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
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