New posts

A little forum update...We're planning an upgrade.

Find out more about what's planned and how you can help support the forum
Click here for the details

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mel O&#039;Drama" data-source="post: 298244" data-attributes="member: 23">It didn't. A few thoughts on last nights rewatch of Scream 3: <img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdsreleasedates.com%2Fposters%2F800%2FS%2FScream-3-movie-poster.jpg&f=1&nofb=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="width: 542px" />Even the first time I watched this it felt very much like an inferior product. At the very best, it's a different genre. The original Scream was satirical, but at its heart was always a good thriller, played more or less straight, that had the power to shock. The problem facing any attempt at a sequel was that Scream had already pushed its knowing, self-referential elements to the limits, knowing just how far to go in order to stay the right side of silly (and even that film had Ghostface walking round a supermarket in broad daylight). It was almost impossible to take these things further and be taken as seriously. Scream 2 was as good a sequel tonally as we could expect. Scream 3 takes entirely the wrong approach. It's no longer a witty satire of the horror genre. Instead it's become a bizarre parody of the existing Scream films. The balance of comedy and horror is skewed completely the wrong way: it's now a broad comedy with a few jump scares and stabbings. If Scary Movie (coming a few months after Scream 3) was a redundant film by virtue of the fact that it spoofed a film that was already a subtle satire, it's even less needed with Scream 3 fouling its franchise's own nest and becoming a silly Scream cash-in played for laughs. Meta elements are taken to ridiculous levels, with characters interacting with Stab versions of themselves and running around a film set version of Woodsboro. Worst of all, most of the comedy isn't very funny, with perhaps the original trilogy's nadir being the moment where Ghostface flings a knife at Dewey (complete with "whoop whoop whoop" sounds as we follow it through the air) and its blunt end connects with Dewey, knocking him down the stairs. It's just dire. Its saving grace in the funny department is Parker Posey doing her usual eccentric OTT thing (playing an actress named Jennifer Jolie who's recently dated Brad Pitt. Hmmm). If we must watch a comedy instead of a Scream film, I'm glad she's part of it. But really, it seems very wrong in a Scream film that an actress playing an actress playing Gale should be far, far more watchable than Gale herself. Courteney Cox Arquette is in full-on Friends mode here, which seems pointless considering she sought the role of Gale to get away from that kind of image. In good news, with everyone else hamming it up, David Arquette's overacting doesn't irritate quite as much as it did in Scream 2. While Jamie Kennedy's return is very welcome, I don't enjoy the contrivance of him pre-empting Dewey's reactions and conversing with him via a pre-recorded video.Speaking of contrivances, there are a number present in this film and a couple really jar. Firstly, there's Roman's apparently fearful comment that his decapitated award was some kind of message from the killer. It plays up his (apparent) naivety and gets a little laugh, but it makes no sense whatsover by film's end. This film also has the silliest death with Tom Prinze being blown up by CGI in a Final Destination moment. But really, why would all the characters do exactly what the killer wants them to by running outside right on cue. And once outside, why would Tom then return inside. And just why did no-one smell the gas? Even within this reality, there's no logic at all behind this sequence.The Stab franchise - introduced at the beginning of the first sequel - is to blame for making Ghostface almost a legend within the reality of the series. The more something is known, the less frightening it becomes, and Scream 3 builds on that trend by not only showing him far too much, but also by taking away any mystique he had in the first film. We visit costume departments where rows of sparkly Ghostface costumes are hanging, reminding us of the illusion behind filmmaking and undermining any fear the costume might invoke if shown judiciously. The opening act has a Ghostface POV over which we hear his altered voice. And by film's end, he's standing having a lengthy natter with Sidney in a room with not a shadow to be seen. That said, Scott Foley makes the best of his character's arc and does convince in a role that involves duality. Patrick Dempsey is great as Detective Mark Kinkaid, who is intense enough to give the audience doubt, but also has a rugged leading man quality that allowed me to root for him to connect with Sid. There's also the ever-reliable Lance Henriksen. The (all-too-brief) return of Liev Schreiber. And Kelly Rutherford (best known to me from Kindred: The Embraced and Melrose Place) brings something to the opening act. There's even Carrie Fisher, mining gold from a thanklessly clunky cameo as an actress who looks like Carrie Fisher. Most of the film can be summed up in four words: Great Actors/Terrible Writing.There are moments of genuine heart, most of which come from Neve Campbell. Thank God someone was taking this seriously or it would have been even more of a mess. I enjoyed Sid's scenes with her father (far less so, her mother), and she had great chemistry with Patrick Dempsey's character. Without exception, the Sid scenes are great. They are the reason this film works at all, and I'm sure a clever editor could re-cut the whole film around these (and perhaps some deleted footage) to give us a film much closer in tone to the first two.</blockquote>

Verification: Who played JR Ewing?