--- title: "Rush Hour 3: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/rush-hour-3/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/rush-hour-3" critics_score: 35 critics_reviews: 12 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Rush Hour 3 (2007): what the critics said Critics' score 35 from 12 reviews: 0 positive, 2 mixed, 10 negative. Most critics find Rush Hour 3 a tired sequel, with recycled jokes and a weak script doing little to justify another outing for the mismatched partners. The limited praise centres on Jackie Chan: his comic restraint, playful fighting and inventive stunt work still offer pleasures, even where the action feels mechanical. Several reviews find moments to enjoy in the set-pieces, but these rarely offset complaints about sluggish pacing and diminished energy. The spread is largely between disappointment and outright dismissal, rather than any substantial defence of the film. The leads’ partnership divides opinion: the Los Angeles Times still values Chan and Tucker’s chemistry, while The Hollywood Reporter finds that chemistry missing from their familiar routine. Tucker’s humour earns some approval elsewhere, but also draws complaints about tired material, shrillness and stereotypes. The AV Club finds more comic energy in the end-credits outtakes than in the film itself. ## RogerEbert.com Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 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. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/rush-hour-3-2007) ## The AV Club — Nathan Rabin Rating C. 10 August 2007. 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. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/rush-hour-3-1798202915) ## Radio Times — Jamie Russell Rating 2/5. 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. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-lwo1mx/rush-hour-3/) ## Variety — Robert Koehler Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 2 August 2007. 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. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2007/film/reviews/rush-hour-3-2-1200557498/) ## Slant Magazine — Nick Schager Rating 1.5/4. 7 August 2007. 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. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/rush-hour-3/) ## Los Angeles Times — Kevin Crust Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 10 August 2007. 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. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-aug-10-et-rush10-story.html) ## Screen Daily — Tim Grierson Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 3 August 2007. 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. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/rush-hour-3/4033841.article) ## Empire — Nick de Semlyen Fi1m's normalised score 25/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 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. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/rush-hour-3-review/) ## The Hollywood Reporter — Michael Rechtshaffen Fi1m's normalised score 25/100 (inferred from the text). 2 August 2007. 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. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/rush-hour-3-159486/) ## Time Out — Ben Walters Rating 1/5. 14 August 2007. The review gives the film a strongly negative verdict. It criticizes the shrillness of Detective Carter and the film’s comedy-action formula. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/rush-hour-3) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 10 August 2007. 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. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2007/aug/10/actionandadventure.comedy) ## Eye for Film — Ben Sillis Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 15 August 2007. 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. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/rush-hour-3-film-review-by-ben-sillis) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/rush-hour-3.md