Other mistake: On the back cover of Scream 3 in the Scream trilogy on DVD, the town of the original killings is referred to as Greensboro twice. The correct name of the town is Woodsboro, of course.
Scream 3 (2000)
2 reviews
Directed by: Wes Craven
Starring: Liev Schreiber, Lance Henriksen, Emily Mortimer, Courteney Cox, Patrick Dempsey, David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Jenny McCarthy, Roger Jackson, Beth Toussaint, Kelly Rutherford
Your rating
Average rating
(7 votes)
I watched this movie on Netflix.
Similarly to the second movie, I don't think this one is as good as the first. But it's not a bad film, and it's hard to say really if I like it better or worse than the second. I think I can say though, that it's not as good as the second.
Some of the tropes and turns of this one I was seeing as more obvious or not as well hidden.
It's not a bad film... but it's just really average honestly. Worth a watch, but it's no master class of cinema.
This movie plays again as a parody and celebration of the slasher films, but also plays on the idea of a trilogy and what happens in the final film of a trilogy. So in some respects, it's actually kinda clever. Though how many times can Sidney survive the same kind of stuff over and over again?
Mistake Status: I wasn't really paying as close attention to this movie when I watched it, and didn't pick up on any mistakes. I'm sure I could find a lot if I looked. But I have no real interest in returning to this film just for that.
5. 8/10. Possibly the worst of the franchise. This mostly stems from the absence of Neve Campbell who was filming Drowning Mona and Panic that same year. Yeah she committed to movies that sound more like art house movies that nobody's ever heard of. I also blame Wes Craven here as, brilliant as he is, he couldn't just wait for her to become more available. No he just focused more on David Arquette and Courtney Cox. Let's face it, he's an OK actor, she's an annoying pest from one of the most overhyped and overrated shows of the 90's-early 2000's. I would say though the idea of an older half brother's not bad, it's just not well executed here. Fan fiction about him was better written and well done. Watch this one if just to laugh at its underwhelming execution.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I'm not "correcting" this per se, but I'm wondering if there should be either a separate type of mistake for things like DVD/Blu-Ray cases or posters (Ex. "Multimedia and Marketing Mistakes" or something like that), or if these things would be better classified as trivia? Especially since it's not something everyone can necessarily observe watching the movie itself. (Ex. My Blu-Ray and 4K releases don't have this mistake.) If not, feel free to downvote/delete this. I've just seen a few of these mistakes over the years here, and it always seems a little off to me since it's not something wrong with the film itself.
I agree these aren't valid movie mistake if the studio wasn't involved in the mistake. It could be trivia if only certain home releases had them. These mistakes are like when episodes are aired out of order creating continuity issues,, streaming services make changes, or closed captioning (not subtitles) gets something wrong. It can't be considered a mistake of the film or TV series.
It's tricky - largely, if I'm honest, because adding new types to the site is incredibly fiddly. :-) There's also room for endless debate about what's a "mistake", whether it's about assigning specific blame or just looking for interesting stuff. Likewise things that can only be seen in slow motion, which arguably warrant a category to themselves because there are plenty of them, but then the "mistakes" section gets cluttered. Becomes a user interface issue as much as anything! Will think.
Sidney: What do you know about trilogies?
Mark: All I know is that in the third one, all bets are off.
Trivia: Kevin Williamson (who had written the first two films, as well as the fourth) had an entirely different plot in mind, which he had outlined and given to the studio, only for it to be passed on. His original concept had the killers in the film be members of a "Stab" (the film-within-the-film) fan-club, who orchestrated the murders in order to gain fame and become heirs to Sidney Prescott's status as the soul-survivor. Aspects of this unused original story treatment were re-written into the fourth film, which features a killer whose motivation is fame and becoming the soul-survivor.
Question: How does Roman find Sidney's info for the crisis hotline? We never see him use Dewey's phone and I don't think it's possible he attacked Neil because Sidney would've found out about it.
Answer: But Roman is in police custody when the call happens and Kincaid has Dewey's phone.
Answer: Just because we never see Roman use Dewey's phone does not mean that Roman could not have used it to trace Sid. Also just because we never see Roman attack Neil does not mean he didn't. Though the phone way is more likely.
They discuss who used Dewey's phone. He says only he and Kincaid used the phone.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.