Print Page | Close Window

MUMMY: 3, AUDIENCES: ZERO!

Printed From: Official RAZZIEŽ Forum
Category: FORUMS on NON-NOMINATED 2008 RELEASES w/LYNX!
Forum Name: THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR
Forum Discription: Why a Third Movie in This All-But-Forgotten Series? And Why NOW?!?!?
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2961
Printed Date: October 30 2014 at 4:00pm


Topic: MUMMY: 3, AUDIENCES: ZERO!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: MUMMY: 3, AUDIENCES: ZERO!
Date Posted: July 30 2008 at 3:27am

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) http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=298 - 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!"



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Nasty Man
Date Posted: July 30 2008 at 3:43am
I could have told you this would bomb: Every time the trailer has shown in a theater, my 12-year-old son (who's usually fascinated with Asian culture) all but yawns. Even at his young age, he immediately spotted this as a blatant Indy knock-off...

-------------
Everything SUX!


Posted By: #1-Movie-Fan!
Date Posted: July 30 2008 at 3:47am

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...

 



-------------


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: July 30 2008 at 4:16am

At least we know why Rachel Wiez did not return  -- so far this movie is getting the big Fat 00% at Rotten Tomatoes. I was hoping to be wrong, but my gut is telling me otherwise.  



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: July 30 2008 at 7:53am
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.


-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: July 30 2008 at 10:01am

At least this time around, they couldn't find an excuse to give Dwyane ("The Rock") Johnson a paycheck...  

Just out of curiousity: Does anyone else out there find the concept of casting Brendan Fraser as an action hero as absurd as I do?



-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 30 2008 at 10:37am
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.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: July 30 2008 at 10:40am
Brendan Fraser makes a good action hero when he delivers one-liners, because it's not as horrible to hear it from him as from other actors. I believe he delivers good comedy in action movies...but that's just me. lol

-------------


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: July 31 2008 at 3:55am
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.


-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: movieman
Date Posted: July 31 2008 at 10:11am
My siblings want to see this so bad, God knows why....


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: July 31 2008 at 10:31am
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.  

-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: July 31 2008 at 12:15pm
Wow, 0% rating at RT?! This might be a Razzie sleeper hit from out of nowhere. Can "Disaster Movie" top this stupidity?


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: July 31 2008 at 1:51pm

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...



-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: July 31 2008 at 2:43pm

How about this crazy theory? . . .

The reason why this movie exists is because Universal had decided to start a grand tradition of positioning an obvious humongous waste of money during this time every other summer.  Remember Miami Vice



Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 01 2008 at 1:49am

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??? 

 



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 01 2008 at 1:49am
Originally posted by Berrynoia

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...

I'm pretty sure the reason is #3, but she used #1 as an excuse to get the hell out.



Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: August 01 2008 at 8:22am

WOW -- So critics are old people and hate fun?

Then how come "Snakes On A Plane" has a 70% Approval Rating on RT? ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/snakes_on_a_plane/ - LINK )  

 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

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.



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: ITbeast
Date Posted: August 01 2008 at 10:25am

Originally posted by thomsonmg2000


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.

Right now the only movie with a lower critic rating at RT with a $150 million or more budget is EVAN ALMIGHTY, As it stands Mummy 3 is sitting at 11%



-------------
The "Networking IT" Movie Buff!

Words to live by:
"Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million." - Arnold Schwarzenegger


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 01 2008 at 12:13pm

So, based on what Ebert says, the best way to enjoy this movie is to turn your brain off? No thank you, I'd rather see "Dark Knight" yet again... 

Originally posted by moviewizguy

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.

 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: dEd Grimley
Date Posted: August 02 2008 at 7:39am
I've heard the Mummy series was being intentionally corny before. While that might work sometimes, this cat (the director) has never done it for me... "Van Helsing" was HOOOOOORRRIBLE.

Also, having some idea of Chinese history about 2000 years ago (and knowing that it was actually pretty peaceful around then) really kinda takes me out of it on that end, too...  

-------------
-Iron helps us play-


Posted By: thomsonmg2000
Date Posted: August 02 2008 at 9:34am
I heard from people who've seen this movie that it bastardizes Chinese history, but it still entertaining...

BTW, Chinese history was pretty violent around 2000 years ago (2229 years ago to be exact!).


-------------
Seltzerberg is back?

OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!!!

http://www.disastermovie.org
http://www.vampiressuck.org/


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 02 2008 at 11:16am
Sadly, because it's breezy and dumb family entertainment, families are flocking to it like flies to ... you get the idea. Looks like another victory for mindless, CGI driven, studio flicks.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: August 02 2008 at 3:30pm

My Review: 7/10:

In the Far East, trouble-seeking father-and-son duo Rick and Alex
O'Connell unearth the mummy of the first Emperor of Qin -- a
shape-shifting entity who was cursed by a wizard centuries ago.

Imagine the first two Mummy films and add a whole new Asian twist to
it. The result is what you'll get in "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor."
Believe it or not, doing just that adds a whole new originality to the
franchise. The good thing about this is that you don't get anymore
sand, pyramids, and the whole Imhoptep thing again, which I like.

There's no question about it: "Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" should only
be seen by people who wants to have a fun time at the movies. It's no
Dark Knight, a movie that makes you think a lot. No, instead, it's a
"shut off the brain" type of movie with fantastic action sequences and
humorous scenes, although with a very cheesy story and probably not
brilliant screen writing.

I believe this is the best in the series, including the most
entertaining one, but that's just me. Ironically, this film is the most
family-friendly movie in the entire trilogy, although the events that
happen in here is much more violent and shocking. Yes, what I'm saying
is that the violence in here is not pulled back. You get decapitations,
mutilations, melting skin, and all that.

Brendan Fraser does a great job with the action adventure scenario, as
always. Maria Bello now replaces Rachel Weisz's role from the previous
two films and well, I obviously think Weisz plays it better but Bello
does a decent job. John Hannah is not as funny as he was in the
previous two but funny enough and Luke Ford was decent as the son who
is probably seen 10 years younger than Fraser. Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh
both do surprisingly well with their roles as well.

Why did the critics pan this? Obviously, they just don't know when to
have a fun time at the movies, or at least that's the impression I'm
getting from them. If you think this movie is a waste of time, don't
bother watching it. If you do, it's a fun family film. Although the
movie is dumb, preposterous, and sometimes laughable, that doesn't
stop it from being entertaining and funny. When the ball gets rolling, it's just non-stop fun from there.



Posted By: moat
Date Posted: August 02 2008 at 3:38pm
I know quite a few people who are psyched about this film, and the franchise to which it belongs.

I wonder if they'll hold it that sentiment years down the road, once the kitschy special effects have aged. It's not like the film has anything to offer outside of cgi-propelled escapism.


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 03 2008 at 12:14pm
HA HA! "Mummy 3" missed the #1 spot by just $1 million! The superior "Dark Knight" remains champion and rightfully so (yeah, I'm alittle biased). "Mummy" will have to settle for being #2 -- in more ways than one!   

-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)


Posted By: Headbanger14
Date Posted: August 04 2008 at 4:15pm

I've seen all 3 of the Mummy movies: First was good, second was ok, THIS...oh God....

What is with films over-using CGI lately? Indiana Jones 4, 10,000 Blows Chunks. I know people are trying to make advances in technology, but seriously! The effects look so fake! The effects in The Thing looked better -- and that movie's 26 years old!



-------------


Posted By: Berrynoia
Date Posted: August 06 2008 at 10:00am
Are you aware that this has a RT rating of only 9% positive reviews?  I don't know if there are any other mega-budget movies that have ever hit that low on the Tomatometer.

-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 06 2008 at 5:36pm

Despite all this, this movie will very likely crack the $100 million mark.

On a similar (Brosnan's piercingly bad) note, Momma Mia will break the $100 million mark this weekend.

My oh my oh my. . . .



Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: August 07 2008 at 1:24am

If you think this movie is bad, check this out, a second Scorpion King movie!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1104123/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1104123/

As one message says, it's "a prequel to a spin-off of a sequel to a remake". That sentance alone is proof Hollywood lost what little soul it had.



Posted By: PopcornAvenger
Date Posted: August 07 2008 at 8:26am

Originally posted by Headbanger14

The effects in The Thing looked better -- and that movie's 26 years old!

Did you know that one of the reasons the movie was panned by critics was that it was too realistic ?. It had many of them barfing in their popcorn boxes or wanting to hit the exit. Of course, opening the same time as E.T. doomed it to cult status.

Still, IMO, the greatest horror movie of all time.

On topic, I won't even see this film on DVD. Just another example of Hollywood flogging a dead horse that's less braindead than they are.  



-------------


Posted By: lgreen
Date Posted: August 13 2008 at 6:34am
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

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


hello all,
Hey, hey I love the "Kill the critics" picture!!!! Yeah, even the shorts for this movie made me want to yawn and change the channel real fast. Do you ever talk about Good stuff here---------or only the bad and ugly???


-------------


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: August 13 2008 at 4:39pm
We occasionally talk about the good stuff (like, say, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly), but usually in contrast to the laughably bad and jawdropping ugly. 


Posted By: sportsartist24
Date Posted: October 11 2008 at 10:56am
It's passed $100 Million, but numbers are LOWER than the budget overall...

-------------
The Mormons were'nt really popular in the beginning, they're now becoming more popular, even in Hollywood.


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: November 21 2008 at 2:37am
In the category for Worst Sequel, I would say HSM3 is first, The Clone Wars is second, and this is third.

-------------


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: December 14 2008 at 9:17am

If you bring back the category for Worst Film Grossing Over $100M, this would probably win outright.

When the commercials for the DVD were on TV, it told me that Roger Ebert called it "the Best in the Mummy series".  He also called it "plain dumb fun," "absurd," and "preposterous" -- and he still enjoyed it?  How laughable!

And it's your Worst New Movie on DVD this Weak.



-------------


Posted By: Michaels
Date Posted: December 14 2008 at 1:17pm

Chances are Ebert's complete quote was more along the lines of "I was expecting this to be the best in the Mummy series, but it turned out to be absurd, preposterous, and plain dumb fun". Yeah, they twist the critics' words around so it's in the movie's favor. That's what the studios do when they can't buy good reviews. Starting to see why we like to razz them? 



-------------
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)



Print Page | Close Window