The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
410 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
It's dreadful
MR_Heraclius20 February 2020
Nice idea for a story, but it didn't have a mummy in it. Rachel Weicz's replacement just isn't up to the task, the script is horrible, and the film just has nowhere near the good vibe as the original two films did.
64 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Now, I Really Missed Rachel Weisz In This One!
3xHCCH31 July 2008
I really like the Mummy series for its epic action, sense of humor and great special effects. I was very excited when I started seeing teasers for this sequel to be shown in July, mostly because it was quite unexpected.

This movie has all the required elements of epic action, sense of humor and great special effects. Of course there is still the swashbuckling hero Rick O'Connell played in grand style by Brendan Fraser. He undoubtedly has this action-comedy genre sewn up right in his alley. John Hannah is still around playing his brother-in-law, Jonathan, in his old annoying manner.

For the new stuff, the setting shift to China as the titular "Mummy" now refers to an ancient Chinese emperor who desired immortality, played by Jet Li (who really personified his anti-hero role with relish here). The emperor sought the help of a "witch" (played with much bravado by Michelle Yeoh), with whom he gets attracted to. However, the witch fell in love with his main general (played by Russell Wong, whom you'd wonder why he isn't getting more breaks in Hollywood). From hence starts the conflict and the resultant curse on which the movie stands.

The requisite martial arts you would expect in a movie set in China are of course in full play. Very well choreographed, especially that thrilling sword fight between Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh. The exciting action sequences inside the booby-trapped lost tomb, the truck and chariot (!) chase in the streets of Shanghai and the final fight sequence with the "Mummy" are all executed very well as in the two previous installments.

But then there are the drawbacks that for me pulls this one down to a five star rating. The quality of the spoken Mandarin is at times unintelligible. However, the major beef involves what for me are severely miscast actors.

The actor who plays the now college-aged son of the O'Connells, Alex, looks too mature to be the son of Brendan Fraser. I just checked to see that the actor Luke Ford was born in 1981, but he looked older than that, so it was a bit of a stretch to believe that he is Brendan's son. Furthermore, he also does not act like a son, but more like Brendan's younger brother.

But the worst and damaging mistake was the decision to cast Maria Bello in the beloved role of Evelyn O'Connell, which is wholly owned by the more beautiful and credible Rachel Weisz. I felt absolutely NO chemistry between Maria and Brendan. Her acting was also quite wretched when compared to Ms. Weisz, who was able to maintain her intellectuality, demureness and gentility on top of her topnotch fighting skills. Ms. Bello fails miserably in this regard to recapture the unique character of Evie we have loved before, in my opinion.
356 out of 446 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This Mummy should have stayed in his crypt.
kimgrear1 July 2008
I was able to catch this movie at a test screening in California while i was on vacation and its not much of a film. Its the same story as the previous ones and most of the stuff in the movie were taken from them as well. I love Brendan Fraser but he didn't look happy to be there and with how the story was set up, you can't blame him for looking miserable. He has no chemistry with Maria Bello, who was just awful (She's no Rachel Weisz, that's for damn sure.) and he has even less chemistry with his own son played by Luke Ford, who has the charisma and the charm of a brick, not to mention the fact that he looks just as old as both Fraser and Bello. Fraser has more chemistry with John Hannah, who is a welcome distraction from the lousiness of the film. The movie itself is just a flat headed mess of bad visual effects with no soul. Jet Li lacks the menacing presence of Arnold Vosloo from the previous films but that problem is more than less on the shoulders of the director, who was in my opinion more concern with the style of the film than any substance it could have had and because of that, Jet Li and most of the cast got the short end of the stick and it shows.

They should have ended it with the second film but instead, we have a movie that manages to make even "The Scorpion King" look as good as Iron Man.
497 out of 701 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not as good as the previous two
darlybrito19 November 2008
I was very excited about the movie. I thought the first two mummy films were great and entertaining. Before watching The Mummy 3, I thought it looked bigger and better than the previous two. After walking out of the theater, I completely change my opinion. I was disappointed with the story, acting, and action. Yes, the action.

Rick O'Connell (Bredan Fraser) is back to fight off a resurrected mummy named Emperor Han (Jet Li). Rick is joined by his son Alex (Luke Ford), wife Evelyn (Maria Bello) and Jonathan (John Hannah). They travel all the way to China and the frigid Himalayas in order to stop the mummy from conquering the world. But in order to complete his mission, Emperor Han awakes a massive 10,000 warriors (Terracota army) to finished the job once and for all. The O'Connells are up against an unstoppable army and an evil Emperor that will do anything to get the job done.

The story was very interesting, but the script was not. I thought they should had focus more on the mummy than Alex's life. I felt like Jet Li didn't have enough screen time or even just the mummy. Another thing that I felt a bit disappointed was the beginning of the movie. I liked how they were introducing Emperor Han and how everything started, but it felt like a documentary after a while.

I had mix reactions about the performance in the movie. I didn't have any problem with Fraser's performance. He fits his character and he was great in The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. Maria Bello was not as good as I thought she would be. She did okay, but the accent was kind of weird at times though.

The action and special effects was probably the best thing in the movie. The action sequences were very good, but I thought they could have been better though. I wanted to see longer battles. Like a longer version of Jet Li fighting Michelle Yeoh and Brendan Fraser at the end of the movie. I thought Jet Li should off had a big fight with Fraser. It was suppose to be an epic one-on-one fight, but it fell short. The special effects were good and believable. I didn't have no major problem with the effects what so ever.

The Mummy 3 was a fun movie to watch, but the film has it's flaws. If the the script was better, then I would have given the movie higher rating. While I'm not that interested for the next movie, I am curious to see how it turns out.
22 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Curse of the trilogy
Fever2 August 2008
Like so many great movies that became dragged-out trilogies, the newest Mummy falls right in. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved the first movie. But like so many sequels, this story line becomes repetitive. The first rule of sequels is to keep the cast. Rachel and Brendan and an amazing chemistry, but Maria Bello was abysmal as the new Evelyn. Her fake British accent and melodramatic acting was inexcusable. The sets looked like they were built by 3rd graders, the effects were overwhelming, the scenes were disjointed and the cheesy one-liners got old fast. Sure, Brendan Fraser still looks hot in a tux, but he still looks 35 even though his son is in his young 20s. Overall, I was terribly disappointed. I wouldn't even bother seeing it in theaters...and please tell me this series is finally over.
150 out of 219 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible...
AJ_is_Awesomness20 July 2008
A true honest review? Some true honest advice? Don't waste your time on this, its terrible.

I am a true fan of the original. I like the way it was weaved together with interesting characters, hammy dialogue and breath taking action sequences not to mention a beautiful location and some great plot devices. Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weiz lit up the screen with his charisma and her likability factor. They made a good screen presence and carried the story along until its fantastic action packed finale. I also like the way the producers mixed up the scenes, to spoon out not only violent and eerie scenes involving the main villain himself but to water it down to family standards with John Hannah's comical brother. It was a film of epic proportions. A fun story, likable characters and good use of live action and cgi, for the most part. Then about 2 years later Universal ran out of idea's and so decided to return to the bandwagon to churn out another cash cow sequel. 'The Mummy Returns' was released and whilst not as good as the original at least had the decency to be spectacular enough for the risibility. Fraser and Weiz returned (having made an offspring) and warbled, walloped and crashed through the bustling busy streets in a less than original screenplay but at least maintained their charm and kept the spark glowing from the first film. It was a likable sequel, and whilst no where near as good as its ancestor still managed to be entertaining.

So here we are folks. 2008 and yet again we are re-visiting a tired series. The next gruesome threesome to bring home to Hollywood is not only the worst of the Mummy films, but quite possibly the worst sequel of the year to date. Its so bad in fact that even Rachel Weiz turned it down, but its not surprising having listened to some of the laughably dire dialogue churned out here. I bet she took one look at the script and threw it in the trash can. The story goes something like this... Brendan Fraser (back as Rick O'Connell) his wife Maria Bello (yes they replaced her with someone with half as much talent) her brother John Hannah (what is he doing in this?)and their son Luke Ford (who has now aged by about 20 years) are somehow prancing around in their ordinary lives (in the Far East?) but suddenly the son awakens an evil Mummy Emperor (because hey thats what your bound to do in a movie like this) who wants to use his army of the undead to take over the world and get revenge on the sorceress who put him to sleep so many years ago. The only people who can stop him are the O'Connels who crash and bang through armies of stone beasts, supernatural winds and all sorts of other unoriginal menaces. Of course the showdown at the end will result in global domination or ultimate Savior. But by that time, you just wont care.

So.. why do I hate this one? when when one of the main stars from the original backs down and bails out and when the other looks bored throughout the whole darn thing you know you have a problem on your hands. And its sad because Brendan Fraser makes it blatantly obvious how unhappy he is reprising the role without Weiz by his side. He is never able to connect with Bello who tries to be chirpy but comes off looking rather ridiculous as the smart girl. And there we have another problem. Bello just cannot squeeze into Weiz's cleverly filled shoes. Its embarrassing to watch her warble on and you can really tell she felt uncomfortable trying to live up to the characters standards. The same can be said for Luke Ford, who makes a very unconvincing action hero-sidekick next to Fraser. Again they have no spark or connection what so ever. It feels like a cheap decision casting Ford because he never really brings any emotion, good or bad to the screen. The exception here is Jet Li, who whilst is not as menacing as Arnold Vosloo (the original mummy) still pulls off a good dark role. Its fresh seeing him portraying an evil character and it pays off when he is actually on screen. However his presence is short lived and at times feels like a guest appearance. And of course John Hannah who never disappoints and steals the show altogether with his one liners and witty charm. He almost makes this passable. Almost.

The movie deserves another good kick in, this time for its overly used CGI action sequences which feel cheap, tacky and unoriginal. Imagine a Roger Corman flick added into a Uwe Boll video game adaptation and your halfway there. The sets are nice to look at, but the CGI is really distracting and you can tell they did things all by computers. The character development is replaced with an endless array of pointless battle sequences. Pointless !

Its also really degrading seeing our much loved characters from the first movies spout lines of almost ridicule. Brendan Fraser cringes as he reads his lines (is he auditioning for the high school play?)and like I said Bello looks uncomfortable. Even Hannah looks bored and whilst trying to rescue this epic failure always looks like he wants to be doing better things. Like the ironing for example.

There is just so much to bash this movie about. Its an obvious cash in, but even fails at being entertaining. It doesn't live up to the first or even the second. It is boring, confusing and the characters are bland. The action is over the top and don't get me started on the screenplay. Its just an all round failure and should be buried in the Tomb of the title, never to be re-awakened.
537 out of 829 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Ignore the reviews, make up your own mind
rbsjrx9 August 2008
I almost didn't see this in the theater due to all the bad reviews. What changed my mind was Roger Ebert giving it a rare positive review. Since I agree with Ebert more than most critics, I decided to go see it.

I have to say that none of the reviews or comments I've read tell the whole picture, IMHO. Neither Ebert's praise nor other critics' pans are entirely appropriate. Lets' start with the basics... "The Mummy" was a modern retelling of a 30's "B" monster movie with up to date FX. It wasn't great drama, but it was a rousing thrill ride that capably did its job of entertaining you if you weren't too picky about plot, etc. The two sequels have continued this tradition. I'd rate this as inferior to the original but slightly superior to "The Mummy Returns".

Much has been made about the casting of Maria Bello in the role originated by Rachel Weisz. While I'm not a Rachel Weisz fanboy, she is a very capable actress and I just don't believe Ms. Bello was up to the role. There is simply no chemistry between Bello and Brendan Fraser. There are basically only two legitimate reasons to make a sequel: 1) either there are loose ends to tie up, or 2) people really like the characters and want to see more of them. Each film in the Mummy franchise ties up its own loose ends, so the producers are risking commercial suicide to change the characters in any significant way. If they couldn't get Rachel Weisz, they should have been much more careful in recasting the role. There's very little physical resemblance between the two actresses, and Ms. Bello simply doesn't seem to have the acting chops to carry it off. That unfortunate casting choice casts a pall over the whole enterprise - but not enough to sink it.

Some have criticized the film because they don't believe that Brendan Fraser looks old enough to have a son Luke Ford's age. That's arguable (all of the holdover cast is starting to show their age - especially John Hannah) but, again, it's not a deal-breaker.

OTOH, the secondary roles are excellent. Michelle Yeoh and Isabella Leong are excellent while Jet Li gives another great performance as the evil emperor. Luke Ford is somewhat bland, though, and doesn't appear to be a good candidate to carry the franchise into the future.

The CGI FX are generally excellent but nothing we haven't seen in the first two films. The exception to this are the yetis! With only a few minutes of screen time, they pretty much steal every scene they're in. Where the FX do seem lacking is in imagination, scale, and scope when compared to the previous two films. Perhaps that's because more of the action in the previous films took place in dark, claustrophobic settings, while here many of them are in brightly lit sunlight. The battle scenes in particular suffer in the inevitable comparison to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Was this film made principally to milk the franchise? Almost certainly, but then so was "The Mummy Returns". But that doesn't mean it fails on its own terms. It is entertaining and supplies much of the same appeal as its predecessors. If you can watch it on those terms and if Maria Bello's casting isn't too disappointing to you, then go see it - you may have a good time. I did.
47 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
They should have left this Mummy in the sarcophagus
albert-wayne21 August 2008
This is probably one of the worst films I've seen in my life, and I don't tend to toss around accusations like that lightly, but this third installment of The Mummy series initiated back in 1999 deserves such dishonor, cause it's such a bad example of film making, it borders on offensive.

I'm a guy with simple tastes, I'm not one of those people who think cinema begins and ends with Bergman and Goddard, I actually enjoyed the previous Mummy pictures, even the second one, which I know was cheesy as hell, but like film critic Michael Phillips said about cheesy movies, a movie sometimes is just "10.000 pounds of cheese on a cracker, but sometimes, I'm exactly in the mood for 10.000 pounds of cheese on a cracker." But The Mummy: Tomb of Dragon Emperor is, at best, feces on a cracker, the cracker being the amazing trailer of Quantum of Solace before the movie, probably the highlight of the experience.

I won't go into any details regarding the plot, cause, well, the plot is pretty much explained fully on the trailer. We pick up with the O'Connell's, retired and bored as well, just as I was while watching the movie. They get at again to stop the evil Mummy of the Emperor Han from taking over the world...how original, when will these Mummies just wanna lay back and enjoy the comforts of the modern age. I'd love to see a movie about an ancient Mummy , brought back from the dead, only to be flabbergasted by the technology of the present, and lay around drinking beer, watching TV, and getting fat with McDonald's. That would be more fun that all that this movie had to offer.

All of the actors were there for their paychecks, Brendan Fraser has never been more boring. John Hannah was also incredibly stupid, and the jokes they wrote for him were not funny at all, some are even distasteful. Luke Ford, playing Rick's son, not only looks like two minutes younger than him, but less charm than R2-D2, Michelle Yeoh is wasted, Jet Li doesn't have the Mummy gravitas that Arnold Voosloo had, and finally, Maria Bello; filling in for Rachel Weisz, who had the good common sense to stay away from this dregs, she is horrible, she looks so concern with her fake Posh accent, which she got wrong anyhow, so, at the end, we are left with nothing in the acting department.

Rob Cohen, man, is he getting worse and worse, when you though Stealth was really the lowest a director could get, he managed to enlighten us with an even lower level of mediocre work. He has never been an interesting director, and his campy style has butchered many movies that looked interesting, if only for entertaining purposes, like Dragonheart and Daylight, but you would expect at least, with all that money spend on these summer movies, to have something to show for. But no, no, no, everything looks poor, the action sequences are dull as hell. To prove my point, this will probably be the only movie where a sword fight with Michelle Yeoh and Jet Li lasts about 20 seconds, and it's all in slow motion. If a director cannot make a sword fight between those two modern icons of martial arts films, he should really think about retiring for good.

The story is stock, which is to be expected from a B movie of this sort, but like Raiders of the Lost Ark proved, even B movies can be Oscar Hopefuls, but there was no attempt at all with this one. The pacing of the story is terrible, the special effects are sub par, and at the end, you are left with a 2 hour yawn fest, to which you would fall to sleep within minutes, if it weren't for the loud noises coming from the speakers.

The movie is shameful, and not worth the price of the ticket, this movie is the reason why some theaters have money back policies, and had the theater I saw this had one, I would have asked not only for my money back, but for a year of free admissions, for having seen this awful mess.
61 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible cash in by all involved.
coolkeoo17 July 2008
I was able to see this film about a month ago in a preview screening and to put it in kind words, its terrible. Jet Li is about the only good thing about the film but he's hardly in it. Brendan Fraser was phoning in his performance and looked if he was waiting from a call from his agent to get him out of the movie. Maria Bello looked goofy and miscast and the actor who plays their son makes Hayden Christensen from the Star Wars films look like an Oscar winner. John Hannah manages to bring some laughs to the table but his stick is not as fresh as it was before and Michelle Yeoh does not really do much with her role. This movie lacks the creepiness of the first two Mummy movies and the stone warriors of this movie don't hold a candle to the ghouls of the first two films at all. Not to mention the fact that the visual effects in this film look even worse than the second film(The Mummy Returns). The film itself seemed toned down in the fun and thrills department and just feels tired in certain scenes not to mention the dialogue, which seems like it was written by a five year old. This film seemed like a quick payday from all involved and sadly with the little effort spent in giving the audience something to root for and care for, its just feels like no one even cared about what they were making.
310 out of 521 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a DOG!!!
selkie19646 August 2008
I want to say up front that I loved the first two Mummy movies, so I am not a hater of this franchise. They were campy, very tongue-in-cheek, and there was this wonderful rapport between the actors which came out in their performances. I went into this one with some trepidation because much of the main cast of the first two films would not be in it (Rachel Weisz, Arnold Vosloo, Patricia Velasquez and Oded Fehr), but I figured, well, the first two were great (or at least a lot of fun), so how bad could this one be?

Oh. My. God.!!! I am not exaggerating when I say that the best part of the movie was the Chinese-writing animation of the closing credits. Five minutes into the film I was cringingly embarrassed for the actors, and it only got worse. The only actor whose performance didn't suck a dead dog's butt was Jet Li, but only just -- he basically spent the whole movie yelling, killing people, and looking extremely cheesed off. There was no connection between his character and the audience. I mean, Imhotep (in the first two films) did evil things, but he had this romantic tragedy thing going on because he was in love with Anck Su Namun, and you could see some reason for his actions and you could even maybe sympathize with him a little bit (particularly at the end of "The Mummy Returns" when he realized that Anck Su Namun didn't really love him -- at least, not like Evie loved Rick -- and it had all been for nothing). He had a human quality, I guess. The Dragon Emperor, not so much. As far as anyone could tell, he was just a megalomaniacal twit with a world-domination complex -- there were no redeeming features in his character -- it was just a cardboard cutout of "evil." The only thing I have to say about the mother/daughter immortal protectors team is that even put together, they're no Ardeth Bay. Maria Bello was horribly miscast as Evie O'Connell. Her performance seemed clingy and desperate (not just Evie being clingy and desperate, but herself, Maria, the "actress"). Luke Ford was a huge waste of space -- I never thought I'd see an "actor" who was worse at acting than Keanu Reeves, but Keanu Reeves is a great Shakespearean compared to Luke Ford. I echo another reviewer's comment in saying why didn't they just keep Freddie Boath? He's about the right age and he was actually funny in The Mummy Returns. Of course, it's probably better for his career that he *didn't* appear in this piece of trash (ditto Rachel Weisz, et al.) -- kudos to their agents for keeping them out of it. Brendan Fraser, whose performances I really enjoyed in the first two movies (although a great actor he is not), seemed like he was tired of the whole thing -- monumentally bored and just milking the franchise for another paycheck (I know that's a horrible thing to say, but I can't imagine why else the egregious performance -- I mean, you can only blame so much of it on the rotten script). John Hannah (another actor whom I usually really like) ditto. To paraphrase Mark Twain (from "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses"): the film-maker should make the viewer feel a deep interest in the people in the film and in their fate; he should make the viewer love the good people and hate the bad ones. But the viewer of "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" dislikes the good people in it, is indifferent to the others, and wishes they would all get drowned together.

There was nothing even remotely funny about this movie -- the "jokes" (if you want to call them that) were either tired, stupid, or completely flat. The special effects couldn't make up for the mondo suckiness of this piece of... uh... "film." Even if they had been of the thrilling sort that one expects. Which these were not. The Yetis could have been cool, but they just, um, weren't. And the whole "field goal" thing was so NOT!

I had to give this film a rating of 1 (awful) because that's as low as IMDb's scale goes, but I'd really like to give it something more like a –27. And I'd also really like a refund on the two hours of my life I wasted watching this dog. Boo! Hiss!! Yuck!!!
48 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Less than meets the eye
evangelicangel19 November 2008
After watching 'Mummy 3', watch 'The Mummy', and you will quickly see the vast difference in the two.

There are many elements that made the Mummy 3 a horrible edition to the Mummy series. Yes, the disappearance of Rachel was disappointing, but her presence wouldn't be enough to save this film from it's ultimate demise. Even Brendan Fraiser's character lost the edge many grew to love in the first two. The idea of the Terra-cotta was interesting, but not for this series. The story was poorly executed and almost over shadowed by the even more terrible "romances" between Luke, Lin, and the O'Connells.

The random dialogue and forced chemistry was enough to make you sick. There was very little going for this movie, and I'm disappointed in this series being handed over to Rob Cohen. This was nothing short of a botched boob job.
35 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Truly awful
emtekworks2 August 2008
First, Brendan Fraser is an actor who I really enjoy watching no matter what he's in. Second, I was hoping he would do another mummy movie - I like him in these campy action movies so I was looking forward to this movie. Now I wish he had turned this one down as Rachel did, I wouldn't have wasted my money. And I have a high tolerance for so-so movies. I felt so bad for Fraser, he was trying - but you can only do so much with a crappy script and poor direction.

Pros: Very good special effects. Jet-Li, Yeoh had good fight scenes.

Cons: Forced dialogue, Maria Bello trying too hard, No chemistry between Fraser-Bello-Ford (the son). Music either too much or just not a good fit, I found it overwhelming the scenes at times.

Everything comes across as trying too hard. I miss the Sommers touch. I just didn't have any fun this time. Seriuosly, wait for it to come to cable.
89 out of 147 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Better than it gets credit for
charlescurtis20032 August 2008
No, this Mummy doesn't come even close to topping the first one, but I would argue that it is as good or possibly even better than the second one. Yes, there are several things we can quibble about (Brendan Fraser's son looking as old as he does, abominable snowmen from out of nowhere, and a very ho-hum love story) but this movie was not made for the Oscars, people. It was made so that we could check our brains at the door and have fun, and the movie does deliver on that count.

I really liked the idea of using the real-life terra cotta army as the basis for the story. Granted it's not historically accurate of course, but there is a lot of mystery associated with that tomb in China and I feel that if you want to make a $175 million summer popcorn flick with that as its basis, so be it.

Overall, good escapist nonsense.
20 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Shameful!
sue-thomas2120 June 2010
This film is difficult to watch, because Maria Bello's terrible accent and acting grate on you so much. She just simply is NOT Evie. Rachel Weisz was never going to be easy to replace and it should probably not have been attempted. The on-screen chemistry between Weisz and Fraser was one of the best things about the first 2 films. Bello cannot fill her shoes. Whoever cast her should be shot! Unfortunately, I find the son a bit annoying too - it seems like his character is being moulded into a big, bouncing puppy version of Brendan Fraser - and he seems to have inexplicably turned into a "true blue" American...Weird. However, I think the Yetis are great -definitely the best characters in the whole film. :-D
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Huge disappointment
kibeth-215 August 2008
This movie sucks major big time. The script is utterly lousy. The characters are not the same characters I grew to love in the first 2 movies. There is NO chemistry between Brendan and the new Evy. The filming is disappointing. Wide shots might as well be photographs - nothing happens, no movement. Action shots are too close in so you can't see enough of what is going on. For instance, the sole fight scene between Michelle Yeoh and Jet Li is too close in. You can't see what these two martial arts experts are capable of. All you see is an occasional whirl of their arms, a twist of their torsos, and maybe a scowl if you're lucky. Legs and kicks don't come through because it's shot from the waist up, too close in. It lasts like 2 minutes - a real disappointment given what these two can really do. The plot has all this contrived, cutesy gook and sometimes it contradicts itself. This is a HUGE disappointment - a waste of money. No wonder Weisz saw fit not to sign up. Bring her and Stephen Sommers back and it would have been the same great Mummy movies from before.
20 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good Special Effects
overcast2218 June 2008
I saw a screening of the movie this week and was not expecting much. I liked the first Mummy a lot, did not like the second Mummy as much. I would say the third Mummy is about as good as the second Mummy. It was an interesting idea to have the movie take place in Asia. The scenery was beautiful and so were the special effects. I wish I could say the same about the acting.

Story has not changed much from the previous movies. Mummy rises, Mummy wants to rule world, must stop Mummy.

The new wife of Brendan Fraser is not as good of an actress or as hot as the previous actress. Brendan Fraser's son was not that great of an actor either. And i was confused with how old Fraser's son was supposed to be. It looked like his son aged 22 years but Fraser only aged 2 years from the last movie, strange.

Overall the movie was okay. If you are looking for a deep story, with great acting,then you chose the wrong movie.If you are looking for something to pass the time and some cool special effects then this is the movie for you.
109 out of 223 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Pure Entertainment.
stfa-17 August 2009
With well composed images, beautiful CGI effects and stunning locations, dynamic action sequences, and breathtaking music - this an excellent action-fantasy adventure for all ages. This movie sole goal is to entertain, and nothing else. And that's what it accomplishes.

It's nice for once to see a movie such as this one that doesn't promise more than it can deliver, which was the case with The Dark Knight. Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor delivers what made the first and second Mummy movies so successful. That's why this is successful, too. A breath of fresh air to move the venue to China. Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is light-hearted and a fun.
22 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Meh...
akorney14 July 2008
Now, I'm not one to bash the Mummy series. Sure, they've never been masterpieces of brilliance, but they've always had a charm to them both in adventure in comedy which I've loved though I and II. However, at a test screening I attended in LA, I sat through the entire film, and kept waiting for it to get better. Now, the premise was solid and I thoroughly enjoyed each character for what they were (i.e., they did what they were supposed to do). However, I didn't really care what happened to anyone. I actually think that Jet Li did the best acting, but Frasier still put on a good show. Humor-wise, the only times the audience laughed were when:

A) A really bad line came up (trust me, there's allot) B) The guy sitting behind me started laughing randomly

So, the final verdict in my opinion is, if you've seen the first two mummies, see it! It brings back the feel of the other Mummies, so you get what you paid for. However, don't expect the same. Expect a little less. The actors/ writers clearly expected the charm and past of the characters to carry over, thinking that we've already been won over. Thus, they don't really even try.

Whelp, it's okay. There you have it. I really wanted to like it more than I did, but it was so outlandishly stupid at times and nobody else was laughing that I couldn't get into it. I'd say it was the same as the new Hulk film possibly. It's okay, you get what you expected, and then it's over.
61 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun
RCWjr2 August 2008
My one-word summary pretty much says it all for me. Mummy 3 is, like the previous installments, a fun distraction from all the bad news that the front page of the newspaper reminds us of every day.

Frasier is back as Rick O'Connell. Leaner and meaner from the last time we saw the character in 2001, Frasier brings the same A-game to what is essentially B-movie fun. Much has been made of Maria Bello replacing Rachel Weisz as Evie. Yes, Maria is no Rachel, but still, she is more than up for the challenge.

Everyone involved seems to be having a lot of fun. It was great to have John Hannah back as Jonathan, he is always great to have around to lighten the atmosphere. Luke Ford is believable as Alex O'Connell. He has many of the same traits and physicality of Frasier's "Rick" that you believe this is what Rick and Evie's could would look like and act like.

The effects, like in the previous films, are good enough to tell the story, but will not win any academy awards. Many miss that point; these films are supposed to appear lower budget and have predictable stories. They are homages to the films that the Indy series is steeped in. There is nothing highbrow here, but there is plenty of entertainment for a much needed distraction.

Jet Li does a lot with saying very little. His Emporer is much like Imotep in that he spends a good portion of the film not in flesh form. He is given much more screen time than I thought he would. I did think there was a martial arts geek moment missed when the fight between Li and Yeoh was not longer. These are two of the greats and it would have been fun to see them go at it longer.

The story is pretty much the usual fare for the Mummy films. We have an opening prologue that sets the stage and then our heroes stumble into the middle of everything and some how come out on the end. Simple, but fun story telling.

All in all, great way to spend 2hrs just sitting back and watching the O'Connell's and Co. take on another adventure.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not As Good As The Others...
cant_hardly_wait7 August 2008
When I heard that a new Mummy movie was coming out I just couldn't contain myself! I was so happy - finally a chance to catch up with Rick and his family.

So, the day it came out here in the U.K. I went straight to the cinema to watch it. The start was a bit slow, of course they do have to explain everything about what is happening with the Dragon Emperor. This was obvious seeing as it happened in the other two movies. Here for the first time we meet him played by the wonderful Jet Li.

After you get past the explaining of the plot the movie starts to get so much better. Finally you see Brendan Fraser at his best! Not forgetting John Hannah who I simply adore! It is full of laughter, suspense and like both of the other Mummy movies a little bid of edge of the seat Oh my gosh I can't believe that just happened.

Good Points: Brendan Fraser, John Hannah and Luke Ford really make this movie good. The surprise guests and little jokes are hilarious. And of course, who forget the famous Mummy of the movie! Jet Li makes an excellent Mummy!

Bad Points: What were they thinking when they thought they could replace Rachel Weisz. No offence to Maria Bello but no one can replace her. Evie was made for her! There is no on screen chemistry between Maria and Brendan like there was with Rachel. There are certain special effects which make you cringe. Seeing as technology is so advanced.

Overall I like this movie and am definitely going to buy it on DVD when it comes out. If your a mummy fan then this is perfect - if you are watching it because you want to see if its better than the others stay clear.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I fell asleep... this movie was absolutely terrible.
brad-mills4 August 2008
Like many of you out there I was a HUGE fan of The Mummy series but this one left a bitter taste in my mouth...

The CGI graphics were horrible... in one scene the CGI graphics look cartoony kinda like "who framed roger rabbit", its 2008, this movie could've been made in the nineties. On top of the graphics being god awful the dialogue was so horrible, that I actually fell asleep... you probably remember the cute jokes and puns from the first two movies... yeah they tried to do that in this movie but it didn't work... plus there was no chemistry between the actors. The Cinematography was not as good as the first two... Honestly the list goes on with the horrible features of this movie... Perhaps if you haven't seen how good the first two mummies were than you'd like this movie, but i still doubt it... i would at least wait until it came out on DVD.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Exactly what is wrong with Hollywood...
quik_silver4 August 2008
This movie represents all that is wrong with Hollywood, turning our favourite movies and characters into soul-less factory products, and here's why. The Mummy series was an entertaining, funny, action packed series and even though the second one was a little more cliché and hammy than it should have been (they should have gone in a darker direction), the movie still had a soul and you could tell that it was made with love because you felt at least something sitting in your local cinema, watching it.

About the new installment; firstly, this movie should not have been in the Mummy series. It looked as if it had been forced to fit into the Mummy mythology to milk out the name of the franchise, because technically, Jet Li wasn't a mummy (more like a walking clay man) and everything from the Mummy series looked like it was forced to fit the story. The story was actually quite good, with a lot of potential to be a great movie, and had they made it something along the lines of the Forbidden Kingdom (Jet Li, Jackie Chan), with a better script and in the hands of a more capable director, it might have turned out to be an excellent movie. But, of course this cash-cow needed to be milked to the last drop.

I'll go as far as to say that the acting in the new film wasn't BAD (but it was bad) and the effects and CGI were spot on (best of the three, though they were glitchy in a few places). But the movie felt like it had been made in a factory, an assembly line, where a computer randomly generated the script from a database of clichéd scripts and one liners and the scenes were put together and the giant special effects machine made everything shiny. And without human intervention, this came out as a soul-less, heartless film where you feel absolutely nothing sitting in front of the screen, watching the action, the romance, the "funny" one-liners and the mandatory action score played in the background. But of course this was made by a person; maybe as heartless and soul-less as Hollywood itself to let such an abysmal piece of work be released, no less under the banner of a film franchise we all loved.

Avoid at all costs; even the shiny special effects aren't worth the time and money you spend watching it.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Not bad at all
yeomanflood11 January 2009
I have decided that I need to start adding my comments on IMDb (which I had rarely done before) just to offset all the comments from other people that I tend not to agree with. Sure, when I see a solid 7 or 8 on IMDb, the movie seems to warrant that type of score, but lately I've been seeing a lot of movies that are not bad that are getting unfairly hammered on their scores. On average I probably watch over 300 movies a year - now that doesn't give me a Masters degree in film or whatnot, but to be able to have an opinion about an art form it doesn't take a degree.

So to all of you scanning IMDb comments like I do, consider pausing with this one cause I'm gonna try to give you my view straight up. Enough of that. The key to all movies is expectations. Going into the theater or before renting the movie - what were you expecting? Before you go and see a mummy movie that is an action/adventure, I do not think expecting a lot of great acting and academy-award winning chemistry is reasonable. I do, however, expect decent/good acting; if you get great acting/chemistry - that's icing on top. Like others commented - at a high level this movie follows the formula of the previous ones. That's not a bad thing since I cannot imagine a new and amazing mummy story featuring an Indiana Jones wanna-be couple. I also think some of the casting might not have been the best, but I did not see any blaring failures. John Hannah was a refreshing character this go around whereas I think he might have been a little too much of a winner in the past. I also do not think Maria Bello did a bad job at all - I tend to think that when a major character is covered by a new actor or actress, you should not expect the same result. Thus the question to me isn't whether or not she was as good as Rachel Weisz or whether she would have done a better job, the question is whether or not Maria added or detracted from the character in the story. I found her to be attractive, pleasant and physically capable for the role. She seemed to meet the threshold for me. Now the weakest link was Luke Ford - with the worst chemistry with the other characters - so there you could argue he did not meet the threshold of "good enough" for me; poor casting in my opinion in terms of both his acting and age.

In sharp contrast to other reviewers, I found the humor in the movie to be good - though perhaps not as often or funny as I would have liked. Pace of the movie was great - either the action or the environment of the movie kept me interested. Some of the sets were very detailed although not historically accurate. The action and the CGI was excellent - the choreography and editing was done very well. I truly despise the tendency of modern action to either focus too close to the action, cut too often or overuse camera angles - this movie did none of those; anybody who complains of the use of wires in this movie needs to stop watching action/fantasy movies that involve thousands of undead - that's like complaining about the use of stunt people.

If you are looking for another action/adventure movie (cause you've seen a ton of them like me) or you like the Mummy movie series enough to want to see another, you probably won't be disappointed. If you're looking for amazing acting with action/suspense/adult themes go watch Lantana, The Blackbook or 300. Solid 7.5 (7 is a solid "good-enough-to-watch" for me. Gets the 0.5 for the fact that I like the Asian theme without being over the top, i.e., racist, and I like the Mummy series, Michelle Yeoh, Jet Li and Brendan Fraser).
28 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
all in all a very watchable film!
summerbreeze1318 August 2008
personally i was unsure whether i should go and see this film or not having read some very mixed reviews. however i was persuaded to go and was pleasantly surprised by what i saw! the film was quite exciting and at times unexpected .the fighting scenes were of a good quality and and it was easy to keep track of the different sides.this made a nice change compared to the usual where fights pass in a blur of weapons and fists leaving a often baffled audience unsure of who is winning! whilst watching the film it made me jump and made me laugh.all in all i think this is a very watchable film that would be enjoyed by people of all ages as long as they understand that this film was made to entertain andit wont be every ones cup of tea! i would recommend this film to anyone considering seeing it - you can make up your own mind
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This Mummy movie should have stayed buried!
jojinas11 August 2008
I was extremely disappointed with the development of the main characters, particularly with Evelyn and Alex.

Evelyn had a complete personality change into someone we no longer knew or liked, and neither did the character or actress it seems. While Alex was a smart, funny and most likable boy who grew up to be self-serving and just plain annoying.

The only saving grace was Brendan Fraser, John Hannah, Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh, who made the most of a terrible script which should have been re-written with Rachel Weisz in mind. Even my young son found the movie cheesy and was not impressed with the quality and excess of CGI.

The makings of a good story always lie with good characters... the rest is a bonus.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed