Slashdot Mirror
Review: "Scream 3"
As a half dozen characters point out in "Scream 3," the thing about a trilogy is that, unlike a sequel, anything goes - anybody can live or die, because the third element of a trilogy is really the last.
In a way, that conceit is one of the things that makes this movie work so well. It's funny, at points chilling, and at the same time oddly touching, as the movie is basically saying goodbye to itself and, for the moment, the genre.
This "Scream" isn't quite as well written as the first two (the producers switched writers), and it's definitely time to move along. The idea of the movie-spoofing-the-genre-spoofing-the-media-portrayal-of-the-genre is so apt it still works, but we sort of get the point already. By the end of the movie, you might be getting a bit restless, not because it isn't well done, but because it's well done for the third time and in much the same way. In a way, that's sort of the point. It's time for a new vehicle to spoof ourselves, our darkest fears and our techno-culture obsessed lives. In each of the "Scream" movies, it's neat to watch the evolution of the cell phone, from a communications device to a central character. That's smart movie-making, especially given the audience.
"Scream 3" is still great fun. Anyone who guesses the ending should come forth and say so - it's nearly impossible. This series is one of those rare cinematic occurrences - a horror trilogy that's run its course but which will still be sorely missed. I'd give it a 7 out of a possible 10. What about you?
Yeah, they're good slasher movies.
Yeah, they reflexively look at the genre in an ironic way
This is supposed to be clever and origonal
Wes Craven's New nightmare was good and, much as the origonal elm street defined black comedic slashers created a new breed of self refernetial reflexive horror films
The Neverending story did it way before (although the only horror was the kid...)... Nuff said!
But then again I am the person who thought Blair Witch was generic, unscary badly acted tripe. So what would I know
As for Scream 3, it may be a good rflexive slasher, but Elm street 3 was a good slasher, albeit a tired one because it was an old and used formula. From what I have seen I will probably enjoy scream 3 but come out with an empty feeling as if I have seen it all before...
Roll on scream 6 when they parody the parody of media looking at a film of a parody of a horror parody being looked at by the media.
Working for the (other) man
<RANT>
I have had it up the socket with people complaining about nearly every story on /., saying that it "doesn't belong" or isn't "news for nerds" or it isn't "stuff that matters". Last I checked, no one had defined those in a universally acceptable way.
Some things don't matter to some people. Some things do. Sometimes I care about a /. posting. Sometimes I don't. If I don't find it interesting, I can skip it, and I can even configure my account to filter out stuff I'm not interested in. WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT (tm) HERE. Why do some feel the need to decrease the s/n ratio by complaining about stories they don't feel are relevant to *their* beliefs on what's important? Imagine if the same thing happened everytime someone spammed a usenet group... <ugh>
Frankly, it seems quite arrogant to me to run around telling people in a public forum that a story posted here isn't relevant to /.'s purpose (tm) and that we shouldn't be reading about it here. We WANT to read it here to see what kind of reactions/thoughts other people "like" us give it!
The /. authors post a wide variety of topics and stories to cater to the widest possible audience of nerds. They realize, unlike others, that "nerd" is near impossible to pigeonhole and that nerd interests run a wide gamut, some of which is campy horror movies. Get off their backs, people, they're doing their job. (And, I must say, doing it well; I've never missed an important update on something *I* care about from /.. Has anybody else?)
I think my point is clear. Sorry for the rambling. </RANT>
"Honey, it's not working out; I think we should make our relationship open-source."
Mr. Katz,
I like your stuff. I'm sad that (so it seems) the vocal minority has browbeaten you into curtailing your long posts. When I read a long post, even if it's not all well thought-out, at least I know there's a lot of thought in there to find.
These shorter posts of yours, like this movie review, seem to have one brief idea with no exposition. It's like you're afraid to let yourself go.
In the old days, you'd have gone on at length about what was good about the movie, what was bad, why you think it was written as it was, what the movie might indicate about where movies are going and where they are right now, maybe a little about the fancy gadget that plays such an important role in the film, something about the role of everyday technology in the film, and on and on just like I'm going now.
Personally, I think it sucks.
Bring back the Jon Katz we (some of us) love to hate. Bring back the long posts!
Review: "Jon Katz's Review of Scream 3"
a t-anonymous cowards-think-really-suck-at-slashdot"-quota-? dept.
...): Read more and post your own review:
n g-the-Jon-Katz-portrayal-of-life is so apt it humors me, but we sort of get the point already. By the end of the movie review, you might be getting a bit restless, not because it isn't well done, but because it isn't well done for the zillionth time and in much the same way. In a way, that's sort of the point. It's time for a new vehicle to spoof ourselves, our darkest fears and Jon Katz's techno-culture obsessed life. In each of the Jon Katz movie reviews, it's neat to watch the evolution of nothing, from poop to a central scatological theme. That's smart movie review making, especially given the audience.
from the can-we-apply-this-article-to-the-daily-"things-th
Jon Katz's review of "Scream 3" is a perfect example of wasted bits and bytes on a neat nerd news portal site that has nothing to do with lame cinematic trilogies. It's asinine, creepy, and slightly poopy, IMHO. And you don't have to be a genius to guess the ending ("What about you?", "What do you think?", "Discuss this amongst yourselves.", etc
As a half dozen Anonymous Cowards point out below, the thing about a Jon Katz review is that, unlike a typical slashdot article, anything goes - nothing has to make sense and irrelevance is the norm, because the third element of a Jon Katz review is really the first.
In a way, Jon Katz's conceit is one of the things that makes this movie review work so well. It's funny, at points chilling, and at the same time oddly touching, as the movie review is basically saying goodbye to itself and, for the moment, the genre.
This movie review isn't quite as well written as the first two (Jon Katz switched spell checkers), and it's definitely time to move along. The idea of the movie-review-spoofing-the-slashdot-article-spoofi
Jon Katz's review is still great fun. Anyone who guesses the ending should come forth and say so - it's nearly insulting. This series is one of those rare journalistic occurrences - a horror that's run its course but which will never be sorely missed. I'd give it a 0 out of a possible 1. What about you?
-- ken williams
No, you dumb ass Ebert's alive, Gene Siskel is dead.
I too have grown weary of Katz, but at least get your facts straight.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
My problem with the story is that, generally, Slashdotters are at odds with the MPAA (witness the NY, CN and CA lawsuits. I believe that _Scream 3_ is distributed by Miramax. While Miramax is not listed as a member on the MPAA.org website, I haven't traced their corporate geneology to see if a parent company is. At any rate, Miramax's web site does mention that Miramax movies are available on DVD.
My problem is that this review tacitally endorses the movie and record (this though indirectly) industry. These companies are one of the biggest threats to OSS. Why support them even indirectly?
Cheers,
Slak
Don't like the movie? Fine. Don't think the topic is right for /.? Fine. But why attack the author? Neither of the other two posters were attacked.
Jon wasn't as wordy this time, perhaps he's trying to address a running complaint. The Fantasia piece was quite lengthy. No complaints.
Maybe those vocally opposed to reading Jon Katz articles should just put one of those handy-dandy 'liberry filters' on their computers since they can't seem to escape the psychological vortex created by his writing. I'm sure Jamie has some contacts for anyone wanting referrals.
What amazes me is that some of the 'Jon Katz has no business here on our techno/nerd/geek playground' crowd are also some of the same folks who vented bile when filtering software was discussed for libraries. I would think those too weak to use their own brains to filter--'Oh, there's a Katz article, I'll skip that'--would welcome a software tool to do it for them.
Don't worry, Jon. You just hang in there.
Love, Mama Katz
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Every geek I know personally would do Neve Campbell.
Above and beyond that, I think many people are attracted to mystery for the intelligence factor - can the audience solve the crime before the characters in the story do? While Scream itself may have been classed as "horror", it is as much of a mystery as Agatha Cristie's work (albeit with a lesser pedigree).
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
Who are the "people like us" on this site?
:P )." That fact is self-evident. That's why I also think whining about "This isn't News for Nerds" is kind of pointless.
Your statement that we're all different is wonderfully tolerant and inclusive. The problem is that, as a whole, slashdot isn't tolerant and inclusive.
I see the group mentality of slashdot as somewhat closed minded, sometimes insulting, and very often arrogant. Go back and read the article on running Linux on an S/390. One of the first and most highly-rated posts basically said nothing more than, "I think mainframes are obsolete." A huge portion of the article explained the amazing things that modern mainframes can do and why they are still relevant.
Nevertheless, someone who probably has no experience with modern mainframes -- whose entire computer world consists of x86 boxes with maybe the odd Sparc or Alpha -- runs as high as a 4 for spouting a pretty uninformed opinion that happens to be shared by a lot of "people like us". Personally, I don't want my misconceptions reinforced. I want them blown away. At their best, the posters and editors on Slashdot can do this.
It's silly for me to say, "I agree Slashdot's editors can post whatever they want (shareholders permitting
But I think that Slashdot, both its editors and participants, needs a big dose of criticism now and then. The group-think and self-congratulating gets pretty thick around here sometimes. Rob, JonKatz, and Co. *are* capable of posting articles that could rightly be considered "offtopic", "flamebait", or "redundant" and I don't see the harm in pointing out when it happens.
Hey, it's still a pretty cool site anyway.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Miramax shares its parent company, Buena Vista, with Disney, so it is, albeit indirectly, involved with the MPAA. As for why support them even indirectly, it's beacause movies are *fun*! I want to be entertained, so I'll gladly pay my $7 to go see a good movie, or my $30 to own a good movie- they provide a great service, and I pay for it. If they then start telling me what I can and can't do with the DVD I paid good money for, that's where I get off, and go download DeCSS.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
Katz's oft-repeated claim is that "geeks are in love with pop culture."
Exactly. And it's true. The dichotomy is that the stereotypical web geek likes to think that he's underground and subversive, but what TV shows does he like? Buffy, X-Files and The Simpsons. What movies? The Matrix and The Phantom Menace. What books? Pulp fantasy, William Gibson, and Neal Stephenson. The Matrix isn't some underground secret; it was one of the most heavily marketed money makers of 1999. Yes, this is a stereotype, but there's a reason that the recent X-Files news item on Slashdot had 500+ comments posted about it.
In general, I'd say that the typical geek is about as trend following and mainstream as anyone else, much to his chagrin.