Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > FORUMS on NON-NOMINATED 2008 RELEASES w/LYNX! > THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: MUMMY: 3, AUDIENCES: ZERO!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

MUMMY: 3, AUDIENCES: ZERO!
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: MUMMY: 3, AUDIENCES: ZERO!
    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)
Back to Top
MiguelAntilsu View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: August 30 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1463 		Post Options Post Options   Quote MiguelAntilsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
MiguelAntilsu View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: August 30 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1463 		Post Options Post Options   Quote MiguelAntilsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
sportsartist24 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 16 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 955 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sportsartist24 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161 		Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. 
Back to Top
lgreen View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: August 13 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2 		Post Options Post Options   Quote lgreen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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???
Back to Top
PopcornAvenger View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: December 04 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 83 		Post Options Post Options   Quote PopcornAvenger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.  
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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/

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.
Back to Top
cvcjr13 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: September 01 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1161 		Post Options Post Options   Quote cvcjr13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. . . .
Back to Top
Berrynoia View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 24 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Berrynoia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Headbanger14 View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: May 05 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 78 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Headbanger14 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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)
Back to Top
moat View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 10 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 117 		Post Options Post Options   Quote moat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
moviewizguy View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: January 23 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2136 		Post Options Post Options   Quote moviewizguy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848 		Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
thomsonmg2000 View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: October 20 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 184 		Post Options Post Options   Quote thomsonmg2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down