The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
MPAA Rating:
 for adventure action and violence.Reviewed by: David Criswell, Ph.D. Offensive
Moviemaking Quality:
Primary Audience:
Teens
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Comedy, Drama, Fantasy, Horror, Thriller, Sequel
Length:
1 hr. 52 min.
Year of Release:
2008
USA Release:
August 1, 2008 (wide - 3,600 theaters)
 
Relevant Issues
 Reincarnation: what’s the Bible say? Answer
BIBLICAL BURIAL SITES - Have the burial sites of any people in the Bible been found? - Answer Eternal life - What does the Bible say about it? Answer  Dragons and dinosaurs—discover how they are connected Films in this series
“The Mummy” (1999) “The Mummy Returns” (2001)
“A New Evil Awakens.” “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” takes place around 20 years after the last film. It a two hour special effect extravaganza filled with mummy battles, Yeti, and lots of violence, but little in the way of character development. In fact, we are teased into believing that a romance is going to develop between Alex O'Connell female heroine Lin, but the film then ends with this story line apparently dropped or forgotten. The film does return most of the original cast, except for Rachel Weisz who was absent due to pregnancy. She is replaced by Maria Bello, an American actress. The film does have a little of the humor of the first film, but only a little. Like “Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull,” it introduces a son into the picture as the next generation of archaeologist/adventurers, but his character is never fully developed, so much of the chemistry from the first two films is gone. Morally, “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” once again pushed the PG-13 rating, in terms of violence, but one reason it can retain the rating is because of the “fantasy” nature of the violence. For example, the Dragon Emperor appears to start bleeding, but upon closer inspection it is mud rather than blood. He is transformed into a clay statue. This takes place with many soldiers, and it is rather gruesome, as is the scene where one character explodes. Once again, it is molten lava rather than blood that we see, so this somehow makes it more “acceptable” for a PG-13 rating. Of course, there is plenty of realistic violence as well from Rick O'Connell accidentally sticking a flycasting in his neck to a scene where a man is about to be torn limb from limb (the camera cuts away). Add to this the decapitation and death of hundreds of animated mummies and it is clear that this is not for young children. Sexually, there is a brief sex scene early in the film, but no nudity. We also see Rick O'Connell apply cold ice to his crotch after a fight. Language wise, there are a few bad words, and in one instant one of the characters shouts, “there is no call for bad language,” but this does not stop him. I did not hear any f- or s- words, however. In one case, the mummy is told to burn in hell, which we presume he literally will do, for the Bible does not support the occultic legends espoused in this film. The occult is obviously present, as in the other films. It is played out in adventure form and not taken seriously, but children need to understand that “it is appointed for men to die once and then comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). There are no immortal mummies or undead creatures awaiting magic powers to resurrect them. Only Christ can resurrect the dead and the wicked will rise only to destruction and judgment (John 5:29). Plotwise, the story seems intriguing. The Dragon Emperor and his Terracotta army are raised to conquer the world. If the Dragon Emperor reaches Shangri La he will become immortal. If the army passed the Great Wall of China, they too will become immortal. Our heroes must stop them. That is basically it. The story never really develops beyond this. This movie obviously made some changes from the first two films. For one thing Rob Cohen replaces Steven Sommers. A quick look at Cohen's resume, however, shows only one memorable film (“Dragonheart”) and this film is nothing like that one. Perhaps that is the fault of the script. It has a promising idea but nothing seems to go anywhere. In one scene Alex O'Connell comments on his father's plan saying, “that seems a little short on details!” Unfortunately, so was the script. Fans of special effects laden action films will probably enjoy this one, but if you are expecting something like the first mummy movie, then you best wait for home video. Violence: Heavy / Profanity: Mild / Sex/Nudity: Minor See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.   Comments below:
Negative
Negative - This movie was a let-down. We loved the first two mummy movies, but felt this was a disappointment. First, the replacement for Evelyn did not fit the role. We gave her a chance, but her accent sounded phony and she really lacked the charisma held by the original actress. This one was too 'macho' and seemed to lack class and chemistry with her on-screen husband. There was one scene where Rick woke up next to Evelyn and thought he was in heaven. My wife and I had to laugh. She wasn't that good looking. Second, this movie had a little more profanity than we expected. If I had to guess, I would say somewhere between 10 and 20 light-profanity words. People who watch a lot of movies will likely say that the profanity was not too bad, but I would say that they have been desensitized by watching too much junk on film. Christians should not be ashamed to say this. In one scene, a character shouted that his rear end was on fire multiple times, using another three-letter word for rear over and over. There is one scene where Rick has to hold ice on his groin area after riding a metallic horse. Not necessary. Third, we feel the script was poorly written. Dialogue between father and son was awkward. Rick's character made strange exclamations like 'Mad Dog (a pilot) can certainly outfly a three-headed lizard!' (or something close to that). Just sounded wierd. In another scene, a snow monster kicks a bad guy over a gate and another monster holds his arms up as if a field goal was kicked. Although many people laughed, we thought this was cheesy and out of place. Fourth, although we thought there was a lot of violence, it was not too gruesome or realistic to be disturbing. All the way home, my wife kept saying that we should have seen Batman instead and I had to agree with her. We brought our children to the movie and I am sorry I did as a result of the light sexual humor and mild profanity. That killed the movie for me. Special effects were good, but not enough to save the movie. Save your money and don't waste your time with this one. Negative - My 17 yr daughter and I both were disappointed that the trailers showed all the good parts of the film. The premise was good but it seems everything got short changed in the rush to meet the opening of the Olympics. The script hurt the ears and gave the lead actors little to work with. The CGI was technically advanced but the battles went on and on as if to fill time. The plot turns make the eyes roll: the parents travel half way around the world and see their son and have a argument first thing. The caring relationships we see in the first two movies are well hidden here. Neutral
Positive
Positive - According to this site, Roger Ebert says ââ¦why did I like this movie? It was just plain dumb fun, is why. It is absurd and preposterous, and proud of it. The heroes maintain their ability to think of banal cliches even in the most strenuous situations.â¦â In other words, the dialogue is terrible, and the plot is dumb. Not dumb as in I-lost-IQ-points-watching-this dumb nor Dude, Where's My Car? dumb, but dumb as in tv-adaptations-of-comic-book-stories are dumb. Why? How? 'Cause they're flat. Characters are generally one-dimensional; scriptings are sophomoric; the humor is pretty tongue-in-cheek; the action is always overdone to a superlative extreme; the visual effects are rushed. Now, there are reasons for this. Alfred Gough and Miles Millar are the writers. Who are THEY??? They're the writers for most every episode of Smallville. Ohhh.... Positive - Considering the genre it was good. The acting was so so. It definitely didn't compare to the first. I was entertained though. If you are walking into this movie looking for a Christian world view you'll be highly disappointed. But I knew what to expect. It was a fantasy movie with mummies in it. So I enjoyed it. Comments from young people
Positive - I went to see this the first night it came out because I have always enjoyed all of the mummy movies. :) Positive - This film is fun and exciting from start to finish. The CGI and special effects are wonderful! An incredibly under rated film. It deserves 3 stars. Don't go into it expecting something amazing but dont go in expecting to waste money. I heard all the reviews and negative comments and saw it, fearing i wasted a good chunk of change. Movie Critics
“…Given the must, dust and rust emanating from this third installment, it's clear the time has come for this ‘Mummy’ franchise to be truly mummified once and for all. …film comes off as both old hat and low-grade…” “…‘The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor’ taps into a fond pop-culture memory. For those of us of a certain age, it feels like kin to the stuff of Saturday-afternoon TV, where Sinbad could be seen battling Ray Harryhausen's audacious creatures. Is the ‘Mummy’ good? Well, were any of those afternoon delights?” “…For kids who have seen only a few action-adventure movies, ‘Dragon Emperor’ should be entertaining. It's loud, and has sort-of-scary monsters and some great computer-generated special effects. But once you've seen ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark,’ it's too late.…” “…Third ‘Mummy’ loses sense of fun… Focus is on wrong actor in convoluted shadow of first film…” “…why did I like this movie? It was just plain dumb fun, is why. It is absurd and preposterous, and proud of it. The heroes maintain their ability to think of banal cliches even in the most strenuous situations.…” “…Aimless ‘Mummy 3’ never comes to life… an also-ran in the summer sweepstakes.…” |
E-mail this page to a friend