Review: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, New Releases, Universal, Theatrical Reviews

I haven't seen the previous two movies in the Mummy series, although people have recommended them to me as rollicking old-fashioned action-adventure movies, from the same Saturday-afternoon-matinee roots as the Indiana Jones series -- not exactly brain teasers, but good silly fun. The good news is that if you too haven't seen the preceding movies, you can watch The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor without fear of getting confused or lost or not understanding the recurring characters. The bad news is that regardless of whether you've watched the other films, the third Mummy entry is a headache-inducing mess that piles on unimpressive special effects to stretch a slight and often incomprehensible storyline.
The movie begins with an extended backstory: the history of the Dragon Emperor from thousands of years ago, in which a ruthless tyrant (Jet Li) bargained with an infamous witch (Michelle Yeoh) in his ambitious drive to seek immortality. The backstory, narrated in a manner befitting the History Channel, goes on for far longer than necessary. (Hellboy II did this so much better and faster, and with cool puppetry too.) It's a full 10 minutes before the story begins and we encounter the leads from the previous Mummy films, Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) and his wife Evelyn (Maria Bello this go-round), who have retired from the action business and are trying to lead humdrum lives in the English countryside.
However, they're lured back into their Nick-and-Nora-wannabe roles to deliver an artifact to China, where their grown-up son Alex (Luke Ford) is secretly excavating an ancient emperor's tomb ... guess whose tomb that might be? Of course there's a curse, and a giant diamond, and Evelyn's brother Jonathan (John Hannah) from the previous two films just happens to be running an Egyptian-themed nightclub in Shanghai so he's pulled back into the action too. Next thing you know, the whole crowd is out to stop the ancient Emperor mummy (who is more like one of the cursed Pirates of the Caribbean characters than a traditionally embalmed mummy) from regaining all his powers of immortality and raising his invincible golden clay army that will take over the world.
The movie tries to entertain us with a series of daring escapades and breathtaking spectacles, but unfortunately these attempts fall far short of their aspirations. A long chase sequence across Shanghai during Chinese New Year is meant to be a breakneck adventure, but the camera careens so wildly and awkwardly that I lost track of the action -- wait, where did Rick go? What's that the emperor is throwing ... bits of his face? Later in the film, the CGI effects descend upon the storyline with a vengeance, and everything looks so similar and so fake that when a character exclaims "Shangri-La!" you want to murmur, "it's only a model." And let's not discuss the eyeroll-inducing CGI Yeti.
But the CGI isn't the weakest and most damaging part of The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor -- that honor goes to the screenplay. The actors sell the dialogue as capably as they can, trying to emulate the snappy lines and easy wit of 1930s romantic comedies or at least classic action films. Unfortunately, the lines are so trite and dumb and unfunny that they elicit puzzlement rather than humor. Even Maria Bello's Emma Peel-like delivery can't save these lines. The film also relies on jokes that are just plain dumb, like a barfing yak. Other moments that might be funny with the right timing often fly by in the middle of one of the frenetic action sequences and we don't get time to register the gag, much less to laugh.
During the film's climactic fight scenes, as CGI tepidly battles CGI, one scene lights up the screen briefly. Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh's encounter involves no computer-generated creatures, and is shot not at hyperspeed but in slow motion. The exaggerated motions a la Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon seem positively organic in comparison to the rest of the film. It's a lovely moment ... and then we cut to more cliched one-liners and uninspired effects. I don't understand why you'd cast Jet Li in a role that wastes his great screen presence by covering him in bad special effects most of the time, when he's far more compelling in his own skin. In fact, I would love to see the entire cast in a better movie with a stronger script.
It's hard not to compare this movie to Hellboy II for more reasons than the similar prologues, which made me wish I could sneak over to an adjacent theater and watch the Guillermo del Toro film again. Both movies are about a villain who intends to unleash an invincible inhuman army upon the world. However, the elf-prince in Hellboy II at least seems to have an understandable reason. Both movies feature main characters trying to sort out relationship problems at the same time they're battling forces of evil. But the difference there is key -- the characters in Hellboy II had more emotional depth, and their relationships with each other and with humanity were what ultimately drove the film. In The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, the characters are glorified cardboard cutouts, and it's hard to care about why they're all bickering -- the action of the film doesn't reflect or tie into the emotional conflicts.
At the screening I attended for The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, one person in my row seemed to be enjoying himself thoroughly in the audience: a five-year-old who hadn't seen enough good action-adventure films to feel jaded by this tired retread. But if you're too old for kindergarten, you might want to skip this movie and catch Hellboy II instead. Or rent a good Jet Li film, or even revisit Raiders of the Lost Ark. I've been pleasantly surprised by a number of films this summer that were more fun than I might have expected, but this movie was an unfortunate letdown.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
8-01-2008 @ 8:03AM
Jim said...
Go rent the first Mummy movie, Jette - it's a fun action-adventure classic - but don't bother with the second. It's a complete repeat of the first movie in the EXACT same way that Men in Black II is a repeat of the much more awesome original.
I kind of wish that Cinematical used a reviewer who had seen the first two Mummy movies so we would have a basis of comparison to those movies. It's as annoying as seeing reviews for the latest Indian Jones movie by reviewers who haven't seen the originals (and how is that even possible? The first Indian Jones movie is an amazing classic).
Reply
8-01-2008 @ 8:40PM
Todd said...
Or maybe they should go see the Dark Knight again instead.
Reply
8-01-2008 @ 1:08AM
Mr. R said...
When you read the premise it becomes quite clear that it's the Mummy all over again. Ambitious emperor makes pact with evil, evil punishes ambition but gives powers. American finds himself fighting evil with plain common sense (David vs. Goliath as usual), evil is defeated in the end with plenty of destruction in between. Seen it, had it. Dark Knight again, thanks.
Reply
8-03-2008 @ 6:50PM
Agreed said...
Don't forget the evil cohort that assists the Mummy, just like in The Mummy Returns. all it is, is a repeat of the original plot in a different city.
8-01-2008 @ 2:30AM
Erin P. said...
Who said this was going to usurp the Dark Knight's crown? BLASPHEMY. I saw the trailer and thought it was a joke. The dragon cg is laughable at best and Brendan Fraser just looks more manic as the years go by.
Reply
8-01-2008 @ 2:43AM
Scott Weinberg said...
Excellent review. You were kinder than I was in mine. ;)
Reply
8-01-2008 @ 2:57AM
WilliamJG said...
Not interested at all about seeing this crap. I'll see TDK again to help make sure it stays on top. I have not yet seen TDK on IMAX. Has anyone seen on and not on the IMAX screen??
Reply
8-01-2008 @ 10:35AM
kevjohn said...
I've seen it twice on the regular screen, but they don't have it on the IMAX yet here in Tallahassee, FL. I'll be the first one in line when they do finally bring it here.
Umm, the fact that so many people are talking about TDK on the Mummy 3 review page should be a good indication of how good this does NOT look.
8-01-2008 @ 8:25AM
bongo123 said...
How as a reviewer had you missed out on the first 2 mummy movies, from what i can remember they were quite big box office smashes, surely in your line of work you would be required to watch all the big summer blockbusters...
Reply
8-01-2008 @ 9:56AM
Mr. R said...
And they were both pretty bad too. Not like the reviewer is missing the fist Godfather films. Can't blame her for skipping movies with bellow average computer effects.
8-01-2008 @ 11:03AM
Gina said...
It sounds horrible, and I'm rooting for TDK to stomp on it. But what I can't understand is why some tracking sites are saying it'll have a $50-55 million weekend, when the reviews are so bad and so many people are saying they're going to skip it.
Reply
8-01-2008 @ 11:30AM
Scott Weinberg said...
I seriously doubt that Jette is lacking any necessary insights regarding Mummy 3 simply because she skipped the first two flicks. These flicks ain't exactly the LOTR trilogy.....
Reply
8-01-2008 @ 9:45PM
Jim said...
Scott,
Thanks for that response. I've just lost about half the respect I had for this website. How can you even think the reviewer isn't missing some valuable insights by not seeing the original movies? That's just plain absurd.
A reviewer on a legit entertainment site should do at least a tiny bit of homework/research before giving a review like that. Hell, I (a 'civilian', as it were) gave my opinion on the Watchmen trailer and I was BLASTED for not reading the novel first. And that was just for giving a first impression - ON A TRAILER. Jette actually watched the whole Mummy III movie. I know the Internet tends to make for news NOW, but no one's going to panic or get impatient if Jette first watches the two originals so she/he has more basis of comparison for her/his review. She/he could be reviewing Showgirls III....it doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be LOTR quality to want to give a good, thorough review.
8-02-2008 @ 2:04AM
Scott Weinberg said...
I think she gave a very thorough review of THIS movie. You seem to want a review of the whole series. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I believe that every movie should stand as its very own entity, be it a sequel, a remake, or a remake of a sequel. Using a film's predecessor as a reference point could definitely make for an interesting point or two -- as I did in my very own review on a different website -- but I hardly think it's required.
You get into really bad situations when you start telling writers what components are REQUIRED. Just ask the guys who wrote Mummy 3.
Thanks for reading.
8-01-2008 @ 2:14PM
Liz said...
I enjoyed the first Mummy, second one was meh, this one looks terrible except I like Michelle Yeoh. Might have to rent it.
Reply
8-01-2008 @ 9:25PM
Gregory Gates said...
Biggest disappointment was not having Rachel Weisz as the female lead.
Rachel Weisz was perfect at the female role. Why wasn’t she there?.
The actress (Maria Bello) just didn’t have the screen presence or the hot “chemistry” with Brendan Fraser that Rachel Weisz had in the previous Mummies!
I still liked it, but would have liked it better with Rachel Weisz!
Reply
9-10-2008 @ 9:27PM
Green said...
Have to agree with everyone who thinks Rachel Weisz should have lead. If she drop the film because of the script I think she made a smart move. Comparing to the first "The Mummy 3" was boring, almost fell asleep.
Arabian theme suited more
8-01-2008 @ 10:25PM
amanda said...
I liked the first one, I even liked the second. However, I could have come up with a more original storyline than this. I was also terribly disappointed that Rachel Weisz wasn't in this one. I would have just written her character out of the movie if Rachel couldn't have played it. I enjoy Frasier and Hannah as actors, I just don't think they were given much to work with.
And I was sooo looking forward to it.....
Reply
8-01-2008 @ 10:24PM
Jette said...
Jim: I see your point, but disagree with you. Lots of other moviegoers haven't seen the previous Mummy movies, either. I know I've been tempted by friends or by advertising to see sequels when I haven't seen the earlier movies (Hellboy 2, again). And I want to know whether I can watch those sequels and understand the movie without having seen the prior films in the series. I like the idea of having reviews where the writer can offer that perspective. You can find other reviews where the critic has seen the prior movies (Scott's got one himself on another site), but mine offers a slightly different take on the film. I feel the same way about adaptations -- I always like to read reviews both from critics who have read/watched the source material as well as those who have not.
In response to bongo123: there are a LOT of movies out there and only 24 hours a day. Sometimes if I'm not reviewing a film and it doesn't catch my interest, I spend my movie-watching time on something else instead. From what I have heard, it might be fun to rent the first Mummy movie, but I don't regret missing the second one.
Reply
8-02-2008 @ 12:34AM
Disappointed said...
I have to agree with this review. But you truly can't understand why this movie sucks unless you have seen the first two. They introduced so many things in this movie that some contradicted the original two.
How the Hell can this be a good movie, it was ruined completely. Please tell me when a woman who loves ancient Egypt and can read that to a tee, how the hell would she have time to learn Chinese. And not just Any Chinese, but Sand script Chinese. By the way when the hell did the characters become spies for the British government. Also Can you truly see Brendon Fraser having a butler or actually giving up being a hero,maybe when he's 80, especially when his son is out there doing what his father once did.
Also how the hell can we go from Rick and His son having a wonderful relationship to Rick caring about him going to college. It was the 19040's College wasn't really huge and not a lot of people went to college, maybe in Britain they did, but how could Rick honestly get angry over his son not working out in college, him and his wife after all excavated tombs. Also Rick wouldn't have let his son grow up as a stuck up snob who only speaks to them when asking for Money. If he can express himself to Eve, he can certainly express a manly way of showing affection for his son.
Also if they were going to retire when would Eve write a book about her adventures? She would have been working for the brim bridge scholars. She was excellent on ancient Egyptian and all of a sudden she knows a lot on Chinese folk lore. Also would you really go out to a book signing and read the book, please. I can read the book myself, I don't want to hear the author read it.
I also can't beileve they took someone from a terrible movie, as Coyote Ugly and gave her a part that only Rachel Wiesz could do justice to. Well I don't even think Rachel could have done the part, it's not the Character she portrayed at all. Eve was a courageous and adventurous woman. She never would have agreed to stop digging up tombs to write books on her adventures. If I had been her and read the script I would have refused to do the movie unless a rewrite was done. Ancient Egyptian and Chinese are far from being similar in any manner.
I will barely even go into the fact that there was no on screen chemistry between Fraser and the stupid leading lady in the third film. I absolutely love the first and second movie and after talking to a friend of mine this evening it's because of the on screen chemistry. I loved the second one, but my friend didn't care for the second one because it wasn't well made, which I disagree with completely, but back to the point, how can you have a movie where the characters can't play off each other.
The saving grace to the movie was the brother, Johnathan. He atleast was still in character and kept you laughing at points. I hated the film and can't say I'm going to buy it. I might take it if it's free, but I won't even spend five bucks on the movie.
I have to say the writer of this movie didn't even read or see the first two movies, because he wouldn't have taken it in this way if he had. How can someone see the first two and then think oh this is how the final one should end. Chinese verses Egyptian again.
I think the movie would have been much better if it had written out Rachel Weisz character saying she was the curator of the museum and it had been between father and son. WIth Alex knowing Chinese, although his Chinese was horrible. My friend I spoke of earlier couldn't understand a word of his Chinese. She can't speak it very well, but she can better than him, and he can't act for beans, but then that could have been the script and not him, I've never seen him act before.
The Chinese woman were very well played, but the daughter and son went from once meeting to suddenly being in love within one day. That's attraction not love. Pius the two characters didn't have any on screen chemistry either. Besides that Alex should have been a little wearie of the woman who tried to kill him in the tomb. Again would have been a better movie with father and son. His son could have learned a little from him and how he and Evelyn met.
This movie was terrible and i can't even rate it with a half star.
Worse than I ever thought it would be, doesn't deserve the name of the mummy.
Reply