Dimension Films | Release Date: February 4, 2000
8.7
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 467 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
380
Mixed:
63
Negative:
24
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
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 0 users found this helpful00
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 0 users found this helpful00
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 0 users found this helpful00
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 0 users found this helpful00
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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 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 1 users found this helpful01
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 1 users found this helpful01
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 3 users found this helpful03
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 4 users found this helpful04
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 3 users found this helpful03
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 5 users found this helpful05
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 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
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 8 users found this helpful44
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 Very
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 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
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
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 4 users found this helpful04
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