ROTTEN TOMATOES: Check Out a Clip from "Rush Hour 3"

Check Out a Clip from "Rush Hour 3"

by Scott Weinberg | April 16, 2007

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

It's really uncool to trash a movie before you see it, but based on what I've seen in the first two "Rush Hour" movies -- combined with what I just witnessed in this brand-new "Rush Hour 3" clip -- I can already tell that this sequel's simply not for me. I'm sure New Line will really miss my eight bucks.

The gist of this "RH3" scene seems to be this: Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker are being thrown all over the room by a really tall guy while a bunch of children giggle in the background. There are a few sentences that could, I suppose, be described as "jokes," but I may be mistaken on that. (Tucker makes reference to steroids, bunions, and the proper way to say "surrender in Chinese." For this he got about 25 million bucks.)

Can you believe how much they're paying us?

Am I nuts? Check out this clip and tell me if it makes you want to run out and buy a ticket for "Rush Hour 3," which opens on August 10th and is pretty much guaranteed to make large gobs of money, regardless of my snippy whining.

Source: Yahoo! Movies

Related Items

Movie:	Rush Hour 2
	Rush Hour 3
Celeb:	Jackie Chan
	Chris Tucker

(1-17 of 17 posts) | Reply

ZEZEtheX writes:
on Apr 16 2007 02:30 AM

I don't know what the whining in this news post is about.
It's not meant to be deep, just entertaining.
I'll be seeing it.

(Reply to this)

GreenBastard writes:
on Apr 16 2007 02:52 AM

Man, Chris Tucker's voice is so Annoying!
Surely several millinon dollars can buy a funnier guy?

(Reply to this)

Raziel66 writes:
on Apr 16 2007 08:08 AM

I can't watch the clip here at work, but the first two movies were pretty funny, so I'm sure the third will be the same.

(Reply to this)

puablo writes:
on Apr 16 2007 08:17 AM

Okay that particular clip wasn't very special, but if this movie is even half as entertaining as the other two, then I won't be disappointed. It would have been better if it came out a few years ago though.

(Reply to this)

jacketman writes:
on Apr 16 2007 08:56 AM

I agree. I did like the 1st one a bit but the 2nd was dumb and unnecessary. This is VERY unnecessary. I know its not supposed to be deep. You can say that about most bad movies. This is simply the type of movie that defines a lot of what hollywood does these days. Safe.....dumb.....Chris Tucker. Although I have to say that Chris Tucker has been absent lately. Why, Rush Hour 3!?? We had peace!

(Reply to this)

anthropy writes:
on Apr 16 2007 09:30 AM

[b]Why put RH3 down so much?[/b]
It seems that RH3 is pretty unpopular among the 'self-respected' critics?

Do you have to put down RH3 so much so as to reflect your own superiority? Or you may say, RH3 is too unworthy a film even for that task?

Your article seems to suggest that RH3 and RH series are stupid and people who go to watch it are not making the right choice.

While, certainly your opinion is respected, but please also respect the people who enjoy RH3 and the people who are going to watch RH3. And that would certainly be appreciated.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Apr 16 2007 09:36 AM

I liked the first two, just as fun, lazy, mindless entertainment. They served their purpose

(Reply to this)

talan7 writes:
on Apr 16 2007 01:41 PM

Wow, already badmouthing a movie you haven't even seen. Why even waste your time writing this. Isn't this supposed to be news on new releases and as such try and be objective. Oh, and yes, regardless of your snippy whining, the movie will make a lot of money for New Line just as it made a lot of money for Chris.

(Reply to this)

RT-Matt writes:
on Apr 16 2007 01:48 PM

I really enjoyed the first two films, but this clip and the original trailer make the third installment look really stupid, overplayed, and not even smile worthy. Hopefully it ends up being funnier, but I have my doubts as well.

(Reply to this)

Jake Avery writes:
on Apr 16 2007 02:38 PM

The clip seemed pretty good to me. "This boy's on steriods. He's got a head like Barry Bonds." Made me laugh at least; and I don't even like baseball.

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on Apr 16 2007 04:10 PM

I agree that the first too were mindless entertainment which was all fun, but Rush Hour 3 doesn't seem fun at all. We'll just have to wait and see...

(Reply to this)

mssk8erboy writes:
on Apr 16 2007 06:24 PM

I didn't mind the original but number 2 wasn't all that great and number three doesn't look very entertaining to me at all, even if it is just the bad quality of the video i just watched, the dialogue wasn't good and even the action in the clip was just kind of... well, blah. I'll more than likely give it a shot (maybe on dvd) but, that doesn't look very promising.

-MIKE

(Reply to this)

mssk8erboy writes:
on Apr 16 2007 06:26 PM

...and one more thing. How the hell did Brett Ratner get X-men 3, it just doesn't make sense to have gone from Singer to Ratner... am I the only one that sees this? I would be more than happy to wait several more years for a new version of X-men 3 directed by Singer.

-MIKE

(Reply to this)

Grim hoodlum writes:
on Apr 16 2007 07:54 PM

[b]dont care[/b]
i liked both of the rush hour movies, an MOST of the people here in brooklyn do too. to some people chris tucker iz annoyin but itz different here, wit people like chris rock an dave chappelle, me personally i find most of the thingz he be sayin in both movies mad funny. i wud rather pay to go see the 1st one then pirates of the Caribbean 3. now theres a movie that has notin special about it. pluz the rush hour movies have jackie chan, so there a big reason i like it. most of the humor in the movie iz usaully understood by us supposed "baggy clothes wearin projects thugz".

(Reply to this)

Infernal writes:
on Apr 16 2007 08:08 PM

I loved the first two Rush Hour movies, and this scene makes me even MORE excited to see Rush Hour Three.

And as said above, please don't trash a movie before you see it. You can voice your opinion, but respect the opinions of others as well, please?

(Reply to this)

RottenRob writes:
on Apr 16 2007 10:02 PM

[b]Not so bad[/b]
I'm not sure what seems so bad about it. Looks kind of fun.

(Reply to this)

sheamazing writes:
on Apr 17 2007 11:34 PM

[b]movies[/b]
if it's good enough for roman polanski, it's good enough for me.

(Reply to this)