ShareThis Page
‘Rush Hour 3’ |

‘Rush Hour 3’

If there’s one positive — and there is only one — about “Rush Hour 3,” it’s that it easily surpasses the 2001 sequel. Other than that, director Brett Ratner has thrown the same recipe into the pot and pulled out another dish that looks good, but ends up leaving us with a sour palate.

Jackie Chan (“Shanghai Knights”) and Chris Tucker (“Friday”) are back in the same buddy roles as bumbling cops in an action flick with comedic tendencies. While some of the action sequences are somewhat entertaining, it’s the stale jokes that push “Rush Hour 3” into the abyss of empty-headed cinema.

Chief inspector Lee (Chan) and detective James Carter (Tucker) are reunited when an assassination attempt on Chinese ambassador Han goes awry in Los Angeles. Lee and Carter figure out that an evil underground crime circuit named the Triad is behind the plot to murder Han and his daughter, Soo Yung (Jingchu Zhang), and they must travel to Paris to dissect the good guys from the bad on their way to saving the day in a new land.

“Rush Hour 3” is consistent when comparing it with its two predecessors. Writer Jeff Nathanson, also responsible for “Rush Hour 2,” wears out the same recycled jokes that can be had between Tucker’s African-American character and Chan’s Asian. After a couple rounds, it becomes tiresome. So, take an alternate route and avoid this “Rush Hour.”

• In wide release

Additional Information:

‘Rush Hour 3’

Rated PG-13 for sequences of action violence, sexual content, nudity and language One and a half stars

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.