La momie: La tombe de l'empereur dragon

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.

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.

The Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor - I liked the first entry to this series. About all I can remember of the second one was that it sucked, and it's loose spin off "The Scorpion King" was merely O.K. in a "I get a kick out of Conan-type movies" sort of way. Compared to the first, the Mummy 3 trades off memorability in it's characters for larger action sequences. Being the 3rd entry to this series, this is somewhat forgivable as most of the characters are already developed. The movie still suffers though as it seems as though they have less to do as characters and more to do as props, and this unfortunately also goes for the new characters introduced.

This movie knows what it is, and as such, carries with it a level of self awareness. There is even one scene where the new actress playing Evelyn addresses the audience, almost winking, and says "I'm an entirely different person", poking fun at the obvious point her character has been recast. It was cool seeing Jet Li as the Emperor, and as a villain. But that's really all he was, the villain. Unlike the first Mummy movie, where they treat the mummy as an actual character with identifiable motivations, the movie does very little to develop The Dragon Emperor as anything but the antagonist for the action set pieces. But Jet Li is good, he somehow makes the few scenes he was given work, his villainous sneers and smirks work well in portraying a one-dimensional popcorn villain... I felt the movie would have been much stronger if he had more screen time than his CG counterpart.

The martial arts and sword fighting sequences were filmed in a typically Hollywood style with far too many cuts and closeups. The action would have benefited from pulling the camera back a bit to see more of the action. There are a few points about the plot where you find yourself asking questions that simply can't be answered, but the movie's plot is the kind you're not supposed to think about, but instead are just supposed to sit back, relax, suspend your disbelief, and enjoy the ride. If you are able to do this, there are a few parts in the movie that will have you cheering.

It would have been a lot better if there were 15-20 minutes more character development and exposition, but that would have put the movie over the 2 hour mark, and it's pacing might have suffered, and it's box office definitely would have. As it is, the Mummy 3 hits it's mark as being mass market (barely) digestible popcorn. The movie's story plays as somewhat of a cross between Dragon Wars and Indiana Jones 4, and with respect to quality, it falls somewhere in between... although is admittedly closer to the Indiana Jones 4 end of the spectrum. The movie is what I would call "well made mediocrity". It managed to entertain me. If the Mummy 1 was 8/10, Dragon Wars: D-War was 5/10, Indiana Jones 4 was 6/10, then I would have to peg The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor at 6/10.

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.

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.