Box art for Scream 3

Scream 3

  • Rated R
  • HD and SD formats available

comedy, horror, thrillers


While Sidney Prescott (Campbell) lives in safely guarded seclusion, bodies begin dropping around the Hollywood set of Stab 3, the latest movie based on the gruesome Woodsboro killings.

Rotten Tomatoes® scores

  • Critic Score
    36%
  • Audience Score
    38%

common sense

PAUSE for kids age 16
Consumerism
0 out of 5
Drinking, drugs, & smoking
0 out of 5
Language
5 out of 5
Positive messages
0 out of 5
Sex
3 out of 5
Violence
5 out of 5

Same violent stuff in hit slasher saga, for the third time.

what parents need to know

Parents need to know that while there's less extreme bloodshed here than in the other Scream features, stabbings and throat-slittings are still abundant, matched with (sometimes exceeded by) the swearing. The movie industry is described as an environment where vapid starlets boost their careers by having sex with influential men. There are ghoulish and defamatory references to the imperiled heroine's late mother throughout, and toward the end the idea of parental rejection comes to the fore as a motive for mass-murder.

what families can talk about

  • Families can talk about how fictitious violence portrayed in entertainment might incite real-life mayhem. They can also talk about whether screen bloodshed has a social effect.

movie reviews from Rotten Tomatoes®

  • Tomatometer®

    36%
    reviews counted: 8
    see all Scream 3 reviews
  • Audience

    38%

Top Critic Reviews

Rotten:

- Bob Grimm, Sacramento News & Review, Thursday, August 7, 2008

Fresh:

- Chuck Walton, Hollywood.com, Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Fresh:

- Eugene Novikov, Film Blather, Wednesday, October 6, 2004

Audience Reviews

2 stars

A shoddy, unnecessary sequel to an overall impressive series concerning horror films and their construction, this time dealing with the production aspect of it where Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is drawn back into a sadistic killer's cross-hairs yet again. The thing that made the 'Scream' movies so enjoyable was its self-referential sense of humor. Unlike the first two installments, this one really does not contain any of that and instead sprints ahead into exactly the kinds of movies it is supposed to be making fun of. Not very memorable performances from anyone, and a lot of predictability that makes it boring after awhile. A real disappointment considering the fact that "Scream 2" was arguably better than "Scream", so the creators of these films definitely showed they had the potential to get better as they went along. This is not the case.

- fb619846742, Saturday, September 22, 2012

2 stars

A shoddy, unnecessary sequel to an overall impressive series concerning horror films and their construction, this time dealing with the production aspect of it where Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is drawn back into a sadistic killer's cross-hairs yet again. The thing that made the 'Scream' movies so enjoyable was its self-referential sense of humor. Unlike the first two installments, this one really does not contain any of that and instead sprints ahead into exactly the kinds of movies it is supposed to be making fun of. Not very memorable performances from anyone, and a lot of predictability that makes it boring after awhile. A real disappointment considering the fact that "Scream 2" was arguably better than "Scream", so the creators of these films definitely showed they had the potential to get better as they went along. This is not the case.

- fb619846742, Saturday, September 22, 2012

2 stars

With the success of the Scream series, the powers that be decided to make the film into a trilogy (for the time being anyway) and bring Wes Craven back to close out the series with a bang. Unfortunately, this is likely the least film of the entire series. What started out as a slasher film poking fun at the genre quickly descends into schlock, and feels very much like it lost touch with what its original intentions were. Scream 3 reunites Wes Craven with Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox and David Arquette from the first three films, but missing altogether is Kevin Williamson, the writer of the first two films. The dialogue is incredibly bad and the film is so poorly acted that it's amazing. The story also takes so many steps backwards and feels the need to dig into the first film for ideas instead of coming up with something fresh that moves the series along. I was also simultaneously laughing and pissed off at Jamie Kennedy's reappearance. I was thrilled when he was killed off in the second film, but now they have to go back and dig him up for comments about the film being the third in a trilogy. It's really hackneyed and awful. Overall, the film failed to impress or entertain me as much the previous films, and here's hoping that the fourth film can improve upon that.

- FilmFanatik, Monday, February 20, 2012