The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
Movie Review
"The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: D+
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, August 1, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
The first problem I have with "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" is that it doesn't have any mummies in it. Oh, sure, there's a back-from-the-dead villain that everyone keeps calling a "mummy." In fact, the word "mummy" is uttered -- usually yelled, actually -- about every 10 seconds, as if the writers were trying to convince us that we were indeed watching a movie about mummies. But the guy's not a mummy. A mummy needs to have been embalmed and wrapped up -- you know, mummified -- or else dried and preserved by nature. This guy was a Chinese emperor who got cursed by a witch and turned into stone. He's not a mummy. If anything, he's a zombie.
So the movie's definition of "mummy" seems to be "any dangerous creature that appears in a movie whose title contains the word 'Mummy.'" This is also the definition used by Rick O'Connell, the dashing adventurer played, for the third time, by Brendan Fraser. The movie never gets tired of winking self-references to the first two "Mummy" movies, and Rick is constantly pointing out, in that sardonic, I've-got-a-bad-feeling-about-this! fashion, that he's an expert at dealing with angry resurrected mummies. That being the case, you'd think he would know a mummy when he sees one. Maybe he's like the chiropractors who believe any problem can be cured with chiropractic care. No matter what kind of undead monster Rick encounters, he's sure his mummy-abatement expertise will be useful!
Anyway, the year is 1947, and Rick and his novelist wife Evelyn (Maria Bello, replacing Rachel Weisz), have retired from their mummy-pursuing escapades. Their son Alex (Luke Ford), however, has fled college and taken up the family tomb-raiding business in China, where he and the elderly Professor Wilson (David Calder) have unearthed the burial place of the notorious "dragon emperor." As we learned in the film's prologue, this Emperor (Jet Li) sought immortality, lied to a witch named Zi Juan (Michelle Yeoh), and got turned into clay along with his horse and army. If the curse is ever lifted, he and his army will rise and conquer the world, yada yada.
Naturally, some Chinese idiots WANT to awaken him, and they need a certain egg-like artifact to do it, and the artifact happens to be the one that Rick and Evelyn have been hired by the British government to transport to Shanghai. So the evil General Yang (Anthony Wong Chau-Sang) gets the egg, wakes up the Emperor, and all hell breaks loose.
But wait! The Emperor isn't immortal just yet. He still has to find Shangri-La and drink from the Pool of Immortality, or something, and to find it he has to get a certain magic diamond and place it in a certain spot in the Himalayas, or something. Oh, and a Chinese girl (Isabella Leong) has a sword that can kill the Emperor for good, even if he's immortal, as long as it's stabbed through his heart. Why is the sword so special? Dunno. The movie makes up new rules as it goes along. Later, we're told that the Emperor and his army, while immortal, won't truly be indestructible until they pass the Great Wall. Why? Well, all his enemies are buried underneath it. What does that have to do with anything? The movie doesn't say. It just mentions the two facts next to each other and lets us infer that one somehow relates to the other. It's that kind of movie.
It was written by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar ("Shanghai Noon" and "Shanghai Knights") and directed by Rob Cohen, whose specialty is big, dumb, loud movies like "The Fast and the Furious," "XXX," and "Stealth." If you thought Stephen Sommers, who made the first two "Mummy" films before moving on to "Van Helsing," was a hack, wait'll you get a load of what Cohen and his writers have done. "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" is excessive and pointless in all the usual ways -- if you've seen one large-scale battle between CGI armies, you've seen them all -- and not one line of dialogue that's supposed to be funny actually is. Evelyn's fussy brother Jonathan (John Hannah), along for the ride to serve as a vain, materialistic contrast to Rick's ruggedness, gets covered with yak vomit at one point and observes anachronistically that "the yak yakked." That's as good as the jokes get, folks.
Furthermore, none of Rick and Evelyn's "witty banter" is witty, and it might not even qualify as banter. For the most part, everyone just runs around declaring prefabricated movie punch lines like "Here we go again!" and "He sure knows how to make an entrance!"
Also, Maria Bello has many talents, but speaking with a believable English accent is not among them.
Finally, when everyone is in the Himalayas trying to find out where Shangri-La is, several yeti (aka Abominable Snowmen) appear. They fight on the side of good, which they apparently determine simply by taking your word for it. If you tell the yeti, "I'm one of the good guys; THOSE are the bad guys," they will believe you. One of the yeti drop-kicks a bad guy, sending him soaring between two mountains, whereupon another yeti raises his arms to make the "touchdown" sign. Because if there's one thing Himalayan yeti in 1947 would have been intimately familiar with, it's the hand signals associated with American football.
That's just one of the many cheap jokes that fill out this shallow, noisy sequel. At first I thought the film seemed like an Indiana Jones rip-off, but now I'm not sure it's even that good. It's more like an imitation of a rip-off, like Cohen and Co. once heard someone describe an Indiana Jones rip-off and they just copied down whatever they could remember, and then added some yeti.
Grade: D+
Rated PG-13, a little mild profanity, a lot of action violence, a few gruesome images
1 hr., 52 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 30 comments
August 1, 2008 at 1:12 am
Great, witty review. I was already NOT planning to see this movie, but now I think I'll take the 2 hours I wouldn't have wasted and use them to read more reviews by this critic. Well done.
August 1, 2008 at 3:38 am
I thought this movie would be good so i invited my parents to go to and watch this movie with me.(well, this was before I saw this review. how unfortunate)
turned out to be really unoriginal, like what you've said, Eric.
My parents thought that it just had lots of visual effects and didnt have much sensible story.
I really should have read this review before i went to watch it.
Great review.
August 1, 2008 at 4:17 am
It's times like these that I remember how awesome you are, Eric.
August 1, 2008 at 5:38 am
So...I'm guessing that the Harry Potter trailer before the movie is the only reason to sneak in the theater?
August 1, 2008 at 7:44 am
A believe a monster made of stone would be a "golem."
It's an old Jewish legend, so I'm not surprised you're unfamiliar. Mwahah.
And you were much nicer to this movie than I was. Funnier too.
August 1, 2008 at 9:09 am
That's why they put it in there, Jenn :).
August 1, 2008 at 12:17 pm
/raises hands in 'touchdown' sign as drop-kicked movie soars between two mountains/
August 1, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I've always thought that sequels shoul have the original actors...I am very disapointed that Rachel Weiss is not in the movie... I am still debating wether I should go see it or not...After reading these reviews my debating is not that hard...maybe I should wait until it comes out on DVD.
August 1, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Did this movie at least have any good martial arts choreography? I've come to expect a lot in that department from Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh, even when the movie itself is terrible.
August 1, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Its not even worth it for the HP6 trailer... just watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wtq5kGmzs8E
August 1, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Oops, it looks like someone beat me to the "golem" remark. Anyway, great review! Reading these types of reviews is always a therapeutic experience for me.
August 2, 2008 at 1:01 am
Okay, I went to it today with my nephews, who love the Mummy movies. Honestly, I didn't think it was all that bad. It wasn't as good as the first one, but sequels rarely are. But if I'd been reviewing it, I'd have at least given it a C. There is great martial arts in it & Michelle Yeoh & Jet Li do some pretty good stuff. It could have had more of that in it though. I think the only real complaint I had with it was Alex, their kid. I just couldn't see him & Brendan Fraser together & actually believe that he would be this kid's dad! They almost look the same age!! I wasn't really that impressed with Maria Bello either & agree that her accent is not one of her stronger talents! But there is alot of action....enough to keep my five year old nephew from multiple trips to the bathroom. The worse the movie, the more he has to go....he only went once today & that was at the beginning. If you go to it & just watch the action & don't really pay attention to the dialogue, it's a fun movie to watch.
August 2, 2008 at 12:23 pm
You ever notice how the third movie in a series tends to suck...rush hour...the mummy...
August 2, 2008 at 4:31 pm
HP trailers do not make a movie worth seeing. I'd rather scrub my face with a PedEgg then begin to consider thinking about renting / reading anything to do with Harry Potter.
As for the movie, the review solidified my fears. They got big names to attempt to support a meager storyline.
As for the golem reference, that is semi-correct but rather than geek-out on the exact definition and derail this entire thread, i'll leave it at that.
p.s.: HP FTMFL!!!
August 2, 2008 at 10:00 pm
This movie was truly awful. Wish I'd read this review before I went to see it.
One thing that bothered me which I haven't heard mentioned was that when the Emperor was turned to stone, he was standing alone and kind of threw his arms up and his head back. When they find him, he's on a chariot holding the reins to some horses. If he was stone, how did he change positions? Was someone able to 'pose' him in the interim, like he was some kind of action figure?
The yeti did not drop kick the guy between two mountains, but rather, over a gate, and the sign he made is for a field goal, not a touchdown.
A golem is not a stone creature, but rather made out of clay and brought to life by putting a piece of paper with a holy incantation under its tongue.
August 3, 2008 at 4:07 am
the yeti making the field goal sign is exactly the kind of tongue-in-cheek humour that lets the audience know the movie isn't meant to be taken seriously.
were you also whining about the opening scene in A Knights Tale? (we will, we will, rock you)
furthermore, pointing out petty logic and continuity flaws in a summer blockbuster that obviously doesn't take itself seriously is like complaining about trunk space in a porsche or dialoge in a porno... you're just missing the point
that said, it was a crap movie.
August 3, 2008 at 11:12 am
@htedro
Silly jokes and stuff are fine (indeed needed) in a movie like this, but they have to be internally consistent to be funny. I'd be distracted by the fact that yetis can't know about football, and don't even live in areas where it's played. QED, I win.
August 4, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Well, to have some common sense. Mummy does not only exist in Egypt but also in China. Perhaps, the way the movie presented the "Mummy" was a bit twisted.
I have not watched the movie yet but your review spoil the fun to watch it. The main reason is that you mention that they keep on calling mummy name in the movie. Only a lame plot or lame story will keep on using the same word in the script.
In ancient China, they also mummify the emperor and his followers, just a note to have some common sense on your review.
August 6, 2008 at 5:05 am
Sounds like Tomb of the Dragon Emperor met everyone's expectations... Brendan Frasier tries too hard to act, so you can tell he's acting
August 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I usually dont read reviews but I dint let this one go till the end. U really seemed pissed off over spending the money for this one and wrote your heart out, meticulously. Good job buddy!
August 12, 2008 at 11:32 am
Firstly I have to admit that I haven't read you're entire review because one thing in particular caught my eye in youre starting sentence...
It perplexes me how critics like yourself write reviews that dribble on about technicalities....who cares if there wasn't an actual "Mummy" in the film.
I know for a fact before I go to see this film (based on its predecessors) its not going to be a masterpiece. These films are not meant to be taken seriously and predictably it's going to be a rollercoaster ride of fun with tongue-in-cheek humor, that I happen to enjoy.
August 13, 2008 at 10:14 pm
ok, #21, I used to think the same way you do. But then I realized that this is a critic's JOB, to nitpick movies and find the parts that might make them unenjoyable for the potential audience. If you enjoy the movie, fine, then go on enjoying it. But a critic sees SO many movies that after a while the small things, and the repititive elements, start popping out at them. In fact, that's a recurring theme in Eric's reviews, that unoriginality makes for a lazy movie. And, honestly, I have to say I agree.
August 14, 2008 at 2:45 am
#21, I hope you are not really a film student and are not planning on going to make movies or something in the future. If so, and you really don't care about continuity and proper use of humor, etc. I do not want to see your movies. I don't think anyone else will either.
Good film makers pay attention to the nit-picky things. They have a proper storyline and they can include humor that is "tongue in cheek" that goes along with that storyline properly. Funny tongue in cheek humor thrown into a movie that doesn't do other things correctly does not make it worthwhile to see, in my opinion. I'll go watch a properly made movie with tongue in cheek humor instead and it will be a much better experience.
Also, you are not using the word "you're" properly and that makes me discount you as a person to listen to. If you're going to be critical, at least learn when to use conjunctions. I might have grammatical errors, but at least I know when to use your and you're.
August 14, 2008 at 2:57 am
Also, #21, you'll notice that only about 1/8th of this review is about the Mummy misconception in this movie. I guess that means that his entire review dribbles on about technicalities to you, but I would suggest reading the whole thing to get a real idea of what the review is about. This might also be a good idea when you read things in the future. Especially if you're going to produce movies or something. Just reading the first line of the script is not going to tell you what is going on throughout the movie.
August 14, 2008 at 3:59 am
If you're going to be critical, at least learn when to use conjunctions.
Or contractions, as they're actually known.
August 14, 2008 at 9:08 pm
My family and I loved the first 2 Mummy movies and so we decided to go together to see this one. Well, I was really disappointed. I thought maybe Rachel not being there would be okay, but it was just not the same. I could tell the directors were not the same. Loved the first 2 hated the 3rd.
August 14, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Oops, maybe I should proofread before I submit. *blush* I shouldn't rant anyway. I was just mad at my puppy and had to take it out on someone.
August 27, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I might go see this movie for the sole reason of laughing at retarded yeti.
September 1, 2008 at 10:06 am
Just finished seeing this in a lightly attended theater in Tokyo. Left feeling that it simply continued special effects pioneered by Weta and Peter Jackson; Indiana Jones has the rugged male grave robber genre down much more enjoyably, and what is about being filthy rich in England that just begs to continue revisiting the colonial past? Jokes: lame, predictable not funny, juvenile.
Good points: Michelle Yeoh's fightin' dress, doing wonderful twirls and swirls as she spins in the air swinging a mean sword. She's wonderful as always. Jet Li's body dynamics: even covered in mud, gunk, and loads of concealing heavy leather, his walk, his presence, is sheer dynamite...I totally believed he was channeling every world-class despot known.
Maria Bella: not given the chance to be as great as she was in "History of Violence," but then, given the director...point made. Well, not everyone can carry an English accent, but she did depict a delightful, strong, sexy, carries off the slinky dresses, creative, loving woman who is thankfully older than a perfect 20-something. I think she made the film.
Pleased I saw this on a bargain ticket...
September 17, 2008 at 3:46 am
I just saw this in Taiwan. It was funny, when trying to describe the folks here didn't know what to say because they knew "there's no mummy in this movie".
And boy was it awful. I mean, when an Emperor's entire army is destroyed, who is left to "bury his concubines alive" with him? Or cover him in a stone statue and put a decoy in his tomb/coffin? And put traps around the tomb? Sounds like a large group of people put in a lot of work for a hated despot who was killed along with all his supporters. That kinda rubbed me the wrong way, and that's just the beginning of it.
If you were guarding a tomb for over 2000 years, wouldn't you just find a way to blow it up or something? Rather than wait for someone to try to bring the emperor back to life.
I rather hated all the characters in this movie. And that's coming from someone who liked Mummy 1 & 2. This wasn't even a fun ride.