- rent from $2.99
Same violent stuff in hit slasher saga, for the third time.
what parents need to know
what families can talk about
Tomatometer®reviews counted: 8see all Scream 3 reviews
Top Critic Reviews
When this come out this was my favorite of the 3. I absolutely loved the ending as I felt it really tied the trilogy together and gave some closure to the 1st movie's ending that I felt was missing. Going back, the movie is the worst of the 3 but has the best ending I feel. There are quite a few laughs, but overall, just a standard horror sequel that a lot of horror franchises fall into. There is one thing about the original Scream trilogy(haven't seen 4 yet, so I can't include it quite yet) that I like and really separates it from most other horror franchises. It never strayed from the original story or characters. Take "Halloween" for example, the first 2 were about Laurie Strode. The 3 through 6 strayed completely from the original concept except for Michael Myers(well 3 didn't even have him in it). So kudos for tieing them together, but overall not the best horror series, but not the worst either. I'd definitely say there somewhere in the middle of the pack, but I'm looking forward to number 4.
- fb100000145236770, Sunday, April 17, 2011
While the second film could have doen a lot more with it's premise and dealing with the issues of sequels, this once really could have done a lot more with the concept of the trilogy and the issues with third parts. Much like the fictional Stab films, I feel like this was a rushed quick cash in made with as little care or thought as the previous ones. That's funny in the referential sense, but it is a disappointment since this was meant to be the last one. Yeah, it does wrap some stuff up, and, even though it makes little sense and is convoluted, it does connect back to the first, so that's cool. Still though, they could have done better justice to things. I blame the lack of Kevin Williamson. Taht, and the lack of mayhem. Yeah, it had the same body count as Scream 2, but far less blood this time. Here's some comparisons: Scream used 50 gallons of fake blood, Scream 2 used 30 gallons, and this one used 10. Ive got no problem with leaving stuff to the imagination (especially if you trade gore for atmosphere and suspense), but this film is the least thriilling of the trilogy and the funniest. It feels like a slap in the face. I mean, there were some things I enjoyed, and I'm close to giving it a mild pass, but I dunno. I hate getting on the bandwagon and hate on this one, but they just seemed to not really care with this one, and that's unfortunate. See it just to complete the original saga, but don't expect to be blown away.
- cosmo313, Friday, April 15, 2011
Scream is back, and more boring and cliche than ever! Sadly, I thought that this third instalment was going to be just as great as the first two films, because Wes Craven proved that he knows hows to make at least a duo of terrific films; However, he definitely does not know how to spawn a trilogy. It still has the style that I have come to love in the previous films, which is why I give it some credit, but when a film is supposed to be satirizing horror film cliches, and it just flat out gives you the same scares over and over again with no real terror that the first films had proven, it just falls by the wayside. Still, I love the scream character, the actors are great, but I just cannot see this franchise going any further. Craven will have to pull something from his ass to get this franchise back to superstardom. I am very upset to see one of the greatest horror flicks of all time be given such a cheesy threequel.
- fb733768972, Friday, April 15, 2011