In all the years that I’ve attempted to write or talk about film in a serious manner, at no point did I ever conceive that I’d one day be writing a post with a title beginning, “In Defense of The Mummy…” Yet here we are today: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor sits at 10% on Rottentomatoes and the reviews are absolutely brutal. Here’s but a sampling of some of the vitriol being spewed about this movie:

Masswyrm from Aintitcool writes:

[T]his looks distinctly like what it is. Shit. Unmitigated, inexcusable shit. I can’t remember the last time I looked around and saw so many critics positively mortified to be watching what they were watching. We were embarrassed to be in that theater. It is a humbling, humiliating experience that will take anyone who bitched about nuked fridges and swinging monkeys and show them just how much Spielberg and Lucas actually got right.

Stephen Holden from the New York Times writes:

In the movie’s futile drive to conjure visceral excitement, the action sequences are edited into an incoherent jumble that makes you feel trapped on a rickety airplane sitting in a pool of yak vomit.

Friend of /Film, Eric D. Snider writes the following about The Mummy:

At first I thought the film seemed like an Indiana Jones rip-off, but now I’m not sure it’s even that good. It’s more like an imitation of a rip-off, like Cohen and Co. once heard someone describe an Indiana Jones rip-off and they just copied down whatever they could remember, and then added some yeti.

Ouch. This hatred is so palpable, it reminds me of the good old days when all the poisonous screeds were reserved for Sex and the City.

In brief, my thoughts about The Mummy? I expected to absolutely hate it, but I saw it today and I actually had somewhat of a good time! The movie is by no means good: The script is atrocious (especially when it comes to the family elements of the story), the jokes are thoroughly unfunny, the CGI is extremely fake-looking, and Maria Bello (who is extremely talented and who was obviously great in films like A History of Violence and The Cooler) does a British accent that’s cringe-worthy; truly a poor man’s Rachel Weisz, at least for this series of films. And don’t even get me started on the Asian characters! With the exception of Michelle Yeoh’s Zi Juan, all of the Asians in this movie exist solely to either a) Spread evil, b) Be killed horrifically by booby traps, or c) Be seduced by white people.

All of this is stuff that would usually offend me deeply. So why write a piece defending this movie? Because ultimately, I can stand bad movies like The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. What I can’t stomach is hypocrisy.

Let’s take a closer examination at some of the complaints that people have leveled against this film. Lousy CGI? Check. Laughably bad script? Check. Clumsy action direction? Check. Unearthing an old franchise that should have stayed in the ground? Check. Jokes that fall flat? Check. Sound like another movie about an archaeologist adventurer that was also released this summer?

That’s right: If The Mummy was retitled Indiana Jones 5 and the characters replaced with the ones from that universe, it would not be getting a 10% on Rottentomatoes. So why do critics give Indy 4’s flaws a pass and harp on The Mummy?

Obviously a huge part of it is that Spielberg is significantly more competent overall than Cohen; at least all of the actions scenes in Indy 4 were comprehensible, which is more than I can say for parts of the Shanghai chase scene in The Mummy. Cohen also makes a number of other baffling choices, like shooting a fight scene between Yeoh and Jet Li in slow motion (WTF?). But more than that, there’s obviously a huge nostalgia that’s attached with Indiana Jones and the characters in that universe. Many people (including myself) regard Raiders as a masterpiece. Most of us do not have similarly fond feelings for Rick O’Connell and his family.

However, in some sense, that’s actually a strength of the film. The Mummy is utterly ridiculous for a variety of reasons, with the Yetis being the incomprehensibly stupid monkey/vines sequence of this film. However, if you accept the fact that it’s not meant to be serious entertainment, it actually delivers on the promise of a decent action flick, all without desecrating your hallowed childhood memories like that other film. What’s more, from a production-design standpoint, the movie looks fantastic and you can really see every dollar of its $145 million production budget on screen. These elements don’t make a good film, but they can surely make a mildly enjoyable one.

Perhaps Devin Faraci from CHUD put it best when he wrote the following:

[The Mummy] delivers on a kind of thrills that Indiana Jones didn’t even seem to bother with earlier this summer. Weirdly enough, Rob Cohen has beaten Spielberg in his own game of archeological adventure…The Mummy has things like gunfights (where the heroes shoot guns! And kill bad guys!) and booby-trapped tombs, and it has a sense of scope as it travels from deserts to the snowy Himalayas with a stop for a chase in Shanghai along the way…Sitting through The Mummy and enjoying it on a base level made me realize just how hugely Indiana Jones failed.

I took a lot of flak for having some criticisms of The Dark Knight, forcing some people to be reminded that it’s actually possible to love a film and think that it’s great, but still find flaws with it. Similarly, it’s possible to think a film is crappy, campy fun without thinking it’s anything more. The Mummy is not the worst movie of the summer; it’s probably not even the worst film in theaters this week! I’m not saying you should go out and see it, but it’s certainly worth a matinee with the family, or a rental on DVD if you’re looking for a light-hearted, nonsensical action film. Also, if you happen to be watching TV and flip past it, it might be worth lingering for a few minutes. In any case, it’s certainly not the toxic mess that everyone’s leading you to believe it is. This movie will not be as profitable as the first two iterations were, but it deserves better than to be ignominiously shat out the bottom of the collective film critic world’s poop chute.

Discuss: Enough about my thoughts - Have any of you seen The Mummy this weekend? If so, what did you think?

Also, be sure to tune in Monday night at 10 PM EST / 7 PM PST as we review The Mummy with legendary actor Stephen Tobolowsky!

  • KeanE
    Only reason I watched it is cause I always liked the Mummy Movies, Jet Li is the man, and Brendan Fraser is a funny dude...other then that wait for it on dvd....
  • adam
    does anyone actually care about critics anymore? the vast majority of the movie going public don't. go see the movie and form your own opinions.
  • kheas
    i know i'm going to sound dumb but I really enjoyed the Mummy 3. It gave me the scence of HIGH ADVENTURE that Indy 4 completely failed to provide. And I think a lot of normal theatre goers are going to agree.
    At the end of the viewing I went to, nearly the entire audiance applauded. When I went to see Indy, there was nothing but silence at the end. Indiana Jones and The Mummy series are ment to be nothing more than a fun romp in a fantastic world of ADVENTURE. Didn't Speilburg and Lucas say that Indy was based on the old adventure serials while Star Wars was based on the Sci Fi ones of the 40's and 50's? That's exactly what they did with the Mummy and its sucessors.
    personally, I think Lucas could have taken some lessons from the Mummy 3 and needs to relearn what an adventure movie is supposed to be.
  • TrevorRashid
    I liked Indy 4. There, I said it. More-so than Temple of Doom, actually.

    ...*walks away slowly*
  • Adam B.
    I don't get what they were expecting. Personally, I didn't find the other "The Mummy" movies to be great in any sense of the word-- they're mediocre at best I just find it funny anyone expected more than a 'popcorn flick' out of this. I have no plans to see it and I never saw the others in theaters, but whenever they come on TV I'll sit through them.

    Anyways, I'm more excited for Pineapple Express. And listening to you guys talk to Bob from Heroes. ;]
  • kheas
    I WANT TO LIKE Indy 4. I just can't find it in me to say I liked it. I liked moments of it, but only in fleeting glances and hints. Maybe after I watch it again when it comes out on DVD will I apreciate it. Maybe I was expecting too much, I don't know. All I can say is I WANT TO LIKE IT, but I can't...
    And that makes me a little sad inside.
  • TheDaftPunk
    I don't really know why this movie turned me off. I love Jet Li, I think Fraser is a cool guy (and doesn't afraid of anything), and I liked the previous Mummy movies. The inclusion of yetis and dragons left me dumbfounded, and the departure of Weisz was a big red flag, considering she played a fairly important role (not to mention she's really attractive). Also, they should have got a younger actor to play Alex O'Connell (What ever happened to the kid in Mummy Returns?), because Luke Ford and Brendan Fraser as father and son aren't really believable - they look almost the same age. I'll wait for the DVD.
  • Josh
    I saw it last night and as a huuuge Mummy, Mummy Returns, and even Scorpion Kink fan, I will honestly say that that movie was total shit. It was poorly developed plot wise and it honestly got to the point where it felt like Michael Bay was directing it. As the guys from South Park in the Imaginationland trilogy said, "Michael Bay... those aren't ideas. They're special effects." It seriously felt like Cohen was walking around set everyday going "Ok, now what can I blow up today? Nothing? Let's drop the ground out in front of the great wall then. Or set up some Inidana Jones booby traps." And then they show the valley for a split second before Jet Li comes and it's all like, "I could build a casino." and then they never show the paradise again.

    And they should never have made another movie without Rachel Weisz. Period. You never really realized how good she was in those movies until you saw this one. Her being in it could have easily pushed that film into the 20 or 30% on Rotten Tomatoes.
  • Aeghast
    No one should really care about what critics say, or any site's quality-meter or whatever. Just read 'em if you like, for the fun, out of curiosity, for WHATEVER reason. If you wanna see a movie, you go see it. You don't let film reviews to drive your mind/will/etcetera.
  • GregoryV
    I'm going to get shit for this. When I read a film critics review, I'm reminded of Yelp. If you REALLY know what Yelp is all about, then I say no more, you get the picture.
  • amh
    its amazing to see a regular opinion on movie site. david, i applaud you for sticking your neck out on this one, as it seems that so many opinions are based on previous knolwedge and critic websites. hypocrisy is rampant in our times of movie watching, and we all need to take ourselves a bit less serious
  • starblazer101
    You know critics can actually help us save some money. If people would've listened to the reviews from Don't Mess with the Zohan, Spider-Man 3, or this movie they would've saved themselves about $10 right there.
  • El Bart-O
    ii say
    take those 10 bucks and invest them on something
    that will actually benefit you, like watching The Dark Knight.
    I can't even recomend you to watch the Mummy online
    because that would be 2 hours of your life that you will never get back.
  • vta2311
    I saw it with my sister yesterday. It was alright, not particularly great, but then again, I've had a tough week. I seriously cringed at the ending, though.
  • krackajap
    Looks like Dave is cementing his role as the heel of /film. Keep up the good work.
  • FuelHokie
    I'm with TrevorRashid I think Indy 4 took harder hits from fans because of expectations. I found it way better than Doom by far. I hated Doom and this year gave it another chance and it was still awful. I havent seen the new Mummy movie but can tell by the commercials that the CGI is freakin' terrible, did you see the Yeti's in that thing. Yetis are kick ass and they ruined that in a 5 second clip. Steven Segal direct to DVD movies have better effects.
  • Dr Handsome
    I'm more interested in that review that says this movie makes you realize what Indy did right: Crystal Skull was an extremely well dome action movie (maybe even better than Temple of Doom) and deserves to be remembered for more than monkeys, refrigerators, and CGI gophers!
  • I don't think the MUMMY 3 was that bad (I mean, if you're going to see it, you're aware of the first two installments and Rob Cohen's track record which means you know what you're getting into and your expectations cannot be that high) but I also think comparing its flaws, apples to apples, to INDY 4 is really misguided.

    INDY 4 was critically praised only because of the personnel involved (i.e., people didn't want to criticize Spielberg or something like that)? You're sure? You may need to read more reviews. People are almost MORE willing to rip on an established, successful person than to blindly praise them, as you're intimating.
  • gah
    Is the Mummy 3 that bad? I don't intend to ever find out. But congrats on scoring another celeb for filmcast.
  • McLovin
    i love how people say they hate what critics have to say but then go check em out anyway because deep down they wanna know if the movie is worth their 8.50
  • alien
    Let's face it, It's the mummy franchise, 1 and 2 made a lot of money so people are going to see this one no matter what critics have said, but the movie is crap, only digital effects, the plot is sooooo awful, maria bello sucks in every possible way, this 3rd film is gonna make less money than the others, as all previsions say. Indy 4 sucked, but this one sucks even more, that's for sure, It deserves every bad review
  • Heftybag
    I went to this film and thought it was pretty decent fun time. I had time to kill, and the college student price is only 5.75 here so worth that for about 2 hours of just chuckling and enjoyment. The critics just get on their high horses and think they are movie gods and what they saw is law. But once again, the film goers will always have more clout than critics. Sometimes its nice to have a break from a critically acclaimed drama and just go have a good time laughing at ridiculous dialogue.
  • Floppy
    $145 million budget? Are you kidding me? And the graphics still look like a B grade video game.
  • Krycek7o2
    Sadly, this movie was horrid. I loved the first two, witty dialogue and great, mindless action. Sadly, this was not the case this time. The chemistry was horrid between Bello and Fraiser. Not to mention the misuse of Li and Yeoh. Another thing to note was the horrible actress as Alex's love interest.
  • hoffamania
    BING! Needlenose Ned is coming!

    Am I right? Or am I right? Right?
  • BFFredo
    I loved the first Mummy movie. It was just right up my alley. The second one had parts I enjoyed more, but overall it was too bloated, too lumbering (like Massa points out, a hint of where Stephen Sommers would take us in Van Helsing).

    And yet I've no desire to see this. Maybe it's the absence of Rachel Weisz (damn you Aronofsky!) or how this really makes no sense in fitting into the world of the Mummy. Or maybe it's that Brendan Frasier has really become an one-note actor. Or it's seeing Yetis. Or it's all the bad mummy puns.

    As for the critics, I think that it's just the critics finally getting the chance to be negative. They've gone a whole month with nothing to destroy. Between Wall-E, Hellboy 2 and The Dark Knight, July 08 was nothing but geeky and quality. So they couldn't probably wait for The Mummy 3 to get here and let them go at it.
  • maremagnum
    I couldn't agree with you more, Dave. Hipocrisy is exactly right. Also, you get the sense that these critics seem to be playing an "anything you can do, I can do better" game amongst themselves, trying to top each other on how fashionably cruel they can be. Screw the lot of them.
  • Father Bradley
    The Mummy moves are all shit. ILM's effects were great in the first two but not in a 'movie-rescuing sense'. How anyone can have 'fun' watching these piles of dung is beyond me. Side note = didn't see Mummy 3 (Why isn't it called "M3???!!!! Come on Studio Marketing geniuses!!), but Maria Bello is hot in everything she does.
  • I actually liked the first 45 minutes and than the film fell apart as it completely ran out of story. The Mummy movies give GCI a really bad name as they use way to much of it and most of it isn't very good. Lets face it The Kinddom of the Crystal Skull was no better.
    Id see Spiderman 3 Ten times before I watch these two films again.
    I'l never understand the hate from some over Spiderman 3 Yes it had a few two many characters but its way better than most summer movies we see today.
  • Don
    I find Cohen's Dragon, Dragonheart, XXX, Fast and Furious and Stealth to be really enjoyable flicks to watch. Sure, Stealth cost 160M and bombed, but it's fun to watch.It seems to me that the bigger the budget that Cohen has to work with, the worse the film does critically and financially, based on the films listed above.Will check out Mummy 3 to see if it's entertaining or truly a horribly-made film...
  • Here's the problem, everyone is still on Batman euphoria and anything that doesn't evoke warm and fuzzy feelings associated with that film is crap by comparison.
  • Jamie
    I just think that Maria Bello was the strangest choice to replace Rachel Weisz in the same role.
  • rodrigo
    To the commenter who attacked the "horrible actress" who was Alex's love interest:

    Her name is Isabella Leong. She's multi-lingual and has acted in critically-acclaimed Hong Kong movies such as "Isabella" and "Spider Lilies".

    If she was that horrible in Mummy 3 (which IMHO was not great but better than Mummy 2 - Rachel Weisz notwithstanding - and also better that even Indy 4), then surely it must be the fault of the director and/or scriptwriter, who likewise misused Jet Li's and Michelle Yeoh's characters, and did not deploy them wisely.

    For more on her:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_Leong
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_%28film%29
  • gocitizen
    I just want to take this opportunity to say, once again, that Indy4 is a terrible, terrible film. An absolute mess.
  • Ryan
    I saw this movie and being a fan of the first 2 true mummy movies I went in hoping for them to stay true to the genre and guss what THEY did. Brenden didnt go to shargrala and find a ufo and aliens no they stayed true and found yeties on the way and a couple immortals and a paradise which LOL jonathan replys "Casino" after seeing shangrala the yak yakking was funny btw which is way more beliveble then surving an atrom bomb. But all that aside this movie stays to what it always has been. Indiana Jones 4 was a crock and lucas/speilburg must have filled a couple of pockets to get a pass on that shit. Ouch the reviews for this movie is harsh, It isnt the worst movie of the year and isnt the greatest but common the movie dosnt try to be its a fun to go see and chill movie. %^&* lightin up on this movie. I would suggest if your a fan of the first 2 to go see it.
  • jimbo stewart
    @ Dr. Handsome

    Indy 4 was trash of the highest order. I watched the midnight screening in Hollywood and trust me, no one gave a shit. People were bored and a few people walked out. Lucas was the only one who had the cajones to admit it was lousy.

    Good for him.

    Thanks for writing this, David. Can you start writing more regularly and replace Hunter?
  • Joseph Ferrarelli
    I actually loved Indy 4.
    Sue me. I think, quite honestly, it gets a little too much flak.
    It's not perfect. But it's leaps and bounds of Mummy 1, let alone 3.
  • evergreen
    THANK YOU.

    I saw a preview of Mummy 3 in June, and that's all I thought about. Yeah, it wasn't a movie I'd pay for, but guess what? It was way more fun than Indy 4. And when the reviews on RT started popping up, I knew nostalgia had done a fantastic job of blinding critics.

    If you have to choose one of these films, easily: Mummy 3.

    But if you can choose out of those two, TDK. Of course.
  • Dave, liking one movie while hating a similar one is not hypocrisy. They're two different movies, and we're dealing with opinions here, not facts. One movie might strike a person in one way while a similar movie strikes him a different way. By your logic, if you think one woman who's blond, 5'10", with high cheekbones and full lips is beautiful, you're a hypocrite if you don't think ALL women who fit that description are beautiful. And obviously personal opinions don't work that way.

    But that's assuming the two are comparable in the first place. Your article is based on the premise that all the things critics have said about "The Mummy" -- lousy CGI, laughably bad script, clumsy action direction, flat jokes -- are true of Indy 4, too. And in your opinion, they are. But the critics (such as myself) who liked Indy 4 obviously didn't feel that way. Obviously I didn't think Indy 4's script was laughably bad, or that its action direction was clumsy, or that its jokes were flat. If I had thought that, I wouldn't have given the movie a positive review.

    If I'd said in my "Mummy" review that I hate movies with terrible scripts and cheesy special effects, and in my Indy 4 review said, "This movie has a terrible script and cheesy special effects -- but I love it anyway!," then THAT would have been hypocrisy, or at least inconsistency. I don't agree with you about the problems with Indy 4, however -- and that seems to be the thing you can't fathom, that some people *actually liked* that movie even though you didn't. Two people can actually watch the same movie and come out of it with entirely different opinions. I know that sounds crazy, but it's true!
  • Great article, bud. I freely admit that the nostalgia factor kicked in for my score on Indy 4. If it wasn't for the legacy I would have scored it lower. I think while watching it a part of my brain was thinking "this can't be as bad as it looks, can it?"

    Vic
  • livebackwards
    So wait, the script is atrocious, the jokes aren't funny, the CGI is shit, and the acting is bad. We're defending this why? To encourage Hollywood to throw away more money on made-by-committee garbage doomed to fail?

    I know I'm not seeing this movie for the previews alone. "The Mummy" was a genuinely amusing film, one of its best aspects was its silly comedy, which genuinely helped propel the non-action sequences. They couldn't even cobble together anything funny for the 30-second television spots, instead choosing to simply highlight the actors screaming the obvious at each other. Honestly, you will not see a preview more geared toward the functionally retarded than the Mummy 3 commercials:

    "ABOMINABLE SNOWMEN?!?!"
    "Way to go, Dad, you've raised another Mummy."
    "I HATE MUMMIES!!!"
    "DIE YOU MUMMIES, DIE!!!!"

    And so on. You just about expect to hear Brendan Frasier shout "MUMMIES ARE BAD! AND THEREFORE I KILL THEM WITH MY SWORD! IT IS DANGEROUS!" If whatever's going on onscreen makes so little sense or can hold so little interest that the characters themselves are forced to narrate at the top of their lungs, PASS.
  • Matador
    It's funny that we are making excuses for something there is no excuse for. This is how bad this industry has become. Look what Uwe Boll has done for us. Don't get me wrong Im all for a big dumb action movie, but don't tell me that we shouldn't rail this movie for sucking horribly. The movie is a turd floating around in the punch bowl of the film industry. You see it and your like, "hey, thats a turd in that punch bowl." Then you make that face that comes along with seeing something like that. So don't tell me that sucking is ok because its fun. Lets face it, sucking sucks, and so does this movie.
  • richard branson
    David Chen has ruined slashfilm.

    PINK SLIP NOW
  • dan
    Seriously Chen?

    Did you really see the same movie I did?

    The barfing fucking cow?

    The Yeti calls?

    The end?

    Maria Bellow's accent?


    The movie was a steaming pile of feces.
  • Adam B.
    Eric D. Snider brings up a good point. As far as what I thought about Indy 4?
    I kind of felt like it was made 'just because' to be honest. It didn't feel connected to the other films at all. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy it though. I actually watched a special on the crystal skulls on Sci-Fi before I went to see it, so maybe that's why I'm not so taken aback by the inclusion of aliens/UFO's. It went somewhere different, and would we really want to see the same film twice? I'm kinda glad they went in a new direction. Finally, the CGI was horrendous, etc, etc, it's all been said before.
  • Bob
    Dear Rob Cohen,

    I hate you! Stealth sucked, XXX sucked, and Dragonheart sucked! You just had to touch the Mummy franchise and completely screw it up! I loved the Mummy movies and I hoped that you didn't mess this up. Well I was wrong and this was definitely worse than XXX but not worse than Stealth. Do us all a favor and stay the hell away forever!

    Bob
  • Captain Awesome
    David Chen smokes hobo's underwear.
  • racergirl
    If it wasn't for the fact all the rabid "Dark Knight"-loving fanboys are now comparing EVERY movie to that, they wouldn't be saying "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emporer" sucked.
    I saw both movies. While "The Dark Knight" was an amazing film, and a testament to Heath Ledger's acting ability, it wasn't typical summer movie fare. That isn't a bad thing.
    But just to spout the hate for something like the latest mummy flick makes me wonder where has the enjoyment of film gone?
    I know I'm in an incredibly small minority when I say I liked this newest mummy movie, and probably make others wonder about the status of my good taste.
    I just want to say take into consideration someone else's opinion when you say "that sucked" but don't bother backing it up with your reasons why.
    I've had more fun going to the movies this summer than in previous years. Why? A few movies I found I actually enjoyed, and had fun being, for once, spoiler-free.
    I guess my point is this--for every movie like "The Dark Knight," there are going to be movies like "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emporer." Comes with the territory.
  • racergirl
    And for the record, in Indy IV, they were prairie dogs, not gophers.
  • kheas
    like i said earlier, i liked mummy 3. i actually felt id was a worthy sucessor to the other two films. I did not like Indy 4. I want to like it because parts of it were good, but i cannot. I will not, however, say it sucked because it didn't. I feel it did not live up to the standard that was set in the other 3. That is my opinion and we are all entitled to it. Do I think George Lucas depends on too much CGI, (look at the SW prequels), but so do many other directors, because that is where movies are heading. Will I miss the days when puppetry and models were the standard, yes. do I think they looked better than CG in almost every way, in most cases yes. One day, CG will be indistiguishable from reality and when that happens some other medium will be the new thing directors will use "too much of".
    The same thing happened when silent movies became "talkies" movies started having a lot of needless sound effects and dialogue. This also happened when colour was introduced.
    there will always be critics when it comes to technology and how we use it. the only thing we cannot forgive in most cases are bad writing, bad acting and bad directing. Both movies had this problem but neither were ment to change anything or make a statement.
    That leads to the question, isn't the purpose of some movies just to have fun and be entertained?
blog comments powered by Disqus