--- title: "Scary Movie 3: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/scary-movie-3/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/scary-movie-3" critics_score: 47 critics_reviews: 10 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): what the critics said Critics' score 47 from 10 reviews: 0 positive, 5 mixed, 5 negative. 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. ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 23 January 2004. 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 the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,1128898,00.html) ## The New York Times Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 24 October 2003. 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 the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/movies/film-review-horrors-mysticism-may-never-be-the-same.html) ## Time Out — LIZ Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 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 the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/scary-movie-3) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 2.5/4. 24 October 2003. 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 the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/scary-movie-3-2003) ## Variety — Dennis Harvey Fi1m's normalised score 45/100 (inferred from the text). 24 October 2003. 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 the review](https://variety.com/2003/film/markets-festivals/scary-movie-3-1200538394/) ## Radio Times — Tom Hutchinson Rating 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 the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-fiq3s5/scary-movie-3/) ## Total Film — Total Film Rating 2/5. 16 January 2004. 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 the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/scary-movie-3-review/) ## Empire — William Thomas Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 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 the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/scary-movie-3-review/) ## Slant Magazine — Josh Vasquez Rating 1/4. 23 October 2003. 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 the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/scary-movie-3/) ## Eye for Film — David Stanners Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 22 January 2004. 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 the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/scary-movie-3-film-review-by-david-stanners) --- © 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/scary-movie-3.md