---
title: "Scary Movie 3"
year: 2003
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/scary-movie-3"
fi1m_id: "scary-movie-3"
imdb_id: "tt0306047"
tmdb_id: 4256
wikidata_id: "Q635937"
fi1m_score: 52
critics_score: 47
critics_reviews: 10
published: "2026-10-05T03:14:29.477258+00:00"
updated: "2026-10-05T03:14:29.919234+00:00"
region: "VN"
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."
---

# Scary Movie 3 (2003)

Directed by David Zucker · 1h 24m · Comedy

## Identity

Scary Movie 3

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/scary-movie-3
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** scary-movie-3
- **IMDb ID:** tt0306047
- **TMDB ID:** 4256
- **Wikidata ID:** Q635937
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0306047/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/4256, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q635937

**Fi1m score: 52** · Critics 47 from 10 reviews

*In a sentence:* A horror spoof in which the autocue gets a better joke than most of the actors

> David Zucker’s horror spoof is intermittently funny and too unreliable to recommend. There is skill in the slapstick, but familiar scenes and a quick pace cannot make enough of the jokes work.

## Synopsis

Cindy (Anna Faris), Brenda Meeks (Regina Hall) and George (Simon Rex) share a horror-parody story with Tom (Charlie Sheen), Mahalik (Anthony Anderson) and CJ (Kevin Hart). President Harris (Leslie Nielsen) is also among the characters, alongside Becca (Pamela Anderson) and Kate (Jenny McCarthy). The opening includes a joke involving a news autocue. Familiar film scenes become the starting points for a succession of sight gags and slapstick routines, as the comedy moves from one borrowed situation to the next.

## Review

*Scary Movie 3* is a comedy with enough working jokes to make its failures irritating. David Zucker knows how to keep a run of slapstick moving, and for a few minutes at a time that is sufficient. Then another weak joke goes by and the speed begins to feel like an excuse for not improving the material. It lasts 84 minutes, which is manageable, though the gaps between laughs make it feel longer.

The screenplay by Pat Proft and Craig Mazin relies heavily on the pleasure of recognising scenes from other films. That gives each joke a head start, but spotting a reference takes less time than watching it play out. Too often, there is little left to enjoy once the source has been recognised. The physical comedy fares better, because at least a movement or a collision can catch us by surprise.

We laughed at the early news-autocue gag. It has a clear comic idea and does not require much goodwill to make it work. Jon Poll and Malcolm Campbell’s editing keeps the joke moving without making a ceremony of it. Their brisk pace also gets the weaker material off screen reasonably quickly, although that is not much consolation when the next joke disappoints too. After a while, we began to notice how often the film was trying again.

Mark Irwin’s cinematography and William A. Elliott’s production design give the slapstick enough space to be read. That matters: a physical joke loses its point if we cannot see what has happened, and the film’s better passages remain clear despite the rush. The camera and sets are not the chief problem here. James L. Venable’s music contributes to the bustle, though it sometimes makes an unsuccessful gag feel more insistently presented. A little less encouragement would help.

Anna Faris gives Cindy a steadiness that helps when the surrounding material becomes frantic. Regina Hall brings welcome force to Brenda Meeks, and Charlie Sheen’s Tom benefits from a delivery that does not ask too eagerly for approval. Leslie Nielsen is well suited to the absurd authority of President Harris. But the performers get more opportunities to participate in jokes than to establish people we enjoy spending time with. A spoof need not give everyone a complicated inner life; it does need something to sustain the intervals between pratfalls.

The jokes involving children in danger are a more serious miscalculation. Repetition makes them increasingly unpleasant, and the film does not keep finding new comic reasons to return to them. This is where Pat Proft and Craig Mazin’s preference for another jolt over a better developed scene becomes tiring. We are not asking a horror parody to behave itself, but it ought to make its bad behaviour funnier than this.

The better spoof comedies give their characters something amusing to do even when the references are missed. That is a useful test for anyone approaching this without a working memory of its targets. Knowing the source material will help, but it cannot guarantee that the borrowed situations will be funny. We would choose something else for an evening that depends on sustained laughter.

*Fi1m score 52, published 5 October 2026.*

## What the critics say

The available reviews lean towards disappointment, with praise concentrated on individual gags rather than the film as a whole. David Zucker’s physical slapstick and quick-fire approach earn some credit, while parodies of familiar film scenes provide scattered laughs. There is little agreement on a standout performance; the warmer comments tend to concern particular exchanges or set pieces. Most critics find the humour uneven, stale or juvenile, with too many weak jokes between the successful ones.

The main split is over whether those scattered laughs make the sequel entertaining. The Guardian takes the warmer view, finding unpretentious amusement despite tired material. Others range from mildly disappointed to firmly dismissive, and disagree about whether this instalment improves on its predecessor. Variety credits Zucker’s slapstick but finds the repeated child endangerment increasingly creepy. The spread runs from qualified enjoyment to reviews that find almost nothing worth recommending.

## Straight answers

**Is Scary Movie 3 worth watching?**

*Scary Movie 3* has some effective slapstick, but we find it too unreliable to recommend and score it 52/100. It offers occasional laughs for viewers who enjoy recognising borrowed film scenes, though the brisk pace and steady performers cannot make up for the long gaps between successful jokes.

**How long is Scary Movie 3, and what is it rated?**

*Scary Movie 3* runs 1h 24m. It is a comedy film.

**Where can I watch Scary Movie 3 in Vietnam?**

*Scary Movie 3* is streaming on Netflix in Vietnam. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How violent or frightening is Scary Movie 3, and is it suitable for children?**

*Scary Movie 3* carries a UK 15 certificate, so it is unsuitable for children under 15 despite its slapstick approach to horror. We find its repeated jokes involving children in danger increasingly unpleasant rather than funny; that is a particular caution for viewers sensitive to comic treatment of harm to children.

**What should I watch after Scary Movie 3?**

After *Scary Movie 3*, try [*The Naked Gun*](https://film.one/film/the-naked-gun-from-the-files-of-police-squad) (1988, Fi1m 88): Deadpan authority and carefully built slapstick, with fewer gaps between laughs. Then [*Shaun of the Dead*](https://film.one/film/shaun-of-the-dead) (2004, Fi1m 85): For horror comedy with people worth caring about between the collisions.

### Reviews we read (10)

- **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw (65/100, inferred): Bradshaw finds the film silly and trivial but ultimately entertaining, delivering unpretentious laughs. He singles out David Zucker’s energetic direction and quick-fire gag rate, while noting that many jokes feel lame and the franchise feels old. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,1128898,00.html)
- **The New York Times** (64/100, inferred): The page identifies this as a film review, but its text is inaccessible. The critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint cannot be determined. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/movies/film-review-horrors-mysticism-may-never-be-the-same.html)
- **Time Out**, LIZ (64/100, inferred): The available page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its description notes the film’s horror-parody premise, but the review text is unavailable. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/scary-movie-3)
- **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (2.5/4): Ebert’s verdict is mixed: he finds the comedy less successful than its predecessors. He singles out the film’s parody of familiar movie scenes as a source of its laughs. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/scary-movie-3-2003)
- **Variety**, Dennis Harvey (45/100, inferred): Harvey finds the sequel somewhat funnier than its predecessor but still only middling, with none of the original’s inspired hilarity. He praises Zucker’s flair for physical slapstick, though the child endangerment eventually feels creepy. [Read](https://variety.com/2003/film/markets-festivals/scary-movie-3-1200538394/)
- **Radio Times**, Tom Hutchinson (2/5): Hutchinson says the sequel is weaker than the original but an improvement over its predecessor. He singles out Simon Cowell’s appearance as the film’s scariest element. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-fiq3s5/scary-movie-3/)
- **Total Film**, Total Film (2/5): The review finds the film disappointing and tiresome, with plenty of slapstick but few laughs. It praises the car-accident exchange between Charlie Sheen and Camryn Manheim as the standout scene. [Read](https://www.gamesradar.com/scary-movie-3-review/)
- **Empire**, William Thomas (35/100, inferred): Thomas finds the film intermittently funny but ultimately uneven and less effective than Zucker’s earlier comedies. He praises the opening sequence and its news-autocue gag, while criticizing the inconsistent tone and charmless performances. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/scary-movie-3-review/)
- **Slant Magazine**, Josh Vasquez (1/4): Vasquez finds the film uninspired and juvenile, with little to recommend. He singles out the frantic attempt to resurrect a dead body as a rare entertaining set piece. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/scary-movie-3/)
- **Eye for Film**, David Stanners (20/100, inferred): The critic finds the third instalment stale and largely unfunny. They single out its hackneyed jokes and trite dialogue, while noting one effective gag involving Charlie Sheen and Michael Jackson. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/scary-movie-3-film-review-by-david-stanners)

## Details

- **Director:** David Zucker
- **Director:** David Zucker
- **Screenplay:** Craig Mazin, Pat Proft
- **Cinematography:** Mark Irwin
- **Editor:** Malcolm Campbell, Jon Poll
- **Music:** James L. Venable
- **Production design:** William A. Elliott
- **Costume design:** Carol Ramsey
- **Producer:** Robert K. Weiss
- **Cast:** Anna Faris as Cindy; Regina Hall as Brenda Meeks; Simon Rex as George; Anthony Anderson as Mahalik; Charlie Sheen as Tom; Leslie Nielsen as President Harris; Kevin Hart as CJ; Jeremy Piven as Ross Giggins
- **Runtime:** 1h 24m
- **First release (the US):** 20 October 2003
- **Genres:** Comedy
- **Budget:** $45 million
- **Box office:** $221 million

## Where to watch in Vietnam

- Netflix: streaming

*Checked 2026-10-05.*

Also available in: AR, AT, AU, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HR, HU, ID, IE, IN, IS, IT, JP, LT, MX, MY, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PH, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, SI, SK, TH, TR, UA, US, VN. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## If you liked this

- *The Naked Gun* (1988), Fi1m 88: Deadpan authority and carefully built slapstick, with fewer gaps between laughs. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-naked-gun-from-the-files-of-police-squad.md)
- *Young Frankenstein* (1974): A horror spoof that finds jokes in character as well as scenery.
- *Shaun of the Dead* (2004), Fi1m 85: For horror comedy with people worth caring about between the collisions. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/shaun-of-the-dead.md)
- *What We Do in the Shadows* (2014): Supernatural housemates make everyday irritation funnier than another batch of borrowed scares.
- *Kung Fu Hustle* (2004): Physical comedy pushed to absurd extremes, with action staged clearly enough to enjoy.

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/scary-movie-3