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)
This sequel to the 1996 hit misses the mark by its very own nature as a sequel. While the idea of offering a tongue-in-cheek roast of slasher sequels sounds like fun, the one thing Scream 2 can’t do is validate the existence of sequels. Scream took all the reasons critics of the genre use to explain why horror films are unnecessary but and showed us how entertaining they can be, in effect validating their existence based on the enjoyable nature of their weaknesses.
Exposing the fatal flaws in sequels is done here, but we don’t end up embracing them like we did in the first film. While boldly acknowledging that new characters in sequels are more or less imitations of or stand-ins for characters from the original, Scream 2 still doesn’t warm us up to this fact. It also doesn’t help that through the “established rules of sequels” we lose one of the series most endearing characters- Randy to movie geek. Another problem is that we don’t pick up any new characters that might come back in future installments, which some better sequels do.
Essentially, Wes Craven and his team had to create a mediocre sequel in order to poke fun at mediocre sequels. This time though, the joke is on them.
Scream did two very significant things- First, it put the horror genre back on the map as a bankable Hollywood product. Second, it showed that you could infuse a film with the self-aware, self-deprecating and tragically hip attitude carried by the 90s generation. Both of these landmarks were groundbreaking and set the tone for cinema that even now is still with us. More importantly, both of these landmarks lost their luster very quickly.
Horror master Wes Craven’s Scream is a one-in-a-million film. It recognizes not only the faults and incongruities of its genre, but also of its own story. The writers then took these clichés and incongruities and told us that they know they’re there, and that, try as anyone might, they’re always going to be there, which causes us to not only enjoy the film even more, but also to actually enjoy the clichés for a change.
Let's face it, the plot is nothing new. Local large-chested girl is being tormented by a homicidal maniac, who intends to kill her eventually but wants to make life even worse for her by taking aim at her ridiculously gorgeous and witty friends. Everyone is a suspect, and remains as such until they either die or the true killer reveals their identity. It’s the same cat and mouse we’ve seen played out countless time before.
But Scream embraces poking fun at itself and plants its tongue firmly in cheek. Characters openly discuss potential motives (should they be the killer). They engage in debates about what to do and what not to do when in a scary movie type situation, then consciously break the rules they come up with. Most importantly, they ask the big questions that are on the viewers’ minds. You don’t have to worry about figuring out what’s going on, because the characters are doing a much better job of it for you.
This is Scream’s greatest asset. It changed the way we look at horror films, but it also changed the way they make horror films. Now producers and writers feel obligated to include some kind of self-awareness in slasher flicks, which really isn’t necessary. Scream raised the bar for what horror can be and very few will ever live up it.
If you can handle some language and a few graphic depictions of murder, you need to see Scream!
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.
This sequel to the 1996 hit misses the mark by its very own nature as a sequel. While the idea of offering a tongue-in-cheek roast of slasher sequels sounds like fun, the one thing Scream 2 can’t do is validate the existence of sequels. Scream took all the reasons critics of the genre use to explain why horror films are unnecessary but and showed us how entertaining they can be, in effect validating their existence based on the enjoyable nature of their weaknesses.
Scream did two very significant things- First, it put the horror genre back on the map as a bankable Hollywood product. Second, it showed that you could infuse a film with the self-aware, self-deprecating and tragically hip attitude carried by the 90s generation. Both of these landmarks were groundbreaking and set the tone for cinema that even now is still with us. More importantly, both of these landmarks lost their luster very quickly.
