--- title: "xXx: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/xxx/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/xxx" critics_score: 47 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." --- # xXx (2002): what the critics said Critics' score 47 from 12 reviews: 0 positive, 6 mixed, 6 negative. The consensus leans towards disappointment, with praise concentrated on the stunts and Vin Diesel’s physical presence rather than the story. Several critics find enough energy in the action to make stretches entertaining, even when the surrounding film feels thin or clumsy. Diesel’s charisma earns credit across otherwise divided reviews, while individual set pieces attract praise even from detractors. The recurring reservation is that the screenplay cannot sustain the excitement, and the Bond parallels offer little freshness. The spread runs from qualified enjoyment to outright rejection, with humour and tone dividing the reviews. Slant Magazine enjoys the crass jokes and finds the film unpretentious and expertly made; other critics find its attempts at coolness strained or its action frantic. Diesel is not universally admired either: Eye for Film treats his performance as a liability. The disagreement is chiefly over whether the spectacle compensates for the writing. ## Screen Daily — Mike Goodridge Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 8 August 2002. The review’s verdict is unavailable because the article text is hidden behind a paywall. No specific praise or complaint is visible in the accessible metadata. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/xxx/4010097.article) ## The New York Times Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 9 August 2002. The URL identifies this as a New York Times film review, but the page returned only an access-denied message. The critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint are unavailable. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/09/movies/film-review-this-skateboard-uses-high-octane.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 2.5/4. 9 August 2002. Ebert gives the film a mixed verdict, finding its action spectacle more effective than its story. He singles out Vin Diesel’s screen presence as a strength. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/xxx-2002) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Rating 2.5/4. 1 August 2002. The critic calls the film pretense-free, eager-to-please expertly made trash. He praises the screenplay’s crass humor and playful attention to Hollywood’s portrayals of foreign cultures. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/xxx/) ## Radio Times — Alan Jones Rating 3/5. The review presents the film as a vehicle for cementing Vin Diesel’s macho-star status. It singles out the abundance of James Bond parallels, from Samuel L Jackson’s M-like character to the Blofeld-style villain. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-wc3czt/xxx) ## Total Film — Total Film Rating 3/5. 17 October 2002. The critic finds the film brash and entertaining, though neither as cool nor as funny as it aims to be. They praise its knowingly ludicrous, explosive action and single out Asia Argento as great value. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/xxx-review/) ## Empire — Adam Smith Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. Smith finds the film sporadically entertaining but ultimately hampered by its choppy screenplay and clumsy filmmaking. He praises Vin Diesel’s physical presence and highlights the well-orchestrated action sequences. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/xxx-review/) ## The Guardian — Philip French Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 20 October 2002. French finds the film a stale, blunt Bond imitation, weighed down by a thin story and clumsy patriotism. He singles out the spectacular bridge-and-parachute stunt sequence as a standout. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_review/0,4267,815396,00.html) ## Variety — Robert Koehler Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 5 August 2002. Koehler sees the film as a calculating commercial attraction rather than a substantial movie, though he finds Diesel’s charisma and physicality entertaining. He particularly praises the spectacular downhill action sequence and the Prague locations, while faulting the hyperkinetic editing and other production choices. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2002/film/reviews/xxx-1200546971/) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 9 August 2002. Turan finds the film more frantic than entertaining and says it takes itself too seriously. He faults its lack of zest and good-humored energy, especially compared with the charisma of The Rock in The Scorpion King. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-aug-09-et-turan9-story.html) ## Time Out — GMu Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). The available description suggests a dismissive verdict on the film. It singles out its action-movie clichés, including attitude, muscles and evil Russians, for mockery. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/xxx-2002-film-2002) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 17 October 2002. The critic pans the film as vulgar, puerile and burdened by Vin Diesel’s performance. The stunts are visually exciting, but they cannot compensate for the screenplay and scenery-chewing acting. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/xxx-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © 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/xxx.md