MUMMY: 3, AUDIENCES: ZERO!

TALK ABOUT SEQUELS NO ONE WAS ASKING FOR!

SEVEN YEARS(!) AFTER the SECOND MUMMY MOVIE (DOES ANYONE REMEMBER IT -- EVEN OR CARE?) "UNIVERSAL's ANSWER to INDIANA JONES" IS BACK...ESSENTIALLY UNINVITED.

WITH a COMPLICATED PLOT THAT SHIFTS the ACTION from EGYPT to CHINA (INVOLVING GHOST EMPERORS, DRAGONS and ENOUGH EYE-IRRITATING SPECIAL FX to MAKE IT OVERLY-EXPENSIVE as WELL as UNWELCOME) MUMMY 3: TOMB OF THE DRAGGIN' EMPEROR DID HAVE ONE LONE REASON to EXIST: SO the TACKY MUMMY RIDE at UNIVERSAL's STUDIO TOUR COULD SEEM a TAD LESS IRRELEVANT LAST SUMMER.

OTHER THAN THAT, ON the QUESTION of WHY THIS FILM EVEN EXISTS...WE GOT NOTHIN'...

WHADDA YOU GOT? FEEL FREE to POST YER THEORIES BELOW...

FRASER: "Our only hope is to kill off EVERY critic -- before they can write their reviews!"

This sure looks like Universal spent a lot of time, money and resources on it. Yet even before it opened, it already seemed irrelevant and out-dated.

I subscribe to the theory that the studio was hoping to pick up "table scraps" from audiences left hungry by Indian Jones #4. And as anyone who's seen that film knows, "Indy 4" left most movie-goers more bored than hungry...

 

And yet, according to one of the actresses, there are plans to make even more sequels! Talk about diminishing returns...

To me, this doesn't really look like Razzie material, but it definitely does not look like a masterpiece, either.

At least Rachael Weisz had the common sense to get out when she could. Is it just me or does moving the story to China make no sense? I mean the history and allure of mummies is firmly planted in Egypt. And as if Chinese mummies weren't enough, they also have Yeti ... more than one.

Originally posted by Michaels At least Rachael Weisz had the common sense to get out when she could. Is it just me or does moving the story to China make no sense? I mean the history and allure of mummies is firmly planted in Egypt. And as if Chinese mummies weren't enough, they also have Yeti ... more than one.

Well, at least China has a very long history, and Egyptian mummies seemed to have been overplayed already in the movies, so no, not really.

However, I have a sinking feeling that this will be a huge bomb for Universal, especially with its $175 million and so far, only negative reviews.

I think this might the lowest rated movie on RT that costs over $150 million... I can't think of other expensive movies with such a low grade.  

Originally posted by Michaels Wow, 0% rating at RT?! This might be a Razzie sleeper hit from out of nowhere. Can "Disaster Movie" top this stupidity?

Well, it has gone up to 12% as of now.

Anyway...my father is a big fan of the (first two) Mummy movies.  He enjoys the goofy humor and the characters involved.  I liked the movies myself...remember the kissing scenes ("Oh, please!").

However, I am going to need to warn my father that this is probably direct-to-DVD material that is appearing on the big screen.  And I seemed to find three possible reasons Rachael Weiz wasn't in this:

1.  She has a child now, and the role was too much of a hassle.
2.  She complained about the script, saying the role wasn't right.
3.  She smelled a turd from the beginning.

Wikipedia currently suggests #1, but I have been wondering about #3...

Well, not many critics liked it because they are cynical old people who would never try to have fun with a movie and expect logic and rational scenes in a summer movie like this. They expect something like "Citizen Kane" but get something worse. That's why I whole-heartedly agree with Roger Ebert's review. He liked it for being dumb and perpostrous and anyone expecting more should not bother watching it.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Okay, even for moviewizguy, this is one of the more outrageous claims I've seen on this Forum...

Critics do not go into the business of being critics because they're "cynical old people who would never try to have fun with a movie" -- Most of 'em became critics precisely because they love movies (albeit good movies). Otherwise, why would someone seek out a job that basically consists of nothing but going to (and writing about)...MOVIES!

And where do you get off claiming any critic would've gone to MUMMY 3 expecting CITIZEN KANE?? Most critics know better than to expect anything of such superb caliber, except on rare occasions.

Once again, I feel I must ask you moviewizguy (perhaps for the 317th time): You seem to want to be a movie critic, yet you are almost never critical of any movie. And with this posting, you have basically trashed the entuire profession. 

So what is it you DO want to do with your intense interest in (and none-too-discerning love of) the movies???