A Look Back at "Scary Movie 3" and "Scary Movie 4"
- Matt Palmer
- Jun 11
- 3 min read
A few days ago, I finally checked out the sixth installment of the "Scary Movie" franchise and I will have my review available for "Scary Movie 6" Friday! And, despite the mixed reactions from both critics and general audiences I'm sure that the new "Scary Movie" will be a hit. So, let's get into "Scary Movie 3" and "Scary Movie 4."
In the 2003 entry "Scary Movie 3," after newspaper reporter Cindy Campbell accidentally watches a strange videotape that causes viewers to die within a week, she discovers the tape is only one of many weird happenings.
Local farmers Tom and George have reported massive crop circles appearing overnight in their fields. Cindy finds a link between the tape and the crop circles with help from the US president and a kind aunt.
Due to the Wayans exiting the franchise before this installment went into production, many long-time fans were disappointed by the abrupt change in tone and the fact that it dropped the R-rating in favor of a PG-13. And, even though I still enjoy and watch the first two movies every so often, I really didn't mind "Scary Movie 3" for the most part.
"Scary Movie 3" is definitely one of the better entries of the franchise due to its rapid fire jokes, iconic cast additions and clever merging of different horror sub-genres. Comedy veteran David Zucker packed this movie with non-stop visual gags, absurd wordplay and his usual blink and you miss it background humor that we're used to from his "Naked Gun" movies. And, speaking of "Naked Gun," Leslie Nielson absolutely steals the show as the majorly oblivious US president.
The third "Scary Movie" also delivers some very hilarious moments, such as the opening scenes with Jenny McCarthy and Pamela Anderson that parodies "The Ring," George's rap battle that doesn't exactly end well due to his white hoodie, the sheriff's ever-growing hat and Tabitha's beat down from Brenda.
While some fans of the franchise missed the adult vulgarity from the first two movies, many audiences found it refreshing that the humor leaned less on explicit gross-out gags and more on clever pop-culture satire and classic slapstick.
In "Scary Movie 4," dim-witted Cindy Campbell and her sex-crazed friend, Brenda, team
up with a cute but clueless Tom Ryan to save the world from a hostile alien invasion.
While "Scary Movie 4" is an OK sequel, audiences were deeply divided over the fourth movie, viewing it either as a guilt pleasure packed with nostalgic slapstick or as a lazy, repetitive cash grab.
Audiences largely appreciated "Scary Movie 4" for its fun, rapid-fire slapstick comedy, nostalgia for mid-2000s blockbusters and the return of franchise favorites Anna Faris and Regina Hall. This 2006 sequel, even though it should have been better, does a decent job skewering hits like "War of the Worlds," "The Grudge," "The Village" and "Saw."
The movie's opening "Saw" spoof" featuring Shaq and Dr. Phil is one of the funniest bits of the entire franchise and is also considered one of the most memorable scenes of this sequel. There's also a really humorous scene where Cindy tries to communicate with a ghost boy, Toshio, by rattling off a hilariously bad string of Japanese brand names.
While there are a few hilarious bits throughout the movie, most audiences and critics found this movie to be a disappointing set down due to repetitive slapstick, over-reliance on crude and toilet humor, and increasingly lazy pop-culture parodies. The movie also heavily relies on repetitive physical gangs, which can get a little tiring.
The overall response to these two installments was commercially highly enthusiastic but critically mixed, with viewers showing a massive appetite for the movies despite low to average formal ratings. Both movies marked a major stylistic shift for the franchise, moving the series from R-rated gross-out humor to a more rapid-fire PG-13 slapstick format.
While "Scary Movie 4" was still a box office success, audience sentiment toward it began to show signs of franchise fatigue. Movie-goers felt the writing was significantly lazier than its predecessor.
Comments