movies section

Scream 3


How thoughtful of the movie studios to give away the plot in the trailer

s menu - click a section what's new at www.eadon.com philosophy movie reviews cartoons - garden of eadon cartoons bible satire pics, images and poems about nun whipping bishops etc :) philosophy wars discussions and battles on religion and many other maddening topics Jim on diets, daft names and other musings Feng Shui Hippo's zodiac - a spoof of astrology and feng shui here is info about me, jim eadon and more read my novel madpole - the maddest but truest philosopher on this planet coincidences of readers etc read and sign my guestbook links s
body frame image body frame image
s



Plot:Scream 3 is a supposedly Ironic self-knowing slasher movie - this is the "final act" of the trilogy of Scream films. A sequel of the film-within-the-film, called Stab 2, is being produced when the cast begin to find themselves at the slicing end of a masked slasher's knife. Cue moronic slasher-bait trooping around dark labyrinthine movie sets in some kind of lemming like trance. ["Boom"!]

Review/(Slagging off in this case): Edvard Munch was the Norwegian artist who painted The Scream, from which is modelled the white mask worn by the psychos in the Scream flicks. The anguish, misery, despair and dread pouring from Munch's painting were remarkably similar to the emotions poured into the my poor brain by this film. As I watched my face grew to resemble the Munch mask. Everyone in the audience clutched their faces in their hands as they suffered, not out of being scared, but out of being tormented by the sheer, banal tedium. Had the slasher appeared in real life in the cinema, everyone would have queued up to pay him to put them out of their misery. ["Boom"!]

I genuinely enjoyed the first Scream. But the sequels, particularly this one, became utterly Hollywoodised - and that is meant to be ultra insulting by the way. This film was so institutional that rather than being a supposed tongue in cheek nod-nod-wink-wink knowing spoof, it demands to be utterly derided in its own right. ["Boom"!]

The main girl/victim of the Screams was called Sidney. What a mistake! How can to take a killer seriously when he has to say "I'm going to kill you, SIDNEY!" That's a blokes name. Sid is Sid James out of the Carry On films. ["Boom"!]

Sidney's brow furrowed and frowned and knitted and configured itself into all sorts of concerned tangles. Again. And again. And again. But the heart really sank every time that journalist woman (Courtney Cox) appeared. And she appeared again and again and... again. Then, just when one was resigned to the fork-scraping-the-saucepan-sound agitation, suddenly her actress double who was playing her in the film within the film appeared. Cue twice as much irritation as two pushy women try desperately to be funny. They tried to be sparky, to play off one another, to hate one another and then finally teamed up into the worst double act I have ever had the misfortune to be tortured by. Scream 3, to use an American expression that isn't ghastly, sucked.

Considering the first film prided itself on defying the horror clichés, Scream 3 followed them to the letter. The events of this film were so utterly predictable it became suspicious: was the very predictability of this movie a deliberate, intended as a joke to counterpoint the first film? There weren't even any imaginative deaths or even any canny plot twists. ["Boom"!]

Then there were other irritations - the false scares. Somebody would be all alone, tiptoeing along in the dark in fear of their life when - [The Bass Drum on the soundtrack goes "Boom"!] - they bump into someone!!! ["Boom"!] But... its only their friend!!! ["Boom"!] Ohhh how I cheered ecstatically as this fantastic ruse was repeated for the eighty-sixth time. ["Boom"! multiplied by 86] The pedal on that bass drum must have been worn out from percussing those cheap false scares ["Boom"!] . (If the false scares were not very effective the real "scares" were still born.) ["Boom"!]

The Scream franchise should not have clung on to its second rate "stars". That is one reason why it quickly became as stale as the crumbs left over from Christ's breaking of his loaves. You could tell that the director began to sense this. So desperate was Scream 3 that it brought back a character from the previous films in a video playback. The movie suddenly bust into life. He was the only interesting character in the whole film. Then we were dragged screaming back to the sterile, sitcomesque sewage. ["Boom"!]

Oh and someone please tell Hollywood that self referential cameos and name dropping of real actors/directors is not hilarious. Hollywood is up its own lardy backside as usual these days. ["Boom"!]


Jim's preferred ending: The payoff of this trilogy was utterly pathetic. My own payoff would have been this: to be REALLY CLEVER AND IRONIC Scream 3 becomes a snuff movie. The Scream 3 cast and production crew and Studio execs feed themselves into a giant meat grinder to be processed into McDonald Burgers. Only Microsoft, McDonalds and Hollywood would shamelessly serve such shite up for human consumption. ["Boom"!]

Rating: 1/5
score


Do you think this movie is any good?

Click on one of the buttons below

12 3456789 10
Ghastly OK Fantastic
s View Results


Add your comment to this page

add a talkback

sssss
From: J.JohnsonSubject:2001-04-27 18:42:11
s
From: SpoofnetSubject:2003-08-31 18:08:22
s
From: ryan aka lil ratSubject:2006-02-09 11:06:32
s
help: how to add your comment

Page hits: 6852



body frame image body frame image
s


www.eadon.com home sweet home contents: more stuff Next uninformed movie review


www.eadon.com