5.5?! Ridiculous - Scream 3 (2000) Discussion

[–] ShallowAl69 7 years ago

I agree.

Perhaps the whole brother plot is why the rating is so low?

It could be Courteney Cox. Her hair. Her scream.

It also could be Jenny McCarthy.

Or the lack of Kevin Williamson.

Or the toning down of the explicit gore of the first two films.

And, as much as I like her, it could be Parker Posey's overacting.

reply

[–] Angelus-16 7 years ago

Blame the women much!?

Upping the comedy at the expense of horror - that's a problem. Blame that on the idiots who shot up Columbine.

The main actors looking tired of going through the motions - that's a problem.

Ehren Kruger writing script pages once filming had already started, resulting in bad dialogue and characters splitting up and making stupid decisions - that's a problem.

Courteney Cox's hair and yellow pantsuit is a problem. Patrick Dempsey's dull-as cop too. The entire 'it's a trilogy' thing when the alternate endings for Scream 2 prove anything but.

The whole production looks rushed and like obligatory. It's a 7 at most.

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

Correction. Scream 4 is excellent and second only to the first film.

reply

[–] Stratego 7 years ago

I respectfully have to disagree with you. No suspense, cartoonish humour, cardboard characters and a lame killer with an even lamer motive.

*waits for Guy to jump on me*

reply

[–] jds182 (50) 4 years ago

I have my gripes with Scream 3, but Roman had the most believable motive in the franchise. I'm not sure why anyone would think its "lame".

reply

[–] Stratego (29260) a year ago

It's lame, period. It's somehow believable that he showed up at his biological mother's doorstep one day and decided to rile up two teenage boys into killing her because she didn't immediately welcome him with open arms? It's absurd and also makes him the biggest crybaby in the entire franchise.

reply

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) a year ago

Rejection is a hard pill to swallow, especially when it's your own mother whom you thought for years would be glad to see you, only to find out she wasn't.

And he only riled up one teenage boy to do the murder, not two. He supplied Billy with the motive and gave him a few pointers, one of which was to find a partner (so that you'll have someone to sell out in case you get caught.)

It would have been better if Roman had just committed the murder himself, but obviously they couldn't just retcon the first movie. His motive was believable enough.

reply

[–] Stratego (29260) a year ago

"Rejection is a hard pill to swallow, especially when it's your own mother whom you thought for years would be glad to see you, only to find out she wasn't."

Feeling hurt is believable. If he was some kind of psychotic drug addict who took out a knife to kill her on the spot, I could've bought it.This festering anger after only seeing her once which led to him orchestrating her murder through the hands of two teens he didn't even know is not believable enough, no.

reply

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) a year ago

It is. First off, she was someone very important to him. His mother. That he only met her once in his life is irrelevant, she was obviously an important person in his mind even long before he ever laid eyes on her. He spent years thinking/hoping she would be happy to see him and was devastated when she wasn't.

Secondly, it's believable that he would hand off the murder to someone else. That way, he separates himself from the crime and makes sure his hands are clean. Roman is the smartest killer of the series, after all.

reply

[–] Stratego (29260) a year ago

Yeah sure, that's why we have countless of people becoming serial killers after being rejected by their birth mothers at their first meeting. No, in real life, any problems they have, go back to their childhood with their adopted family. At the very least the movie should've mentioned that.

"Secondly, it's believable that he would hand off the murder to someone else.

Well actually no, if you want someone dead out of anger instead of, say, financial benefit, you would preferably want to do it yourself. And nobody had a clue who he was, so it's not like he needed an alibi.

Roman was a dumbass. Especially his reason to come back years later and start killing again (and this time all by himself!) is the dumbest thing ever. God, he's so lame.

reply

[–] LockardTheGOAT (342) a year ago

I think you're being much harsher than you normally would simply because you don't like the movie as a whole. If you wanted, you could nitpick a lot of the killers' motives for doing what they did. Billy, Stu, Mrs. Loomis, etc. all have really questionable motives. But I don't expect psychopaths filled with all kinds of emotional rage to necessarily be the most rational people.

Roman was not a dumbass. He was the only killer that did everything (post-Maureen) himself and he nearly got away with it.

reply

[–] Stratego (29260) a year ago

"I think you're being much harsher than you normally would simply because you don't like the movie as a whole."

Is this MovieGuy??? Complete BS. Roman and his entire motive is actually one HUGE reason I dislike the movie. That's not nitpicking, it's not like it's a minor detail.

Point is that Roman is not some random psychopath, he's supposed to have a very specific motive, but it's never properly explained why he would start a senseless killing spree over this. Especially his motivation for the murders in Scream 3 is lame as hell.

"He was the only killer that did everything (post-Maureen) himself and he nearly got away with it."

You probably know very well that the entire movie was written and even filmed with Angelina as his partner in crime, they only dropped that last minute. It's not like it's even possible to do all those things by himself. Roman is a dumbass.

reply

[–] Gobiastia 7 years ago

I think 5.5 is a generous score considering how poor the movie is.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'm afraid Scream 4 wiped the floor with this movie. Sorry!

reply

[–] IrinaOma (648) 5 years ago

I agree. I love this movie so much!

reply

[–] TribalFunkster (62) 5 years ago

Definitely the weakest link of the original trilogy like Spiderman 3 and Return if the Jedi but like them retains the original feel. Not a fan of Scream 4. Agreed with poster who said 3 was a 7

reply

[–] jds182 (50) 4 years ago

Yeah Scream 4 was so disappointing. They had 10 years to come up with something, yet all they did was make the killer another jealous family member. That angle was done so much better in Scream 3.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

The ratings on IMDB are strange;

Scream (1996) - 7.4
Scream 2 (1997) - 6.3
Scream 3 (2000) - 5.6
Scream 4 (2011) - 6.2
Scream (2022) - 6.3

How the new one is considered joint second best is beyond me. I also think 4 was a step down from both 2 and 3.

reply

[–] Anotherday (6997) 2 years ago

IMHO: After #2, #3 suffered in the theater because it was not as good. #4 and #5 had enough time away for a younger audience to add their rating.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (51002) 2 years ago

. I also think 4 was a step down from both 2 and 3.

I agree. Part 4 felt like Scream Jr. It didn't even feel like the same series. The look of the film was way off compared to the first 3.

reply