Horror films usually come in one of two varieties - those that are the trendsetters and the rest that are boring and uneventful due to stealing and/or trying to capitalize on the successes of the former group. While one could assume that every variation of that genre has been explored and that consequently few new additions would be made to that former group, every so often a film or two comes along that shakes up the conventions and becomes a big hit.
In the past, pictures such as "The Exorcist" and "Halloween" did just that, while two from 1999 - "The Sixth Sense" and "The Blair Witch Project" - proved that putting a fresh spin on the genre can create both artistic and box office success.
Of course, back in 1996 a barely known fellow by the name of Kevin Williamson did the same with his script that became the original "Scream." Simultaneously paying homage to and poking fun at the conventions of the slasher film subcategory, Williamson and horror veteran director Wes Craven reinvigorated the genre, particularly among the teen audience.
Its success naturally led to the 1997 sequel, "Scream 2," a similarly constructed film filled with witty cinematic observations mixed with traditional horror material. Not surprisingly, it was also a big success, which had now led to several problems directly related to the latest installment, "Scream 3," the last chapter of what's now being labeled as a trilogy.
As such, it's turned into what it once spoofed, a mostly unimaginative horror flick filled with fodder-based characters who do the stereotypically dumb things that such characters in these types of films always do. Part of that's tied to the fact that Dimension put this film on the fast track and thus ended up taking original scribe Williamson - who was reportedly burdened with too many other projects to deliver a script in time for the producers - and replacing him with hot, new writer, Ehren Kruger ("Arlington Road," the upcoming "Reindeer Games"). While the screenwriter's other efforts have been quite good, the rush job put on this project is more than evident.
Although a few of the observational moments that made the first film stand out are present here (such as a brief, but funny moment with Carrie Fisher regarding "Star Wars"), there's clearly not enough of them to lift the picture out of the "been there, seen that" variety. Of course, there are probably only so many such observations that can be made about the horror genre in general, not to mention that their novelty has more than worn off now, this, the third time around. Not surprisingly then, hoping and/or thinking that this film could match the wit of the first is a wasted effort.
Thus, with that element lacking, director Wes Craven ("Music of the Heart," "A Nightmare on Elm Street") tries to milk the "film within a film" material, but such efforts also fall decidedly short. While diehard fans of the series might get a kick out of seeing the locale of the first film recreated here as a movie set for the fictitious "Stab 3" film, and others might chuckle at independent film queen actress Parker Posey ("The House of Yes," "Henry Fool") doing her best job imitating Courteney Cox playing Gale Weathers, the results are only mediocre at best (although Posey is easily the best thing the film has to offer this time around). I kept waiting for the film to do a better and/or more imaginative job mixing the two worlds (of the fictitious movie and "reality") to keep both the characters and the audience off balance about what was really occurring. Alas, that doesn't happen.
All of which leaves the film with only the horror element and the "big" mystery surrounding the killer's identity to keep audiences interested in the proceedings. Unfortunately, neither offers much in the way of fun or shocking surprises. Despite the earlier installments poking fun at the often ludicrous aspects of the genre, this one falls prey to them, if you will, and ends up being yet another substandard slasher flick.
Part of the problem is that the conventions of this sort of film are now quite tired and predictable. As such, we only get more of the seemingly invulnerable killer stalking and killing the victims who've managed to end up in isolated and dark places, usually in areas in which the killer can hide or that contain many costumes that are identical to what the killer wears.
Then there's the fact that beyond the intended but not always successful cat and mouse suspense moments, the bogeyman slasher character simply isn't that scary. Although all of the films have given the killer a menacing voice (that often sounds like a deranged Michael Douglas but is actually supplied by Roger L. Jackson) and here use a vocal translator gizmo that makes it sound exactly like anyone else (and thus belongs in a James Bond film and not a horror flick), the villain is nothing short of flat.
That's especially true once the mask comes off (truly a let down for all of the hype surrounding the film's "big" twists and surprises), and for those who scoff at such a notion, they can answer the following. Who's the most frightening of this grouping: Jason from "Friday the 13th," Michael Myers from "Halloween," the killer here, or Hannibal Lecter from "The Silence of the Lambs?" It's obviously the latter and that's because Anthony Hopkins' take on that multi-dimensional character offers far more than simple impersonal and superficial shocks.
It also doesn't help that the rest of the characters here are similarly flat in construction. While they fulfill their obligatory and concluding progression from the first two films, Neve Campbell ("Wild Things," "Three to Tango"), Courteney Cox Arquette ("Ace Ventura, Pet Detective," TV's "Friends") and David Arquette ("Never Been Kissed," the first two "Scream" films) can't do much with their characters. Others, such as Scott Foley (making his debut), Patrick Dempsey ("Outbreak," "Can't Buy Me Love") and Jenny McCarthy ("Diamonds," "Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead") pretty much find themselves in the same creaky boat without so much as a paddle to get themselves out of this mess.
I'm sure the film will score big box office numbers and will probably play well to its target audience that's most likely salivating over how things will turn out. For the rest of us, however, the fact that the film has become what it once spoofed and simply isn't that effective or imaginative in trying to induce the goose bumps means that it's a boring disappointment.
While I'll freely admit to never having been much of a big fan of this overrated series, I'll take a well-crafted and genuinely creepy and spooky film such as "The Sixth Sense" any day over pablum like this. As such, "Scream 3" rates as just a 3 out of 10.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
