In the Far East, Alex O'Connell, the son of famed mummy fighters Rick and Evy O'Connell, unearths the mummy of the first Emperor of Qin -- a shape-shifting entity cursed by a witch centuries... Read allIn the Far East, Alex O'Connell, the son of famed mummy fighters Rick and Evy O'Connell, unearths the mummy of the first Emperor of Qin -- a shape-shifting entity cursed by a witch centuries ago.In the Far East, Alex O'Connell, the son of famed mummy fighters Rick and Evy O'Connell, unearths the mummy of the first Emperor of Qin -- a shape-shifting entity cursed by a witch centuries ago.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 6 nominations
- General Yang
- (as Chau Sang Anthony Wong)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaThe crossbow traps in the tomb scene were based in reality. According to Chinese archaeologists, the excavation of the Qin Dynasty Terracotta Army in Xi'an is progressing so slowly, partially because the site is filled with similar traps.
- GoofsWhen the Emperor is first turned to stone, both arms are raised up and he is slightly hunched down. When he is unearthed, he is encased in a different Terra Cota warrior who is standing straight, one hand straight out, grasping the chariot's reins. However, when he breaks out, his hands are shown straight up and it is clear he is trapped inside another statue in his original position.
- Quotes
Rick O'Connell: Look kid, I've put down more mummies in my time than you.
Alex O'Connell: You put down one mummy, Dad.
Rick O'Connell: Yeah. Same mummy... *twice*.
- Crazy creditsThe Universal Studios logo doesn't stop as normal, instead the title fades out from the revolving globe and the camera begins zooming in over the Atlantic Ocean and hovers over China as an on-screen graphic is shown displaying the separate feudal states of China around 350 BC, each labeled in Chinese characters. The dividing lines disappear and then the Chinese characters all merge together into two characters that then change to the English word: CHINA.
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.
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- The Mummy 3
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $145,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $102,491,776
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $40,457,770
- Aug 3, 2008
- Gross worldwide
- $403,449,830
- Runtime1 hour 52 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1