetitiveness it is trapped in. The first is a from-beyond-the-grave video lecture by Randy (Jamie Kennedy), who offers up the "rules of the trilogy." For example, "events in the third segment always go back to the beginning" and "even the hero can die in the final chapter." (One that he doesn't mention, and which proves true in this case, is that the final installment of any trilogy is usually the worst. The examples Randy cites, Star Wars and The Godfather, are classic examples of this.) Then there's a brief cameo by cult heroes Jay and Silent Bob, who are given a couple of lines (well, at least Jay is. Finally, Carrie Fisher appears as a receptionist who bemoans not having gotten the part of Princess Leia in Star Wars because she wouldn't sleep with George Lucas.

When it comes to storyline, character development, and pacing, Scream 3 strikes out. The movie drags along from one predictable slaying to the next, and the only real scares along the way are the "boo!" moments when something innocuous jumps out of the shadows just before the real killer strikes. Meanwhile, the level of humor in Scream 3 is way down. Parker Posey (as the actress playing Gale in the Stab series) has a few amusing lines, but the ironic dialogue and cute references to other horror films, which were wearing thin in Scream 2, are now positively threadbare.

Once, I wrote that Scream 3 would have to do something radical or inventive to avoid becoming tiresome. Unfortunately, there's nothing here that even the most inexperienced horror film fan would call innovative, and the predictable result is a movie that pales in comparison with its predecessors. Thus far, 2000 has been a very bad year for films, and Scream 3 does nothing to reverse the trend.… Expand

1 of 7 users found this helpful16

All this user's reviews

5

RogerSmith97Apr 19, 2011

Overall I Am Really Not Sure What To Score This Film..
Scream Was Good, And Scream 2 Rocked, But Scream 3??
Some Things In This Movie Were Done Very Well.. Neve Campbell Does A Great Job, As Well As Courtney Cox, But David Arquat Is A VeryOverall I Am Really Not Sure What To Score This Film..
Scream Was Good, And Scream 2 Rocked, But Scream 3??
Some Things In This Movie Were Done Very Well.. Neve Campbell Does A Great Job, As Well As Courtney Cox, But David Arquat Is A Very Bad Actor.. He Needed To Be Cut Off From Ruining This Movie.. Dewey Go!
In Some Spots There Are Really Bad Writing.. But In Others Its Very, Very, Good...
Overall This Is Not A Bad Movie Or A Good Movie.. It's Just A Movie :)… Expand

1 of 12 users found this helpful111

All this user's reviews

5

Mrman69Jul 27, 2020

1 of 12 users found this helpful111

All this user's reviews

5

GavGav96Dec 4, 2010

'Scream 3' still has the familiar traits that made the first two films so dynamic, but the film as a whole proves that Ehren Krueger holds NOTHING to Kevin Williamson.

0 of 10 users found this helpful010

All this user's reviews

6

LordNasebySep 27, 2011

Well, the Scream films just keep going down in quality (Please God let the fourth one be good!!!) It had definite glaring flaws but it still was great fun to watch. Ghostface still has to earn his kills which is a nice thing to see, and thereWell, the Scream films just keep going down in quality (Please God let the fourth one be good!!!) It had definite glaring flaws but it still was great fun to watch. Ghostface still has to earn his kills which is a nice thing to see, and there is a decent amount of cute comedy. The acting is pretty much the same all around. The screenplay was much weaker. There were some parts that were like "okay really? you could have done better than that." It was simply a good time all around. Nothing too special. I wouldn't rank it as high as the first or even the second. But it was fun. My advice: see it as a completion of the trilogy. Particularly if you are going to see the fourth one.

TRIVIA TIME: 1. Wes Craven filmed three different endings and didn't tell the cast which one he was going to use.

2. The bathroom Sidney finds Angelina in on the set of "Stab 3" is the same bathroom used when Sidney is attacked in the original Scream. You can tell by position of doors and soap dispenser design.

3. Between Scream 2 and Scream 3, David Arquette and Courteney Cox (two of the five actors who feature in all the Scream movies) got married. They met on the set of the first movie, were an item whilst shooting the second and by the third they were married. Courteney added 'Arquette' to the end of her name, as can be seen in the credits. Courteney and David had to cut their honeymoon short to begin filming Scream 3.… Expand

0 of 8 users found this helpful08

All this user's reviews

4

DartcherOct 21, 2011

While not a horrible film by any means, Scream 3 certainly doesn't live up to the heights established by its predecessors. It has its good moments, such as Parker Posey's performance as a whole, but all in all, it's not scary nor does itWhile not a horrible film by any means, Scream 3 certainly doesn't live up to the heights established by its predecessors. It has its good moments, such as Parker Posey's performance as a whole, but all in all, it's not scary nor does it deliver any tension. This is a horror film, right? I didn't like how it took a more comedic route; it made the film dwell into self-parody.

Not terrible (as aforementioned), but it definitely isn't good. Not even close.… Expand

0 of 9 users found this helpful09

All this user's reviews

5

BlakePNov 1, 2012

First time around, "Scream 3" is enjoyable and at times funnier than its predecessors. But by the second time, the film drags on-- it lacks the thrills and wit of the first two and instead trades it for more accessible humor that isn't asFirst time around, "Scream 3" is enjoyable and at times funnier than its predecessors. But by the second time, the film drags on-- it lacks the thrills and wit of the first two and instead trades it for more accessible humor that isn't as witty. The replacement of screenwriter Kevin Williamson was a huge mistake. Hopefully Craven has taken notes on what not to do since this film.… Expand

0 of 11 users found this helpful011

All this user's reviews

6

MovieGuysSep 16, 2013

This is where a series gets a little vulnerable and desperate, like a girl looking for a prom date. It tries very hard to get its point across, but it doesn't succeed past being average. The series is on its last leg, and the third one almostThis is where a series gets a little vulnerable and desperate, like a girl looking for a prom date. It tries very hard to get its point across, but it doesn't succeed past being average. The series is on its last leg, and the third one almost tripped it.… Expand

0 of 8 users found this helpful08

All this user's reviews

5

marcmyworksJan 10, 2014

Because of the unfortunate Columbine massacre, Dimension Studios wanted to cut down the amount of gore released in it's films, and Scream 3 was shot more as a 'whodunit' than a horror film. This was the filmmakers first mistake as the movieBecause of the unfortunate Columbine massacre, Dimension Studios wanted to cut down the amount of gore released in it's films, and Scream 3 was shot more as a 'whodunit' than a horror film. This was the filmmakers first mistake as the movie became a little more slapstick than horror. The overall error of this film was it became more a cliche than a commentary to the genre.… Expand

0 of 16 users found this helpful016

All this user's reviews

6

cjm868May 17, 2016

Scream 2 does an awesome job of doing the whole "this is a sequel but we're totally showing you that we're aware we're making a sequel. Look we're explaining the rules to sequels and discussing sequels in film class etc." But I feel like theyScream 2 does an awesome job of doing the whole "this is a sequel but we're totally showing you that we're aware we're making a sequel. Look we're explaining the rules to sequels and discussing sequels in film class etc." But I feel like they were beating that concept to death by the third movie.

"Chapter one sets the rules, chapter two bends the rules, but in the finale... forget the rules."

Sure, Scream 3 raised the stakes (which true-to-form is commented on) but in raising the stakes they messed with part of the plot of the first movie by retconning some plot details in a way I'm not comfortable with.

This is a weird hiccup in the Scream franchise, that I still quite enjoy watching whenever I do watch it, mainly to finish off the Scream trilogy... But it's not a trilogy and hasn't been since 2011! Jesus, I so often forget that there is a Scream 4 but not in an Indiana Jones fanboy refusing to admit there's a forth Indy movie kind of way but I genuinely forget that it exists. It's probably because I have only own 1-3 on DVD and I only watched Scre4m once, the ear it came out. I actually liked it so I'll have to watch it again soon (I've been saying this to myself for nearly 5 years now).

Jay and Silent Bob appear in this movie and for those of you who have't seen this I don't mean Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith have roles, I'm for real telling you that they appear in-character as Jay and Silent Bob. This means that the Scream movies are movies in the View Askewniverse because Wes Craven can be seen filming "Scream 4" in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Which is fun to think about.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

6

bfoore90Aug 24, 2017

Scream 3 is still a solid entry and still very watchable but make no mistake, Scream 3 is the floor for Craven's ultra successful horror franchise. I really felt the Hollywood angle was excessive and really unneeded for this franchise. ApartScream 3 is still a solid entry and still very watchable but make no mistake, Scream 3 is the floor for Craven's ultra successful horror franchise. I really felt the Hollywood angle was excessive and really unneeded for this franchise. Apart from the 4 returning characters, the movie introduces a plethora of new supporting characters. None of them attempt to reach the heights of the originals and you get the sense by film's end that theyre just cannon fodder for Ghost Face.… Expand

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

6

TimeOfTheChimpsJun 15, 2016

While the third film in the trilogy successfully increases the blood and body count while adding to the strong overall narrative, it stumbles due to a few forgettable characters and the ridiculousness of a voice changer that can replicateWhile the third film in the trilogy successfully increases the blood and body count while adding to the strong overall narrative, it stumbles due to a few forgettable characters and the ridiculousness of a voice changer that can replicate anyone's vocal tones.… Expand

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

4

MattBrady99Oct 16, 2021

Not great by any means, but also not that terrible.

However, is it just me or did Wes Craven and writer Ehren Kruger tried to call out Harvey Weinstein, the producer of the movie, because characters constantly kept mentioning "sleeping withNot great by any means, but also not that terrible.

However, is it just me or did Wes Craven and writer Ehren Kruger tried to call out Harvey Weinstein, the producer of the movie, because characters constantly kept mentioning "sleeping with the directors and producers to get certain jobs" and "Hollywood is full of criminals whose careers are flourishing."

Very scary, but not as scary as Courtney Cox’s hair! I mean, what the heck was that!?… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

ryanloveslanaMay 10, 2015

Scream 3 suffers from under-experienced writing from Ehren Kruger. It does not feel like a "Scream movie" rather than a parody or a spoof. I heavily appreciate the cast of Scream 3 (Jenny McCarthy, Parker Posey, and the sexy Scott Foley) andScream 3 suffers from under-experienced writing from Ehren Kruger. It does not feel like a "Scream movie" rather than a parody or a spoof. I heavily appreciate the cast of Scream 3 (Jenny McCarthy, Parker Posey, and the sexy Scott Foley) and the ending.… Expand

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

5

MovieManiac83Apr 22, 2015

They say the third time's a charm. In the case of the Scream movie series, the Wes Craven/Kevin Williamson collaboration credited for having revived the slasher genre in the '90s, this cliché proves to be a falsehood. The most recent (andThey say the third time's a charm. In the case of the Scream movie series, the Wes Craven/Kevin Williamson collaboration credited for having revived the slasher genre in the '90s, this cliché proves to be a falsehood. The most recent (and hopefully final) chapter in the comedy/horror trilogy comes across as a lame regurgitation of material already presented. There are no real surprises, and the whole affair has the feeling of something left too long in the pot to stew. The life and energy is gone. What began as a lively, intelligent series suffused with self-referential humor has turned into just another slice-and-dice-by-numbers affair. Scream 3 isn't just the weakest of the movies, it's the kind of thing that the original Scream lampooned with affectionate glee.

Scream 3 features three good moments, but they're hardly enough to save the movie from the tedious spiral of repetitiveness it is trapped in. The first is a from-beyond-the-grave video lecture by Randy (Jamie Kennedy), who offers up the "rules of the trilogy." For example, "events in the third segment always go back to the beginning" and "even the hero can die in the final chapter." (One that he doesn't mention, and which proves true in this case, is that the final installment of any trilogy is usually the worst. The examples Randy cites, Star Wars and The Godfather, are classic examples of this.) Then there's a brief cameo by cult heroes Jay and Silent Bob, who are given a couple of lines (well, at least Jay is. Finally, Carrie Fisher appears as a receptionist who bemoans not having gotten the part of Princess Leia in Star Wars because she wouldn't sleep with George Lucas.

When it comes to storyline, character development, and pacing, Scream 3 strikes out. The movie drags along from one predictable slaying to the next, and the only real scares along the way are the "boo!" moments when something innocuous jumps out of the shadows just before the real killer strikes. Meanwhile, the level of humor in Scream 3 is way down. Parker Posey (as the actress playing Gale in the Stab series) has a few amusing lines, but the ironic dialogue and cute references to other horror films, which were wearing thin in Scream 2, are now positively threadbare.

Once, I wrote that Scream 3 would have to do something radical or inventive to avoid becoming tiresome. Unfortunately, there's nothing here that even the most inexperienced horror film fan would call innovative, and the predictable result is a movie that pales in comparison with its predecessors. Thus far, 2000 has been a very bad year for films, and Scream 3 does nothing to reverse the trend.… Expand

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

All this user's reviews

5

kyle20ellisMar 26, 2022

Scream 3 has some major problems but I didn't think it was that bad. The production values are great, the score and sound are still effective and the direction and performances are credible. Not to mention GhostFace returns and is still asScream 3 has some major problems but I didn't think it was that bad. The production values are great, the score and sound are still effective and the direction and performances are credible. Not to mention GhostFace returns and is still as iconic and creepy as ever. However, the story is unoriginal and rather pedestrian, and the script is weak with too many unfunny and clichéd lines. When it comes to the scares, there were moments but too many weren't as strong or as genuine. The ending is also silly and predictable, and apart from GhostFace the characters are not as interesting. All in all, not bad but disappointing. 5/10 Bethany Cox… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

filipebensonOct 16, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Em comparação aos outros filmes, este é o piorzinho. Poucas cenas com emoção, trazendo dois assassinos nada surpreendentes. Esperava mais, muito mais.… Expand

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

5

BerCJul 4, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 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.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

5

JPKJul 9, 2019

Succumbs To Sequelitis
Like Shrek The Third, This threequel does not have the charm of it's predecessors.

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

All this user's reviews

4

robertoiglesiasSep 28, 2017

This is the worst movie in the Scream franchise, but it is a decent movie to watch. It wasn't as great as the first two movies, however it did give an enjoyable "ending" of this awesome trilogy.

0 of 7 users found this helpful07

All this user's reviews

6

Sosmooth1982Jan 10, 2023

Sidney has been in hiding. While she's in hiding people are getting killed. This one was just ok. Wasn't as good as the other 2.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

JLauSep 25, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. They're making a film of the film but the director turns out to by Sidney's half-brother who put on a ghost mask and stabbed her friends.… Expand

0 of 13 users found this helpful013

All this user's reviews

4

NOOB234HBKOct 3, 2020

Era innecesaria una 3 como explicarlo no está ala altura de la 1 y 2 pos es entretenida y todo pero se siente forzado como llega syn creo qué la prota era inecesseia pero igual es entretenida pero lo del hermano forxado igual es el ghosfaceEra innecesaria una 3 como explicarlo no está ala altura de la 1 y 2 pos es entretenida y todo pero se siente forzado como llega syn creo qué la prota era inecesseia pero igual es entretenida pero lo del hermano forxado igual es el ghosface que mas a matado pos pa mi el final de la saga es en la 2… Expand

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

All this user's reviews

6

HellHoleHorrorFeb 15, 2022

A slick slasher concluding the trilogy aptly. It contains all the self-referential irony from the first two films and goes further with it to the point of mild annoyance. The death scenes are all through stabbing which is just a little tiredA slick slasher concluding the trilogy aptly. It contains all the self-referential irony from the first two films and goes further with it to the point of mild annoyance. The death scenes are all through stabbing which is just a little tired by now. It barely deviates from the path set by the first two films. Enjoyable but now slightly fluffier than it should be. It will make you jump but it won't make you think.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

villain_editsMar 1, 2022

Sinceramente, achei muito chato, bobo demais em alguns momentos, os personagens são os mais esquecíveis e irritantes da franquia e a revelação do assassino junto com a motivação é uma das coisas mais ridículas que eu já vi em um slasher.Sinceramente, achei muito chato, bobo demais em alguns momentos, os personagens são os mais esquecíveis e irritantes da franquia e a revelação do assassino junto com a motivação é uma das coisas mais ridículas que eu já vi em um slasher. Decepcionante...… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

Troy1986Aug 7, 2022

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Roman deserved better. A few holes that don't make sense. Dipped to much into comedy.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

Fixer84Mar 16, 2023

The weakest of the original trilogy that Wes Craven planned to do. In fact, the conditions for being the final chapter of the saga are all there. Everything is incredibly more exaggerated than normal, just think of the Ghostface kills, likeThe weakest of the original trilogy that Wes Craven planned to do. In fact, the conditions for being the final chapter of the saga are all there. Everything is incredibly more exaggerated than normal, just think of the Ghostface kills, like the one where he blows up the house. Or even the audio recorder where all the other characters' voices are input, a technology that doesn't even exist today. But ultimately the film wants to parody the final chapter of a trilogy of horror films. And, in this, he succeeds, albeit with some reservations.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

GavinCJul 27, 2009

Though producing a scare now and then, it certainly isn't as entertaining as the previous two installments.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

imthenoobFeb 15, 2020

Scream 3 is easily the dumbest film of the series. The character decisions throughout are questionable at best and the fact that the killer now has a voice changer that can replicate any voice with ease is a painfully dumb plot device thatScream 3 is easily the dumbest film of the series. The character decisions throughout are questionable at best and the fact that the killer now has a voice changer that can replicate any voice with ease is a painfully dumb plot device that takes you out of the movie. Forcing it to tie into the previous films with pointless retcons do more harm than good as it prevents the story from being original and unique.

This movie fully leans into the cheesiness of the franchise and is equally bad as Scream 2 but for entirely different reasons.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews