Scary Movie 3 (2003) (mini-review++)

(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

 

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

 

acting 6*

 

directing 7*

 

effects 6

 

editing 6

 

writing 7*

 

SW SCORE: 32

 

3.5 out of 5 🐙

 

++

 

I caught Scary Movie 3 on opening weekend back in 2003. It’s stupid as hell, but it sure is funny. Scary Movie 1 and 2 were similar gut busters. If you haven’t seen the first two and you enjoyed this installment, go watch them. You won’t be disappointed. As long as studios keep putting out horror and sci-fi movies there is no reason the Wayans’ Brothers brainchild can’t keep on making fun of them (and of this date, two more Scary Movie chapters have been released). The Wayans Brothers, who birthed this franchise, were not involved with #3 except in producer roles. Bringing in Zucker to direct the third film was a smart move; they added some fresh blood. At the time of writing these initial impressions, the stench of the Star Wars prequels was still fresh. George Lucas could learn something from the In Living Color alumni; sometimes allowing other competent professionals to steward your baby is not a “scary” thing. 

*My high scores on acting, directing, and editing might seem strange. But the goal was to make a ludicrous, gross-out, parody of movies and their success in this venture is why they got those marks. There is no objective score in my universe. Everything is relative. 

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

 

(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

 

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so

 

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.