Scream 3 - *** out of ****

With "Scream 4" filming at this time, perhaps I should try to get you up to speed about the first three. "Scream" was a refreshing breath of fresh air and a perfect example of a parody by showing you how the slasher genre is done while poking fun at the logical fallacies inherent in the genre. I would give it no less than ***+, and the only reason I hesitate to give it that extra half would be the fact that the movie feels a little dated. Perhaps this is because every slasher movie made since its release uses it as an example, but from the classic opening sequence to the smart finale, "Scream" is seriously fun, quite scary, and tongue-in-cheek hilarious.

"Scream 2" wasn't quite as good, but what saves the film is the brilliant ending twist. It's something you can't predict but seems obvious when you think about it. There's a great kill scene in broad daylight on a crowded campus, a scary 'yell-at-the-screen' opening, and most of all, it features Neve Campbell in her role. I say that it's her role because apart from "Wild Things," I never watched or even heard of a single film she's done. Although she may be making a comeback with "Vivaldi," which is in pre-production, she will always be known as The Scream Actress.

And now onto "Scream 3." I have to say that I was disappointed, otherwise I would be lying to myself. I wanted to enjoy it, but it felt like, as most critics have said, the movie that "Scream" was parodying. There is some great humor in the situations, such as an actress' encounter with Ghostface in prop storage, played well I must say by Jenny McCarthy. There are some throwaway gags (one 'point-at-the-screen' joke involving two comic heroes), but it's really the most fun the less you think about it. I decidedly turned off my brain and just let the movie flow over me, but you know what to expect when the movie shows one single camera shot of something seemingly meaningless or tries to make you think who the killer is. I didn't predict the killer, but I knew what was going to happen at many parts.

Predicting the killer is easy for some people who know the twists. You've watched enough movies to know some of the cliches, including suspecting the person who has the least screentime, the person who is wrongly accused, and the person who may not be quite dead. I won't say who it is in this review, but needless to say, one of those three cliches in the last sentence is true.

"Scream 3" doesn't have any grotesquely gory parts, so if you're hoping to see Casey Becker's guts again, you'll be disappointed. This isn't a flaw within the movie because usually when a movie tries to keep the focus on the suspense, situation, or drama instead of what bodily fluids could be shown, the director wants to say something. Maybe not in every case, but think about it. The main reason people I talk to want to see the new "Saw" movies isn't because of the villain but because of the disgusting ways victims are tortured/killed using unnecessary silly machines. Why would you create a device like a reverse bear trap to shove in someone's mouth? Why would you make a heavy necklace with shotgun shells? Why would you want to show a device that breaks someone's limbs one at a time? I guess someone never heard of Alfred Hitchcock or the word 'subtlety.'

"Scream 3" is worth seeing because of its focus on the people, the past, and the suspense instead of the gore. I do wish some nail-biter scenes were drawn out more, and I would have liked a better surprise ending (if you're going to make an ending that doesn't quite make sense, go for the gold). I feel like a pain complaining about Wes Craven's best work (yes, I liked the trilogy better than the original "Nightmare on Elm Street"), so I'm going to end my review here. It's not the best one by far, but it came with the Scream Triple Pack I picked up, so I watched it. Buy it for the first two, and on a boring night, throw in the third. Maybe if "Scream 4" is fun, get up-to-date.

Rated R for strong horror violence and language.
Buy it here.