Scream 3 -- *** (out of ****)
Film Criticism By Zachary McGhee Rated R (excessive violence, language), 110 minutes, 2000. Dimension. Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox Arquette, David Arquette, Parker Posey, Patrick Dempsey, Jenny McCarthy, Scott Foley, Liev Schreiber. Directed by Wes Craven.
There was a lot riding on this movie. Everyone even moderately interested in the "Scream" series was dying to know how it would end. What would be the "final act"? This is the end of an era for them, a movie which has kept them up nights searching for clues on the Internet, talking and tossing around rumors with their equally enthused buddies, and, for kids under 17, those elaborate plots consisting of buying a ticket to one movie and hopping into "Scream" while narrowly escaping those menacing ushers who are only a year or two older than themselves. No need to worry; "Scream 3" is endlessly inventive and entertaining, a fine epilogue to the series that made Kevin Williamson a household name, reinvented the horror genre, and continued in the self-referential, post-modern tradition of Quentin and co.
So, how does the story go? As opposed to what some fanatical Internet sites would have you believe, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), now all-grown-up and constantly dealing with her pass in the constantly tormented sector of her psyche, is not living in Hollywood fulfilling her dream to become an actress, but rather in upstate California, living, understandably, alone in the confines of fences and vast security systems. She works at home as a crisis center affiliate over the phone. But that’s not where the movie starts off. Instead, in a tactic that reminded me of the somewhat similar, and conceptually horrifying, sequence in "Eye For An Eye" (1995), Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), now a big star, drives home to his girlfriend in traffic when the killer calls, demands the location of Sidney’s home, and, when he doesn’t get it, threatens the life of Cotton’s girlfriend Christine, and Cotton can’t do anything to stop him. The rest of the sequence is particularly clever, setting up a constant throughout the picture: the killer has a high-tech electronic voice-changer that tops that of the first two. Not only does he sound unmistakably like talented voice-over artist Roger Jackson (ha, ha), he can now easily duplicate the voices of the lead characters, including Sidney, and the returned Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox Arquette) and Dewey Riley (David Arquette).
At the same time, Stab 3, the third film-within-a-film based around the characters and events of Woodsboro and Windsor College, has taken a less authentic approach this time around in Return To Woodsboro; whereas the account of the first two films was true, the franchise within "Scream" has now become totally fictional. Nevertheless, we learn, Cotton made an appearance in the movie which is now in production, as himself to be killed off in the first scene. So, it seems that the real killer is offing our heroes in the order in which they bite it in the movieâ€'either the actor portraying them, or the real thing. Sometimes both. Clever, indeed. But, who goes next? No one knows. Three different scripts were penned, we’re told, to keep the true finale off the Internet (a nod to the "Scream" 2 fiasco a few years back) and no one knows for sure which one the killer read.
Still, all the while Sidney stays concealed in her home, only visiting dad for the first half-hour of the film, while also having horrifying visions of her mother, which takes us back a bit to Sidney’s fear of becoming what her mother wasâ€'or, at least, what her mother was secretly. When Sidney finally ventures out to Hollywood as the murders become more prevalent, she’s chased onto the set of Stab 3, wandering through "Woodsboro," written and directed as an odd, surreal, nightmare indeed, this is one of "Scream 3"’s finest moments.
Okay, over the years, I’ll admit that I’ve become quite the "Scream" fan. No, I don’t have the Ghostface costume or the director’s cut laserdisc, but I often find myself compelled to pop in the DVD of either member of the preceding duo, and can get quite caught up in the dramatic element of these films (yes, I said "dramatic element"), sometimes debating with family and friends the possibilities and endless theories that have become quintessentially affiliated with "Scream".
Throughout the film, though, I noticed a much more subtle approach than the other two films. Granted that there’s stabbin-a-plenty going on throughout, but there’s considerably less blood, less gore. Honestly, I like this approach. It’s more classical, more rebellious, constantly demonstrating the capable direction of Wes Craven. He knows when to hold back and at the same time makes the movie ooze with energy, illustrating the delicate poise flowing from his years of experience. Some critics have noted that "Scream 3" seems to take itself more seriously this time; maybe so, or maybe screenwriter Ehren Kruger (Arlington Road), who took over after Williamson had scheduling conflicts, saw an opportunity for true ironyâ€'maybe even a little bit of satireâ€'if the film worked in a few more clichés.
What puts a damper on this otherwise exceptional and creative film, I’m afraid, is the ending, or, rather, the identity of the killer. It does the job, I guess, accomplishes what it should, bringing the three films full circle, but upon my first viewing it seemed rather dissatisfying because it appears a little too contrived, too arbitrary; after a second viewing, which I endeavored upon due to this recurring disapprobation, the killer’s identity still seems a little too random, but his motivation came across more sound this time around, and the eventual conclusion was ultimately more satisfying.
All in all, "Scream 3" does not fall victim to the most lamented principle of a trilogy: it is not the worst of the films. As a trilogy, "Scream" was a lot of fun; refreshing, humorous, offbeat. Almost sad to see it go. But then, it does seem best to quit while you’re ahead, and "Scream 3" does a fine job of providing closure to its characters. For now, "Scream" holds the title as the finest series of horror films to be committed to celluloid. Not too shabby.
-Copyright 2000 Zachary McGhee
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews