Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor - Review&Discussion **SPOILERS**

Can someone who's seen the flick explain to me how Rick and Evie look as young as they do and have a 19 year old son?

Is that something explained in the movie at all?

\S/

 

?

When I was 19 my mum and dad were 45 and 46 respectively. They looked about as young as Rick and Evie in this movie.

 

The dad is played by someone age 39. The son is played by someone age 27.

When I kept seeing all the trailers, I kept thinking it was suppose to be his little brother or something. This is supposedly one of the main reasons Weiss passed on the film. She didn't want to have some 30 year old son.

 

Nine years ago when The Mummy came to theaters I was pretty dismayed at all of they hype and attention it was getting. At the time I didn't care for Brendan Frasier (who's star was starting to climb a bit) and the commercials and previews looked interesting. I went into it expecting to hate it and came out completely turned around. The first movie was a fun adventure that I consider(ed) to be the definition of "swashbuckling" all of the characters were a lot of fun, the special effects were, well so-so if over the top had good comedy to it and I felt it was an Indiana Jones for the 90s and 21st century.

Here we are a little more than 9 years later -in a year where we HAVE an Indian Jones sequel- and we've another Mummy movie where the key creative staff isn't a part of it and it's missing one of the original stars, her character now played by someone else.

On the recasting first -I liked Maria Bello. I thought she did pretty good but, for me, she was no Rachel Weisz in looks or in the way Evie was played. But, in a rare moment of me liking meta-jokes- the movie winks at the audience an acknowledgement to the change in Evie's appearance and character. One wonders though why Evie choose to write herself as a much dimmer and clumsier librarian. Oh well.

The comic relief character -Evie's brother Jonathon- is given much less to do this time around and when he IS around his jokes an antics are pretty lame and are pale and darn-near farcical to what he goes through in the first two films.

Brendan Frasier is in top form in this movie and -since my opinions on him have changed in the intervening time- it's a shame he doesn't do more in film lately.

The second movie -much to my chagrin- introduced Rick's and Evie's son Alex where he was pretty much the typical movie kid. Precocious and way to strong and aware for a child his age, even given that his parents are swashbuckling tomb raiders. This time around Alexander is much older, as expected, and he does very well as a son reconnecting with his estranged parents. And he's more obviously a "chip off the block" and fits much better into the tomb raider role. A far contrast to a certain other child of a well-known theatrical tomb raider.

The plot is pretty much the same as the other Mummy movies; and even opens with the documentary-like narration of the ancient events that created our mummy de jour; a long time a go a warrior hell-bent on taking over civilization made a deal with another entity for internal life. Events turned on him and he became entombed. Centuries later a series of events take place to rise him from the dead so he can become immortal and take over the world. Some of the details are different here (we're dealing with ancient China mummies and warriors rather than Egyptian ones) but pretty much the same as the other movies.

We're given the usual staples for movies of this nature, big CGI mummies roaring at the screen, decomposing skeletons, mummies and corpses with elemental/supernatural powers and so on and so on. It's very paint-by-the-numbers. (Shockingly to me this movie was written by Smallville writers/creators Miles Millar and Alfred Gough, I'm surprised their wank-toy Kristin Kreuk was no where to be seen in this thing.)

My review to you so far may sound like I disliked this movie. Well, I didn't.

It's very formulaic, it's very routine, and it's very repetitive of the movies before it but in the end I enjoyed it. It's not as much fun or "swashbuckling" as the ones that came before (mostly The Mummy) but I had a good time and it wasn't nearly as over-the-top and silly as Indy 4. I liked Indy 4 enough but it didn't feel like part of its own franchise and setting aside the creator's desires to move the series from the '30s serials to '50s B-grade sci-fi movies parts of it still just didn't feel right. (CGI car chases, and sword fights while balancing between a jeep and a duck, I'm looking at you.)

The Mummy [3] is a decent enough movie and, for me, the better of the tomb-raiding hero movies to come out this Summer. It's no Iron Man and it's surely no Dark Knight but The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor eeks out an A- from me. Yes, one grade higher than Indy 4. As I said, it's a better movie.

All and all, as the Summer Movie Season winds to a close (and for the most part this is the Summer's closer although a couple more movies come out in August) this one fits in with the rest in what, for me, has been one great Summer for movies!

 

The characters, though, are much older. 10 years passed between the first movie and the second, it would seem the same ammount of time passed between the second movie and this one. So Rick and Evie are much, much, older than the actors who play them. They're probably in all "reality" in their 50s.

 

I give this one a C.

For large swaths of it I just felt bored watching it. The actors were flat, though Brendan Fraser looks almost the same as he did during the first Mummy film, which threw off the idea of him being a father to a guy that old.

Maria Bello tried, but she I felt her she very little chemistry with Brendan Fraser. A lot of their jokes were too obvious and just not funny.

Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh did fine, but I still got a sense of been there, done that. However, it was great seeing Li be so kickass. I always thought he would've made an awesome Jedi Knight or Sith Lord. Oh well.

For some reason this movie didn't seem as sweeping or grand in scope as the other two, despite the various locations they used.

The story was pretty formulaic and not all that exciting or thrilling, especially after watching TDK, Iron Man, or hell, even Wanted. The family dynamics felt plastic. Perhaps if they had just had Evie killed off during the war, maybe that would've been a better wedge that pushed Rick and Alex apart and then they wouldn't have had to worry about recasting. Of course that plotline would probably ruin the light tone they were going for.

One other thing...the abominable snowmen and the field goal thing was stupid, though I think some of the kids in the audience liked it.

I really enjoyed the first Mummy film, because it had the right mix of action and fun that I felt was lacking in TPM, its 1999 competitor. Plus, Fraser was pretty engaging as the stalwart O'Connell, and Rachel Weiss was feisty and alluring as Evie, the perfect match for him.

The Mummy 2 went overboard with CGI and that stupid destiny stuff for both Rick and Evie-did Brendan Fraser even have that tattoo from the second film this time? Mummy 3 suffered a little from been there, done that. However, I think Jet Li's villian was better than the Scorpion King. However, I don't think the fight scene in Mummy 3 was better than the dog soldiers' battle in part two.

I was thinking that South America would be a good place to do the next one, and if this one makes money they'll probably follow through on the closing teaser line. However I wish they wouldn't.

 

B+

I had a lot of fun with it but didn't enjoy it as much as Indy 4. The Mummy started out a bit slow for me but once Rick and Evie got to China it picked up. I thought Maria Bello () did a pretty good job with what she had. The writing for the character seemed off. The Jet Li/Michelle Yeoh () fight was too short. I wish it was longer and not shot so tight. It was a little hard to see what was happening sometimes.

Loved the Yeti...

 

The fight between Li and Yeoh was great stuff. Been a while since a fight scene like that has been in a movie. The Yeti were great too.

 

Well, I always love seeing Michelle Yeoh kicking some butt. She's great. Jet Li too.

 

I just always enjoy seeing her butt.

...

Ok, that was cheap.

 

Man, did the director take lessons from Michael Bay? Most of the fights were unwatchable and gave me a headache that I had to close my eyes and just listen.

It was okay. Nothing great. Not abysmal. It is, what it is.

Though I do wonder if they'll spin off with Alex and his new fling? that might not be bad. The kid seemed like a good actor.

 

I cannot say that I hated this movie but I do feel that it is the weakest of the three in the fun factor. I always enjoy Brendan Fraser in almost anything he does though so he is able to make it more enjoyable. Michelle Yeoh is also dependable as always.

The loss of Rachel Weisz was the biggest hurt. She and Fraser had great chemistry together and they helped the franchise out. Maria Bello was just okay in the role. She looked the part but did not have any chemistry with Fraser and I could not buy her in the role. Also, she was not good with the accent.

The rest of the cast was all right but I wish that John Hannah was in the movie more. When Jonathan is on screen, the fun level rises every time.

I give the movie a "B-" which translates that although I will not go to see it again at theaters, I will watch it again when the DVD is cheap to add to the collection of the others in the franchise.

 

10% on Rotten Tomatoes...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mummy_tomb_of_the_dragon_emperor/

Ouch. I didn't think it'd do that great in the reviews but, still...

 

I thought that was what they were going for as well. That the Evie of the first two movies was more a caricture of Evie herself. I thought it was a creative piece of writing around it for our purpose anyway. Still missed Rachel though. She had better chemistry with Brendan.

True. Rachel never publicaly cited the script itself as an issue for her not returning. It was that she did not want to be seen on screen as being a mother to a 19year old son. I personally think she played into sterotypes too much with her decision but it was her choice to make.

 

HAte to say this but the Mummy Ride I went on at Universal Studios in Orlando 2 weeks ago was much better than this movie!

 

Well this film is 24 years after the first one. If we are to assume that Evie and Rick were in their early 20's in the first film, this would mean they are in their mid 40's in this one. I would think Rick is about 44-46 as well as Evie. Which would mean Brendon Fraser isplaying someone 5-7 years older than himself.Luke Fords character is supposedtobe about 22-24. Which means hes playingsomeone 3-5years younger than himself. Not a far stretch if you ask me. Maria Bello looks a little older than Fraser and definitelylookedlike she could be Fords mother. It would have helped if they at least added a little grey to Frasers temples.

 

I enjoyed the movie as a popcorn flick, but I definitely preferred the first two. Didn't care for Bello, the freakishly adult son, or the underuse of Jonathan my favorite character. I did love the Yetis though, shoulda seen more of them. The football gag didn't bother me at all. Unfortunately the entire story is a beat by beat remake of the first movie, though.

I mean really, this comes out 9 years after the first movie, and they have a 25 year old son?! WTF.

 

The first movie was set in 1921, the second in 1933 and the third in 1947 and Alex was what 9 in the second movie so it's possible for him to be in his early 20s in the third movie.

 

I have no problem with Alex's age. I just wish they had tried to make Rick look a little older. He did not have the haircut of a 40-50 year old man.

 

The problem isn't the artificial timeline, but the reality of the appearance of the actors. The "kid" looks like he's 30, and Fraiser looks like he's 35-40. They could have at least found a guy who looked younger.