DVD: In Defense of Scream 3
With all the coverage of the upcoming return of the other Ghostface Killah in Scream 4, lots of pundits have decided to retroactively poop on the series' most recent entry, 2000's Scream 3, as though it were somehow a franchise-destroyer. So with Lionsgate reissuing the first three Scream movies this week for the first time in Blu-ray, let's revisit this maligned chapter. After all, Toy Story 3 notwithstanding, it's hard to get respect when you've got a numeral above "2" in your title.
The story begins with our heroine Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) hiding out in an undisclosed location after all the victimization she faced in the first two movies. But wouldn't you know it, Mr. "Do You Like Scary Movies" comes a-calling again, so Sidney heads to Hollywood where the Stab franchise -- the movies-within-the-movies based on Sidney's travails -- is shooting its third film.
Former deputy Dewey (David Arquette) is on the scene as a technical advisor, and reporter Gale (Courteney Cox, who was appending "Arquette" to her name at the time) gets called in by LAPD detective Mark (Patrick Dempsey) when Cotton (Liev Schreiber) gets skewered. Cotton, you'll recall, was Sidney's mother's lover who was wrongfully imprisoned for her murder, and in this movie, he had just filmed a cameo as the first person in Stab 3 to get killed.
And if you thought that was confusing, wait until you see the Stab counterparts of Sidney, Dewey, and Gale, played by Emily Mortimer, Matt Keeslar, and Parker Posey, respectively. (Did Mortimer use one of those Men in Black mind-wipers to make us all forget she'd been in this movie?) Not to mention the fact that several murders take place on a movie set that is designed to look like Sidney's real hometown of Woodsboro. When Posey's actress character decides she's going into Gale-like investigation mode, we get the film's highlight: a glorious and all-too-brief three-way of sarcasm when Cox and Posey pump studio archivist Carrie Fisher for information.
Scream 3 allowed director Wes Craven to expand on ideas he'd first toyed with in the underrated Wes Craven's New Nightmare. In that earlier film, the Nightmare on Elm Street series was brought into "real" life with Freddy Krueger now pursuing actress Heather Langenkamp (playing herself) and not the character she played in the Nightmare movies. It's an unnerving horror movie with a Brecht/Pirandello twist, and Scream 3 has lots of fun with the movie-Scream- versus-the-"movie"-Stab stuff.
The result occasionally touches on the stuff of actual nightmares -- in dreams, after all, geographic locations get mushed together (the way that Sidney opens one door in the movie set of her house and then emerges in another house altogether) and people we know are "played" by someone else (Scream characters and their Stab counterparts interact throughout).
Granted, the revelation of the killer at the end of the film strains credulity -- but has there ever been a franchise where the actual identity of the murderer matters less? And one wonders what Cox and Dempsey did to anger the cameraman, but that's another matter entirely.
Sure, Scream 3 is the culmination of the snake-head-eating-the-tail brand of self-referentiality for which the movies were popular in the first place. But it does so cleverly, keeping both the laughs and the jolts coming. We should be so lucky to have Scream 4 be as good.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Come on.
Scream 1 and 2 are tremendously well done. Kevin Williamson knows his stuff and the Scream movies were his babies.
When he left (was kicked out) it spelled the end, and Scream 3 is absolutely dreadful as a result of his absence, Ehren Krueger's inclusion and a shit tonne of studio meddling. It's close to unwatchable.
A Jay and Silent Bob cameo? Kiss my ass.
I have a soft spot for "Scream 3". While it doesn't have the panache of the first two films, it still has plenty of scares and laughs and I think it's very entertaining. It's still way scarier than any of the "Saw" movies, that's for sure.
I agree. You put it well. I loved parker posey and courtney cox(not her hair) in this movie. There is something very watchable about this movie. It's a shame it gets a bad wrap.
I'll be honest--I like Scream 3. I think it starts off kinda rough, but Parker Posey is really funny in it, and, honestly, if you just look at it as a comedy, it's entertaining. I understand no one liking it at the time (this movie did not need to be made, and everyone knew that), but if you like to enjoy things, Scream 3 gives you a lot of chances to enjoy yourself.
Ugh, I sound really lame, but I stand by that statement.
Of course Scream 3 wasn't as good as Scream & Scream 2, largely because Kevin Williamson wasn't the writer and Wes Craven only made the movie so he could do something else. But it still had something. There's no denying that it isn't as scary or clever and is semi-predictable, but I think it might have been an adequate trilogy and the perfect way the end the chapter in Sidney's life. Well, until now that is.
There's nothing wrong with Scream 3, there's just something wrong with all the haters out there who can't stand series of films unless every single installment is JUST LIKE the others that came before, with no innovation. This film had innovations (and clever ones) so people decided to hate it before giving it a chance. The killer in Scream 3 was arguably the most sadistic and cunning of any of the ones Sidney and co. faced. He didn't just use the gravelly Ghostface voice, he also "stole" the voices of his intended victims, and used them to turn people against each other, most potently in the opening scene. He taunted Sidney with the voice and image of her murdered mother, and was the only killer that managed to ever "break" her, causing her to go into hysterics after falling out of movie set window. Sure, it had a different writer, but that's because Williamson had a little Scream burn-out going on at the time. Krueger had Williamson's blessing, and he handles the franchise honorably. As for Scream 3 "not needing to happen", um...it was ALWAYS intended to be a trilogy, so that argument should really be levied against the upcoming Scream 4. And, in the aftermath of the "Saw" series suckathon of the last decade since Scream wrapped part 3, I hope no one tries to argue that Scream 4 didn't need to happen. I enjoy the hell out of Scream 3. It goes over the top in some scenes, but so do the first 2 installments. The balance between humor and horror is about the same as in the first two. The knowing self-referentiality of the series remains intact, especially in Jenny McCarthy's well-executed death scene. And the film's climax in the "old Hollywood" home of John Milton, complete with secret rooms and one-way mirrors is classic, sinister, cat and mouse fun. What you have to consider when people crap all over a movie this good is a) the aforementioned point that people really just want the EXACT same movie to be made again, scene by scene, when it comes to series and b) most people do not actually form their own opinions when it comes to movies, they just wait and listen to see what the snobbiest people they know (the ones with their heads furthest up their own butts) have to say about a film, and then they emulate that, often word for word. If a popular film critic craps on a movie, other film critics are afraid they won't be allowed to BE film critics anymore if they contradict them. I feel bad for anyone tasked with writing a series that receives so much cynical scrutiny and pressure put upon it as the Scream franchise. No matter what they do, people are going to complain and pretend it's bad. Scream 3 "didn't need to happen"...pssh. MOVIES IN GENERAL don't NEED to happen!!!! They are escapism! And Scream 3 is a great slice of horror movie escapism. Haters need to stop complaining that it didn't turn out exactly how they would have written it. I doubt they are better screenwriters than Ehren Krueger. They also need to stop acting like their opinion that Scream 3 is a bad film is THE OFFICIAL OPINION OF THE WORLD. It's not. This fine film has legions of fans.
I agree with almost every single thing said in this article. Scream 3 isn't a perfect film but it is a damn good one and there's no justification whatsoever for all the hate it's received. I absolutely love it, just like all the Scream movies. It's funny when people call this movie "witless" without even considering that maybe THEY are just not witty enough to understand what's so smart and entertaining about it.
One thing, though: Several murders do NOT take place on the set of Stab 3 in this movie. I'm not sure where the writer of this article got that idea.