Rush Hour 3 (2007)

The page URL identifies this as RogerEbert.com’s review of the film. Its verdict and the specific point singled out for praise or criticism are unavailable because the page is blocked.

Rabin dismisses the film as a creatively unnecessary, forgettable sequel. He singles out the end-credits outtakes as funnier and more energetic than the movie itself.

Russell finds the sequel under-par and less witty than its predecessors. He singles out Chris Tucker’s quips as fun, while criticizing the script and crass stereotypes.

Koehler finds the film a familiar but diminished entry that ends flatly. He praises Chan’s comic turn and the Eiffel Tower stunts, while faulting the reduced action and Tucker’s increasingly tired shtick.

Schager gives the sequel a sharply negative verdict, calling it a sluggish, superfluous repeat of its predecessors. He singles out Ratner’s glossy direction for adding little energy or style to the vacuous plot and tame action.

Crust finds the franchise formula worn out, though fans may still enjoy its action and familiar humor. He praises the chemistry between Chan and Tucker but faults the recycled gags and drawn-out stretches between set-pieces.

The critic finds that the third installment cannot recapture the original’s charm. The complaint is that the mismatched partners’ familiar antics no longer have the same appeal.

The critic finds the film lazy, obnoxious and less thrilling than its predecessors. Jackie Chan’s inventive stunt work is the main pleasure, though the weak script makes even the action feel mechanical.

The critic finds the third installment stale and uninspired, with the leads’ familiar routine lacking chemistry. The Eiffel Tower finale offers a couple of thrills, while the cinematography and production design look terrific.

The review gives the film a strongly negative verdict. It criticizes the shrillness of Detective Carter and the film’s comedy-action formula.

Bradshaw dismisses the film as a tired, deeply underwhelming entry in the franchise. He singles out Jackie Chan’s quiet dignity as a bright spot.

Sillis finds the sequel astonishingly formulaic and ultimately disappointing, despite its lively action. He praises Chan’s playful energy in prop-filled fights but objects to the CGI climax.