In 1996, screenwriter Kevin Williamson and director Wes Craven created "Scream," a low-budget slasher film that revitalized the horror genre due to its innovative approach of having the characters be "in-the-know" about the conventions of movies concerning killers hacking away at nubile victims. Thus, when a psycho really does begin to dispatch of the teenage residents in the town, they know how they should handle it. Even more than that, though, "Scream" was the very first horror movie in a long time that was actually smart, scary, and genuinely suspenseful, a twist on the "stalk-and-slash" films from the late-'70s/early-'80s. The $14-million picture ultimately went on to gross $103-million in the U.S., a whopping number that is virtually unheard of for this type of movie.

But lightning struck twice, as "Scream 2," with most of the same cast and crew, was released exactly one year later and set new box-office records on opening weekend. The $25-million sequel ended its cume at $101-million, but while making virtually the same amount as its predecessor, the film left audiences divided, with some saying it was actually superior and others claiming they were a little disappointed. My opinion fits somewhere in the middle. While "Scream 2" didn't even come close to the level of ingenuity that the first one had set, looking as if it had hurriedly been thrown together (with less than twelve months separating their releases, it was), it still had enough of its token wit and intensity to be a satisfying venture.

Over two more years have passed, but the (supposed) final film in the financially and creatively successful trilogy, "Scream 3," has arrived, and to say it was well worth the wait would be an understatement. Despite the disappearance of Williamson as screenwriter (Ehren Kruger was handed script duties), Craven has remained faithful as the top-notch filmmaker of the series, as have ongoing stars Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, and Liev Schreiber. In its own way, "Scream 3" is a groundbreaking motion picture itself—a second sequel that has somehow accomplished the daunting task of being almost as fresh and thoroughly gratifying as the now-classic film that started it all. The hanging story threads from the previous ones are brought to the forefront, as the natural evolution of the characters, as well as the series itself, skillfully come around full circle.

It has been several years since the bloodbath that occurred at Windsor College, and Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) now lives in a secluded rural Californian home, working from her house as a crisis hotline counselor under a false name. Unable to lead a regular life anymore and plagued with nightmares of her deceased mother, Maureen, Sidney is distraught to find that one of the people from her past has been murdered (seen in the token opening death scene) in Hollywood, where "Stab 3: Return to Woodsboro" is well underway in its production on a studio backlot. Determined cutthroat news reporter Gale Weathers, now hosting a television show called "Total Entertainment" after her brief gig on "60 Minutes II" fell through, is contacted by Detective Kincaid (Patrick Dempsey) to join him in his investigation of the multiple murders. Illegally getting onto the set of the film, Gale has a surprise run-in with Dewey Riley (David Arquette), recently retired from the police force due to his handicap and currently an advisor for the movie. Although they briefly had a relationship with each other after the goings-on in the second pic, their varied personalities have since broken them up. It is obvious the spark between them is still very much alive.

One of the elements that is so inventive in "Scream 3" is its movie-within-a-movie approach (there is a stunning, show-stopping sequence in which Sidney finds her way to the sets from the production, all of them spitting images of real places in her hometown of Woodsboro), and in the way the mystery killer—once again dressed in that spooky Ghostface costume—kills off the characters in the order in which they are whacked in "Stab 3." Adding confusion to the mix, (1) three different versions of the screenplay were created in order to throw off fans on the Internet, but it is unclear which one the killer has gotten hold of, and (2) with the real Gale, Sidney and Dewey in Hollywood alongside their three actor counterparts, will the killer want to get rid of the real people, the performers portraying them, or both?

Whereas any old second sequel to a slasher franchise would be more than showing its age by now, "Scream 3" is that rare case in which it is not merely here to cash in on the big bucks, but was all along planned as a trilogy. One could possibly question if this is actually true, or just an excuse by the filmmakers once the original struck pay-dirt, but "Scream 3" does a fabulous job of wrapping things up and filling in the missing pieces, all the while delivering what fans have grown accustomed to: scares, snappy dialogue, believable characters, and some sort of unique spin on the otherwise cliched formula. While "Scream 2" was the most straightforward of the series, in terms of its violence and occasionally messy plot developments, "Scream 3," like its 1996 precursor, is a multilayered funhouse of chills that does a more than sufficient job of keeping the surprising twists coming. The final unveiling of the killer is not only unanticipated, but the details for his/her motive come off as more plausible than they have any right to be.

Aside from the aforementioned scene where Sidney stumbles upon the soundstage and, subsequently, is chased by the killer as she relives her past, there is a clearly innovative and exciting sequence coming every ten to fifteen minutes. The 40-minute climax, set in an eerie mansion complete with secret passageways and dark corridors, is literally nonstop in its intensity--and in the perverse delight Craven, Kruger, and the gang are obviously having. Moreover, the in-jokes about moviemaking and Hollywood are occasionally satirical and often biting, with a few people turning up in enjoyable cameos.

Neve Campbell, fresh-faced and well-cast in "Scream," has done nothing but develop into an even more talented actress with clear star qualities within the last three-and-a-half years. Wisely choosing to downplay the sullen Sidney from the middle chapter, her character is now a young woman stuck in a rut in her life, filled with understandable paranoia that she can never be safe until she has completely disappeared from the rest of the world. The progression Sidney goes through is both touching and truthful, and Campbell is able to surpass her performances in both of the other pictures.

Courteney Cox and David Arquette, married to each other at the time of filming, are both up to par with their consistently entertaining turns as Gale and Dewey. Of the three central characters in the series, it is Gale who has gone through the most changes. Starting off as a fairly heartless wench in "Scream," Gale was still very much ruthless in "Scream 2," but her sweet relationship with Dewey humanized her character into a slightly warmer individual. In the latest addition, Gale has finally learned there is more to life than just getting a juicy story, helping out the police in the investigation of the increasing death toll and rekindling her romance with Dewey now the two things most important to her.

A wide array of new faces are introduced, as usual, and the actors all have great fun. The highlight is easily Parker Posey, as Jennifer Jolie, a vapid, relatively ditzy actress who has been cast in the Gale Weathers role, taking pride in portraying the character even better than Gale herself. Posey is a comic delight, and she single-handedly steals almost all of the scenes she is in. Relatedly, there is a very funny rapport that develops between Jennifer and Gale, who are stuck together like glue through the second half. When it is Gale who is to die next in the script, Jennifer figures that if they are always side-by-side, the killer will just attack Gale and leave her alone.

Also in a memorable appearance is Jenny McCarthy, as Sarah Darling, an aging 35-year-old starlet tired of always being cast as teenagers and especially angered that her character in "Stab 3" only appears in two scenes and then is killed off (guess which real actress appears in only two scenes in "Scream 3" and is killed off?). Rounding out the cast is Patrick Dempsey, nice to see after a sizable absence from the spotlight, as Detective Kincaid; Scott Foley, big-headed and appropriately pretentious, as "Stab 3" director Roman Bridger; Emily Mortimer as Angelina Tyler (Sidney in "Stab 3"); the always-beguiling Matt Keeslar as Tom Prinze (Dewey in "Stab 3"); and Lance Henriksen as Sunrise Studios producer John Milton (who may or may not have known Maureen Prescott years before). Also showing up is Liev Schreiber, the fourth returnee from the other "Scream" movies, as Cotton Weary.

In the director's chair, Wes Craven has somehow been able to keep the energy level as high as possible in "Scream 3," as if it was the first movie he has directed in the series. This being his third go-round, in retrospect, may actually be nothing but a positive thing, as Craven has treaded similar horror territory so many times in the past that he could do it in his sleep. What cannot be denied is that Craven is a master at setting up absorbing horror set-pieces and, no matter what, is constantly adding a stylish flare to the proceedings.

With the wholeheartedly satisfying conclusion of "Scream 3," perhaps the most widely popular horror movie series of all time has come to a purported close. The way each of the surviving characters' lives receive closure is an excellent touch, and the final few shots are filled with subtle, yet remarkable power. Who would have guessed that the ending of a film called "Scream 3" could be so poignant? Certainly not I, but it is. Now how's that for an unexpected twist?