The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (B-) (StinkingBob)

[stinkingbob]

I was reading reviews for the latest Mummy movie the other day and I was surprised that most of the critiques were disfavorable of it. So, I decided to check it out for myself yesterday and sadly I have to agree with them. It's not that Mummy is a bad movie, but it's also not a good one either. It's so-so. I left the theater disappointed and wanting for more. I will give you my reasons why after the quick summary below:

History Lesson
Once upon a time in ancient China, there was turmoil between "good" warlords and "bad" warlords. One warlord stood out amongst them all called Jet Li. He was able to amass many soldiers and eventually conquered everyone and declared himself emperor of all China. He had some mystics that taught him how to control fire, wind water, etc. He had statues built in his likeness done by slaves (the captured foes that survived the battles) and from their labor, built the Great Wall of China. Only thing was, he wanted to conquer his greatest enemy - death. He sent his best friend (General Ming) to search for the one person (a witch) who knew the secrets of immortality. He found her (quite beautiful) and brought her to the Li. Li told Ming that he wanted no one to have sex with her, but being so beautiful, Ming couldn't help himself so they did the nasty. So, the witch granted Li immortality, but when Li had Ming killed, she cursed him for all eternity, turning him and all his army into stone....
Flash forward to 1946: An evil General with a handful of followers wants to resurrect Jet Li. Brandon Frasier and wife are retired and bored. Their son is grown up and in China (coincidence) doing an archaeological dig on the tomb of guess who...jet Li! When given the opportunity of delivering a rare gem to China, Brandon and wife jump at the opportunity (little do they know that the gem is the key to resurrecting Li). There, they hook up with their son and thus the movie begins.

So, what did I find disappointing with the film?
1) I was expecting something spectacular, something original, something new. Afterall, the producers/writers had a few years to come up with a really good script and storyline. Instead, they opted for a Frankenstein approach borrowing from Crouching Tiger and Indiana Jones. Everyone knows the basic premise of Mummy movies: archaeologists find tomb. Someone awakens mummy. Mummy has vast army waiting to take over world. Brandon Frasier and entourage stop mummy cumulating into a final battle with undead armies. I wish they could have done something differently because it gets rather boring. At least take on a new approach that surpasses my levels of expectations. Remember when the first Mummy came out. It was ok. But the sequel totally blew me away. Lots of action, great script, great acting, comic moments. I expected the 3rd installment to be equal or surpass that of its predecessor, but it fell flat. Real flat.
2) The actress that plays Frasiers Wife, Maria Bello I believe, is horrible. She overacts too much and doesn't really get into character.
3) Not enough action scenes. There were only 3!!!!!:  "Car" chase scene which practically every movie has nowadays, gunfight on mountain scene, and finally the undead army/mummy fight scene. That's pretty much it.
There were some little tid-bits in between and I mean little.
4) They brought back a cast member that was in both movies (the skinny comical one) whose name escapes me. I don't know why he was in the movie because he really didn't have that much of on-screen time. They could have left him out and it wouldn't have affected the movie at all. Either you utilize the people you have to their fullest potential or you don't use them at all.
5) The movie felt rushed and not thought out well at all. It seemed like they had only 2 weeks to come up with a script. You would figure that the Jet Li end battle would be spectacular but the way he was killed was totally weak and quick. For someone who was the master of elements/immortal/could transform into beasts, his death was anti-climatic.

So there you have it.  I would not pay full nor matinee  price to see this movie. $4.95 rental, maybe.
It could be a date movie because I think women would enjoy the tameness of it. But us guys want action, action, action and this movie fails to deliver on all fronts.

[Sheridan Passell]

StinkingBob, good to see you back.

Another accurate review from what I've heard elsewhere.

For me, I really didn't enjoy Mummy Returns at all, but I understand it does have a big following.

Whoever did the casting in Dragon Emperor really cocked up with the new Evelyn and son. No one seems to have liked them in the roles.

"I think women would enjoy the tameness of it" - controversial !!

[stinkingbob]

Everyone that I know loved the Mummy Returns more than the original Mummy.  The action scenes were intense, the storyline excellent, script excellent, and the actors really got into their role. Emperor King was totally opposite. Yes, the wife couldn't act worth shit and neither could the actor playing the son.But, I really wanted to cover my ears when the wife talked.
The script could have been better. Well, look at it like this. If some chick is trying to kill you, would you fall in love with her and her with you? Hell no! But it happened in the movie.
You see, they tried to do so much in the film, but as a result, did very little. For example, Shangri-la. They finally find the mystical place and instead of expanding on this, they only have a short 4 second shot of the place. Rip off in my book.

Tameness in the sense that there is no blood or graphical violence per se that we are used to seeing onscreen. For example, you know that someone is getting stabbed and you see the motions of the sword, but not the actual stabbing itself. Most women that I talked to enjoyed the movie. Not loved it, but found it entertaining. And there were some romantic elements to it, albeit rather lame. Women would like this film better than men. My GF did.

[Tyler Lovemark]

I loved the original film, but I can't hardly stand the second one.  It just seemed to not have that B movie charm that I thought helped define the first.  I really doubt I'll make an effort to see this one.

[stinkingbob]

I don't understand. What was it exactly about the sequel that you didn't like?  It had more action, more scenery, more locales, great sets,  more thrills, more CGI, better makeup of characters, a great plat and storyline.  It was way better than the original. The thing is, if you make a sequel, you have to try to make it better than the first. You can't keep it the same otherwise it gets boring. Take for example, terminator. 1st movie had Arnold Cyborg as the bad guy. Imagine if the sequel had Arnold the cyborg as the bad guy. Imagine if the 3rd sequel had Arnold as the bad guy. They would still retain that B movie charm, but ultimately, they would be boring. People want innovation. They want to see something new and exciting and different in sequels. Another example is Tim Burton's Batman. Oh wait, that was bad script and bad plot and just bad everything.
My point is, sequels must be fresh and new and innovative.  But I am still curious as to why you didn't like the sequel. Can you please explain. Sheridan, you have the same opinion as well. What didn't ou like about the sequel?

[Mahmoud El-Azzeh]

First Movie >> Second Movie   

[Sheridan Passell]

Oh gosh it's been a long time since I've seen it, I can only really remember that was the impression I had. I didn't like the addition of the kid. I think it was all just too 'light', too much of a family film for my liking.

[stinkingbob]

First Movie >> Second Movie   

I love it when people make statements and don't give any reasoning for it!!
Anyways, we will just have to agree that we disagree on whether or not
Mummy 2 << or >> Mummy 1

But I think we can all agree that (Mummy 3 << Mummy 1) and (Mummy 3 << Mummy 2)

I hope that there is no Mummy 4 in the works!

[Sheridan Passell]

They were very much planning to make a Mummy 4 but after the critical and public reaction to Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor, I can't see it happening.

[dalmatianjaws]

I loved The Mummy, and gave too much credit to Sommers. Turns out he just got lucky. I loved the B-Movie characters and dialog ... thought it was an homage. Turns out he's just a shitty filmmaker.

Mummy 1 had finesse. Action scenes built to a climax then tapered off to character driven scenes with funny dialog. The bit with O'connell's sidekick holding up random religious iconography hoping one of them will ward off the mummy: HIGH LARIOUS. Clever. (that actor played Daniel Plainview's fake brother in Will Be Blood, btw).

The firefight on the boat in the original mummy is awesome. I love the part where the bullet holes get closer and closer to Fraser's head, until he looks annoyed and shoots back. Awesome.

Then came Mummy 2: Piece of Shit. See ... the think about natural highs is that they last an appropriate length of time then taper off when needed. Drug induced highs, like Mummy 2, last 15 hours and you black out afterwards and feel like shit. this movie is to action what ritalin is to a teenager. It's all climax with no foreplay, it starts off with a bang and keeps banging with no break. There's no time to think, no time to build charm, only time to run and scream. As a result, the VFX suck ass cause they're too many even for a large budget.

In writing terms, most classes would call this a case of "bigger and better."  Sequels tend to up the ante too much, adding characters, plots, VFX, villains until there's too much to track (See Spider-Man 3 and Hellboy 2 for other, slightly better, examples of this).

I mean, holy shit, Scorpion King was better than Mummy 2.

From the small piece I saw of Mummy 3 (Yeti fight scene) I knew this flick was shit. Some would say that a small bite isn't enough to judge an entire meal, but tell that to the dude that has to swallow the rotten meat.

[stinkingbob]

Dalmatian,
It seems like we are exact opposites. For the very same reasons you listed under Mummy1 as to why you liked it, those same reasons are why I didn't like it (Well no, I did like the movie, but I liked the sequel even better). I thought it was too comical. It should have been more serious.
It's like Evil dead 3. I was all excited about it and then when I saw it, I thought, what a piece of shit. Too comical. Way too comical. Should have been more serious.
For me, when I see a movie and pay my $7.50 - $10.50/ticket, I want to be entertained. I want there to be action if its an action movie or very funny moments if its a comedy. Based upon what you wrote, I am the type that wants the orgasm without the foreplay. I want that bang for my buck (or 10 bucks), so while I understand
that you like things to build and build and build up into the climax, I like a build up to the climax and then orgasm. Set the story, set the character, get to the action. I mean, your average lasts 1 hour and 30 minutes so you have to compress everything within that short period of time.

[Mahmoud El-Azzeh]

Apologies for not elaborating earlier. I've always preferred the first Mummy movie because it felt like a *complete* film, with a well developed plot, a decent script with several memorable characters and scenes (Vosloo being especially excellent). Mummy 2 was more a rehash of the first without the depth in any of these departments and therefore was less fresh - hell, I even forgot there was a kid in it as their son. I think Dal-Jaws pretty much summed it up for me.

I'm not saying Mummy 2 is a bad film. I'm just saying Mummy 1 is much better. I also liked Scorpion King too and was genuinely disappointed when I heard how badly Mummy 3 fared critically.