Scream 3 (2000)

Scream was a classic and Scream 2 was pretty close to it and they are both a couple of my favorite movies. Scream 3 is good. Like you still have the original cast and everything. Just it was starting to become more predictable. Which I guess isn't the movie's fault. Scream 4 was fun too! But I still think nothing can beat the first two movies.

The main reason I thought Scream was so good was the way it played with fans' expectations. It said 'Here's what usually happens in the genre, and here's what we're going to do'. Sometimes that was to totally subvert a genre convention and sometimes it was to follow one, having first pointing out that it was one. I thought it added a lot of humour to the film, as well as being very clever. With Scream 2 we got more subversion and more of a kind of knowing wink, which was delicious. With the third, imaginatively titled Scream 3, we got something that appears to going somewhere new and interesting, but soon became a little run-of-the-mill and very predictable. In short, it turned into the very kind of stuff that the original and the follow-up were lampooning. OK, there are moments in this which are worth a giggle, but I wasn't rubbing my hands together with delight at how clever it was, as I had done with the first two. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that, as the movie progresses, it gets sillier and more contrived. It pains me to say it, having loved the first two, but, the trilogy ends, not on a high, how it should have, but rather fizzles out.

The crew returns to make this horror franchise a trilogy. This time, the killer is stalking Hollywood and the stars of a meta movie Stab 3 based on events of Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) and company. Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) and Dewey Riley (David Arquette) also return as wealthy consultants for the films and amateur detectives. The killer starts with Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber) and works their way through the actors in the new film in the order that they die in the script.The movie expounds on trilogies and skewers the shallowness of film stars. Randy (Jamie Kennedy) is revived in a video to explain the rules for the third part and this means that things from the past will come back to haunt the main characters. The plot does come around and connect with the other films though the final explanation comes off as a little flimsy. Wes Craven embraces the campiness of this slasher flick a bit more than the first two.Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com

Two years after the deaths of the second film, and during the filming of a new movie based on the life of Sidney Prescott (who lives at large under another name), a new wave of mysterious murders shakes the film crew and all suspects a new return of the masked psycho. Sidney, suspecting that the killings have some connection with the mysterious past of his deceased mother, decides to go to Hollywood and help the authorities to face the killer. Directed by Wes Craven, has a main cast equal to that of other films.If the other films could be considered parodies, this film only has a few scenes that point in that direction. The whole film is a small crime thriller where the scary scenes don't scare enough to be a horror movie, but manage to put us in the expectation to follow the investigations and see who will be the next victim. This time, we didn't feel any sympathy for the killer because the main characters (Sidney, Dewey, Gale and even Detective Kincaid) evolved dramatically and now shown to be more mature, complex and able to reach the audience in a more effective manner. The only one with which we don't sympathize is Cotton Weary, a guy more interested in their own fame than anything else. The end of the film is remarkable, and it's surprising enough to make us wonder if it really existed, in real life, more cases similar to those of Maureen Prescott.