The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

[J. M. Stovall]

I kind of wanted to see this, the trailer looked pretty good. But so far the reviews are horrible. 00% at Rottentomatoes with 12 reviews in. Not a good start.

 

[DanielJones]

Never listen to the critics...

Even with all of the poo pooers not liking it (and showing their lack of attention to detail in their posts) I'm still anxious to see this one. Funny how Brad thinks that the Studio assumes the population has small cat brains. Should be a hoot!

Cheers!

Dan

 

[J. M. Stovall]

Congrats on 2000 posts!
And it seems like the critics don't like anything post The Dark Night? They can't help but compare.

 

[DanielJones]

2000+ & counting!

Thank you JM! Yeah, is seems like if it is in the realm of just an entertaining film with out the super thought provoking moments & characters, it isn't worth the effort. Sometimes the simple pleasures are the best. And of course simple tends to confuse them.

Cheers!

Dan

 

[Vix Vixen]

Saw it opening weekend. The theater was surprisingly almost empty so it was very easy to find a seat. Since I absolutely LOVED the first Mummy (I'm speaking of the remake in this case, not the original boris karloff version), I had to keep my hopes to a minimum to avoid disappointment, which worked =] That's my trick now when seeing movies. I don't expect too much from them.

watching maria bello as evelyn was horrible at first but then halfway through the movie you get used to it and forget about rachel. it was especially nice seeing the women in their 1940s costumes in the beginning of the movie. Overall, I give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. I didn't hate it, I didnt not like it, but I didn't LOVE it either.

 

[Nighthawk]

I find it interesting that this film is doing better than the new X-Files movie...

 

[Doctor Damage]

I'm kind of "meh" on this film, since I think it wasn't in the same league as the first two movies, which I watched again a few days ago (why no dedicated threads to those?). I agree that part where Patricia Velasquez is walking in her painted-on costume was a memorable way to start the series! My understanding was that Rachel Weiz wasn't in the third film because she was pregnant, but perhaps my memory is wrong. Anyway, the first two movies at least are good solid adventuring and none of the talent lets down the show.

 

[The Good]

I saw this one, but it wasn't as good as the first two were, the first being better than the second. I would basically put the first Mummy close to being as good as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I liked it better than the latest Indy movie, too. The reason I mention Indiana Jones is that The Mummy series is often compared to it. I knew it was based on the 1930s film yet with an Indy influence, but I haven't seen the original yet.

I think while Rachel Weisz' absence was a factor, it wasn't the only thing dragging it down. It got a little too campier than the first two did. The yetis were unnecessary, I thought.

 

[Doctor Damage]

^ Forgot about the yetis! Agree that the first Mummy was on par with the best Indy movies. I thought Brendan Fraser was great with his low-key line deliveries "what are you doing, hon, these guys don't use doors" and "daddy has to go desecrate another tomb". Good times!

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

I haven't seen the original yet.

You never saw the Boris Karloff "Mummy"? Try to catch up with it. It's not really comparable with Indiana Jones though. Just an old school "horror" movie. Did you see the 30s Dracula or Frankenstein?

 

[Miss Stella]

Bela Lugosi kept my mom up more nights than you'll ever know...I just couldn't sleep, I was so sure he was under my bed! But he was GREAT as Dracula!
(And Christopher Lee? Peter Cushing? I don't care how corny those '60s horror flicks were...I was scared!!)

 

[flat-top]

[huh]

http://www.deadline.com/2012/09/len-wiseman-wrapping-up-deal-to-helm-universal-reboot-of-the-mummy/