Scream 3 (2000) is directed by Wes Craven and written by Ehren Kruger. It stars Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, Patrick Dempsey, Parker Posey, Emily Mortimer, Scott Foley, Liev Schreiber, Jenny McCarthy-Wahlberg, Deon Richmond, Lance Henriksen, Matt Kesslar, Josh Pais, Patrick Warburton, Heather Matarazzo, Lynn McRee, and Roger Jackson. The film follows Sidney Prescott (Campbell), who’s forced to come out of hiding after a new Ghostface begins murdering the cast of Stab 3, the newest installment in a movie franchise based on the in-universe events of Scream (1996). This reunites her with Gale (Cox) and Dewey (Arquette), and the three set out to catch the killer alongside FBI agent Mark Kincaid (Dempsey). However, this is no ordinary film; it’s the conclusion of a trilogy, which means no one is safe, not even Sidney. 

Campbell, Cox, and Arquette give spirited performances once again. However, this is easily the weakest script of the franchise thus far, often treating the characters as comedic punchlines. Dewey, now a consultant on the set of Stab 3, has reverted to being a sort of man-child once again, dropping his protector persona from Scream 2 (1998) in favor of one more akin to a slimy Hollywood producer (slicked back hair and all). It’s an odd, regressive shift for a character who’s always been so sensitive. When we learn that he’s dating the actress portraying Gale in Stab 3 (Parker Posey), I can’t help but laugh at the almost cartoonish immaturity of it all. He’s just not very believable, plain and simple. 

Although Gale feels more consistent with the character’s previous appearances, the script leaves her without even a semblance of an arc. She’s the same old Gale from beginning to end. All she does is continue her frustratingly stagnant romance with Dewey and have a couple of funny interactions with her film counterpart. Not to mention, what the heck is up with that hairdo, Courteney? OOFDA. 

Sidney’s portrayal and arc are the best of the three main characters, yet it’s easily her weakest showcase in the franchise. For nearly the entirety of the first two acts, she remains in hiding, the film occasionally cutting back to her as she deals with the trauma of two separate murder sprees. The previous film already established her as someone who’s learned to confront their trauma, so it feels odd that she’s regressed to being a recluse. Hiding would be the smart move either way, but the script makes it seem like this is because of fear, which isn’t the Sidney the audience has come to know. There are some interesting ideas about not letting past trauma follow you through life, but it just feels like a slight extension of learning to confront trauma. It’s simply just not different enough to justify exploring it as her main struggle. 

The supporting cast is also the weakest of the three films, with their characters mostly being in-universe actors who were cast as the survivors of Woodsboro. The problem is that they’re given very few unique traits and are almost solely defined by their cheeky similarities to the main characters. Even the few unique things we learn about them make them come across as angry and unpleasant, only making it all the easier to shrug your shoulders when they eventually meet their maker. This is just one of the film’s many choices that feel intentionally designed make its violence less serious/tragic, a strategy used to avoid controversy in the wake of the tragedy at Columbine. 

The script’s many rushed rewrites are noticeable in the final product, resulting in a film that consistently sets up things which never come to fruition, and vice versa. For example, the film includes a scene in which a video from the late Randy Meeks informs the group that, in a trilogy capper, nothing is off the table, and anyone can die. The problem is that nothing surprising, subversive, or even slightly tragic happens. Here’s a rule: don’t tease audiences with a certain possibility if what you then deliver is clearly less interesting than what you tease. You should only tease viewers when you have something better than what they expect. If not, your film is just the equivalent of someone who talks a big game but can’t back it up when the chips are down.

Although Mark Kincaid is a fan favorite, I personally think Patrick Dempsey’s performance is terrible in this film. He talks in a hushed, almost cartoonishly seductive voice throughout the film, constantly giving philosophical speeches that feel more appropriate for a bearded college professor than an L.A. detective. He immediately treats Sidney like he wants to either marry her or kill her, but he doesn’t even know her. This would make sense if he were eventually revealed as a killer with a secret past, but I guess he WAS just in love with her from the beginning. That’s some creepy, odd behavior, my dude. Now it kind of makes sense why we never see him in future installments. Creepy McCreepzoid most likely got his ass DUMPED. 

Overall, this is easily the weakest of the first three Scream films, but it still works as effective entertainment. Craven always cared, first and foremost, about making films that gave the audience a good time, and Scream 3 is no exception. The loss of Kevin Williamson as the film’s writer and the conversation about media violence in the wake of Columbine are clear boons to the script. Thankfully, it retains just enough of what fans like about the franchise to ultimately be a fun experience. It’s light and leans much more into the franchise’s humorous aspects, which I have a lot of fun with. It’s undeniably messy, and the events are somewhat inconsequential, but you’ll never be bored. C+