It’s an improvement upon Scream 2, but this movie still doesn’t quite feel like it was necessary to begin with. Supposedly the Scream franchise was originally devised as a trilogy, which goes to show that thinking big isn’t always the best idea.
The best thing that 3 does is bring resolution to the series. Frankly, the first installment stands alone, with competent enough resolution and nothing left to be wondered. Scream 2 opened the book up again and left it hanging open in the midst of a weaker chapter. Scream 3 basically operates on the fact that the killer is lucky that Scream 2 didn’t end in Sidney Prescott’s death.
Scream 3 is written in a way that weaves in and out of the workings of the original. The killer in 3 is ultimately responsible for the events of the first film (I won’t explain how- see it yourself). However, no connection is established between the killer and any of the events of the sequel, essentially making Scream 2 even less important, save for the fact that a second wave of murders (Scream 2) helps the 'Stab' series of movies continue, resulting in the movie-inside-a-movie nature of 3.
While slightly better than the series’ middle chapter, Scream 3 overcomplicates not only itself, but the whole series, and leaves me wondering why we couldn’t just skip over 2 and make the Scream series a duology. (I realize the sequel vs. trilogy argument is why 2 had to occur, but my point is that they could have just been more creative about the whole thing)
It’s an improvement upon Scream 2, but this movie still doesn’t quite feel like it was necessary to begin with. Supposedly the Scream franchise was originally devised as a trilogy, which goes to show that thinking big isn’t always the best idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment