ROTTEN TOMATOES: Review Revue: Can Mummy 3 or Swing Vote Beat the Bat? Comments

Review Revue: Can Mummy 3 or Swing Vote Beat the Bat?

by Jen Yamato | August 01, 2008

Summary

Ouch! Who would have thought that The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor would get downright embalmed by critics? And will the scribes vote fresh or rotten for Kevin Costner's goofy charm in Swing Vote? Find out all this and more, and recap our costumed exploits at last weekend's Comic-Con, in this week's Review Revue! Back to Article

(1-53 of 53 posts) | Reply

LordPhillock writes:
on Aug 01 2008 04:46 PM

not surprising.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Aug 01 2008 04:47 PM

I really believe The Mummy 3 will be number 1 at the box office this weekend. The Dark Knight will be number 2. By the way, I loved The Dark Knight. I plan on seeing Mummy 3 next week.

(Reply to this)

nathanpoitras writes:
on Aug 01 2008 04:48 PM

I'm hoping The Dark Knight wins again this weekend, if it's going to lose, I'd rather it was against something good like Pineapple Express.

(Reply to this)

jca666 writes:
on Aug 01 2008 05:06 PM

Agreed - however if Mummy 3 takes this weekend, it'll prove the (lack of) intelligence in the viewing audience.

I think if Mummy 3 is as bad as the reviews show, it'll probably take Friday and lose Saturday and Sunday to TDK

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Aug 01 2008 05:08 PM

I'm hoping that Batman scroes big again this weekend just so it can steam roll it's way to toppling Titanic as the highest grossing movie of all time.

(Reply to this)

AntonChigurh writes:
on Aug 01 2008 05:19 PM

In reply to this comment (#1944644)
We can only hope.

(Reply to this)

jocampo writes:
on Aug 01 2008 05:34 PM

my mother is keen on seeing Mummy 3 and, if that's an indication of the mindset of ordinary movie goers, then Mummy 3 is set to topple TDK as #1 this weekend.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Aug 01 2008 05:47 PM

Go Dark Knight! I saw the Mummy 3 today boy was it bad!

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Aug 01 2008 06:04 PM

It's hard to get mad at the 'Mummy' series, seeing as how completely harmless these films are. Silly, unassuming corporate rip-offs of far superior adventure films (1st Indy franchise, mostly) in which the once-promising Brendan Fraser can demonstrate why he was only 'once' promising to directors that never even try to rise above the silly material.
This franchise is not bad enough to hate (see "_____movie" franchise), though not NEARLY good enough to warrant the attention ANY ONE of the films has garnered.

My prediction: TDK wins again by at least 10 mil.

(Reply to this)

TrickStang37 writes:
on Aug 01 2008 06:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#1944664)
Why is that? What's it matter?

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Aug 01 2008 06:14 PM

It's gonna be close.... I really hope Mummy 3 makes what it deserves, which...it won't. :/ Go TDK!

(Reply to this)

cypress550 writes:
on Aug 01 2008 06:37 PM

my moneys on the dark knight

(Reply to this)

badass whit boy writes:
on Aug 01 2008 10:27 PM

TDK will beat the mummy and swing vote cause htey both sucked i saw them i think it will lose 2 pineaple express cause it will probaly be hilarious

(Reply to this)

JettaJameson writes:
on Aug 01 2008 11:48 PM

I think TDK will win. The Mummy has such horrible reviews, I just don't see how it can compete. I'm still gonna see it Friday night. LOL.

(Reply to this)

kissman24 writes:
on Aug 02 2008 01:08 AM

Who would be surprised that the new Mummy sucks?? Based on the quality of the first two, it was expected!!

I actually saw it tonight (thanks MovieCash for making it free) and I can confirm that other than the badass Yeti, this thing is pretty dull.

My money is on The Dark Knight cruising past The Mummy for the win this weekend. The interest in these Mummy films is overrated.

(Reply to this)

horrorfan25 writes:
on Aug 02 2008 06:26 AM

I think The mummy: The tomb of the dragon emperor will crush 'The dark knight'. It's sad but so true. People are saying that 'The mummy: The tomb of the dragon emperor' got awful reviews yet they are seeing it. Average Americans usually do that and I myself admit I do that too. As much as I loved 'The dark knight' so much sadly 'The mummy 3' will win. :(

(Reply to this)

SadisticMagician writes:
on Aug 02 2008 07:25 AM

i have faith that the dark knight will stay on top this week but, if that doesn't happen then i lost all faith in humanity.

(Reply to this)

CaptainSiberia writes:
on Aug 02 2008 10:35 AM

Who let the air out of the Review Revue? It feels so flat, so dull! Maybe it's because there was little of interest to say about these particular films. Still, keep an eye on it.

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Aug 02 2008 10:47 AM

Sadly, most flat revue I remember seeing. . .

although, once they started talking about Swing Vote, I couldn't bare it any more and had to go sleepy time. . .

Clue to not seem mean: Maybe one of you should stop whispering the whole time. . .

(Reply to this)

dystopiandweller writes:
on Aug 02 2008 12:03 PM

For those who are saying that they hope TDK wins because they saw Mummy 3 and it sucked: you didn't help at all by seeing Mummy 3 (unless it was for free). ;]

(Reply to this)

AirmanKJE writes:
on Aug 02 2008 12:45 PM

Wow, Swing Vote made under 2 million on Friday per boxofficemojo.com. I bet Kevin Costner wished he hadn't used 20 million of his own bucks for this.

(Reply to this)

Dachshund96 writes:
on Aug 02 2008 12:48 PM

Pineapple Express looks like a complete turd!

(Reply to this)

adnanaltaf writes:
on Aug 02 2008 01:03 PM

In reply to this comment (#1945900)
You mean faith in AMERICANS

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Aug 02 2008 02:43 PM

K guys, we'll try to punch it up next time!

(Reply to this)

baufan2005 writes:
on Aug 02 2008 02:56 PM

As soon as I saw two seperate trailers for the Mummy in which Fraser says at least 4 different times "Oh no, not another Mummy." or "I hate Mummys." I realized that this is probably a rent only adventure. Also, this shouldn't bother me, but how come his son looks almost as old as he is?

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Aug 02 2008 07:58 PM

Dudes, you guys are going into the Mummy all wrong. The Mummy isn't meant to be a good movie, it's meant to be an incredibly terrible movie. So terrible you start to laugh, then cry, then laugh some more. A whole lot more. Like when the bad guy gets punted over a field goal-esque pillar, only to have the yeti who did it celebrate by rocking dumb jock hand gestures.

"IT'S GOOD! Quick Yeti #2, we have an injury, get the stretcher!"

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Aug 02 2008 08:20 PM

TheIceGhost has it right. I love the mummy movies because they're supposed to be stupid and they know it. They get dumb fun just right. In fact these harken back to those early serials more than "Raiders" did. Obviously Raiders (and ToD and TLC) are superior to the mummy franchise, but they're not even trying to play in the same league.

To see "dumb fun" gotten wrong, check out Van Helsing. Or rather, don't.

I know recommending Ebert to the RT crowd is probably some kind of internet sin, but his review of this (and the first mummy film) are 100% accurate, in both content and tone. Check him out.

(Reply to this)

Xihix writes:
on Aug 02 2008 09:18 PM

In reply to this comment (#1946311)
Actually, I believe money still goes towards the movie, even if you get it for free with MovieCash. If you saw Mummy 3, see TDK again to at least balance your sins!

(Reply to this)

starvin writes:
on Aug 02 2008 09:31 PM

As a Papa Johns employee, I've done my best to sully the name of Mummy 3 all summer.

(Reply to this)

inxperienced_youth writes:
on Aug 02 2008 10:49 PM

to you idiots who support mummy 3, you do realize that if you go knowing the movie sucks, you are saying "hey Hollywood, make more of these crap films because we will all rush opening weekend and see it, even if we know it sucks!" so why would studios spend time to make better stories/movies if they can spend less time and poop out crappy sequels and still make a ton of money....i say rotten tomatoes is here for a reason, anything below 20 percent should not even be considered (especially in theaters)!....i say boycott crappy films so producers will realize audiences have brains! is there any hope left for mankind?

(Reply to this)

Wallcloud writes:
on Aug 02 2008 11:25 PM

I hope TDK wins. I saw Mummy 3 yesterday (loved Mummy 1) and it SUCKED!!! someone should make them do it over again or not at all lol

(Reply to this)

ClearlyBlind2568 writes:
on Aug 03 2008 01:30 AM

It's funny how everybody is saying "TDK will win because i saw the mummy and it sucks".......maybe it does suck, but you still saw it which is basically what everyone is going to to. They're going to see and and complain about how much it sucks. Sorry, TDK will be #2 because pretty much everyone who was going to see it already did, and no TDK will not beat the Titanic, simply because people like my mom are not going to the theater to see it for the 5th time. Titanic had a much bigger audiance, from teenage girls who saw it for then-teen hearthrob Leo Dicaprio, to middleaged aged women who saw it for the romantic story, to older folks who remember it happening. The only reason TDK made so much money allready is due to geeks like us seeing it multiple times.

(Reply to this)

astrangefish writes:
on Aug 03 2008 04:08 AM

They've made a 'Mummy 3'?!! If ANYONE OF YOU was still in ANY doubt that sequels are made based on HOW MUCH THEY MAKE and not WHETHER THEY ARE ANY GOOD, - THIS IS DEFINITIVE PROOF!

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Aug 03 2008 05:54 AM

Movies exist for what primary purpose? To entertain.

If a movie is terrible, but entertains you, hasn't it done its job? The Mummy, for example, is terrible - but on the flip side, it entertained me to no end. So by the basic definition of entertainment, hasn't it thus succeeded?

There's room in the vast Hollywood sea for whole schools of fish. Some will be big and beautiful, some will be small and daring, a whole lot are going to be run of the mill and a few sad sacks are going to be bottom feeders.

I've never liked the argument of, "stop going to bad films and they'll stop making them!" because there's no way to truly discern what a bad film is, and by human nature it's impossible for everything to ever be perfect. What, because critics hate it the thing is bad? That's bologna and short sighted! What about the bad film that's good, like Mummy. So bad that it has you turning to your buddy to laughingly say, "WTF just happened!? Did that guy just rip his face off and chuck it at somebody!?" A critic is never going to call that good, but to me and mine that's a golden nugget.

And I'm not saying I always look for that cheap, brain-switch-off eye candy. Sometimes I want the deep, unique, excellently crafted film. And sometimes I don't. Heck, there are some bad movies that I wish they WOULD stop making, like those Scary/Disaster/Superhero/Meet The Spartans flicks.

But that's the great thing about having an entertainment industry that has more money then God, it can fill the sea with a whole range of delectable vices to satisfy the masses. And if you don't want it, shake your head in some grandiose disapproval, turn to something else and let it be - it's not hard...

Besides, the way the internet and technology is headed, there's going to be a lot more awesome and independent stuff flooding your brain soon enough. There has gotta be some stuff you want to avoid, right? Or do you want to be 700 pounds when you die?

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Aug 03 2008 08:04 AM

In reply to this comment (#1947794)
Kudos, 'ghost,for trying to go philosophical, but if someone says something 'sucked' then it's pretty much assured that it didn't *entertain* them, unless there is no difference in your mind between 'entertain' and, say 'occupy.' Plenty of movies have chewed up hours of my life while categorically FAILING to entertain me. See, for example, this summer's champion flop Speed Racer, which I couldn't have wished greater failure upon (and was annoyed at my best friend for dragging me).

I agree with you that 'bad' is subjective, and rock on, appreciating popcorn cinema- if anyone enjoys a film, it seems pointless to declare it a failure. My problem with movies like 'the Mummy' was the same problem I--and so many other people-- had with Indy 4: Great resources, great energy, huge budget employed in service of mediocrity. These guys didn't MAKE this film for you to howl at its badness. They just made a sh#tty film with a lot of stuff to make fun of. It SHOULD have been BETTER, so the logic is punish the slacker film makers.

Obviously, this logic often fails...

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Aug 03 2008 09:17 AM

In reply to this comment (#1947903)
It's not logic. It's human nature. It's the idea of parents telling their kids not to do something because it's bad for them. Of course that kid is going to try it. People want to experience things for themselves. If it's bad to you then it's bad to you, but I can guarantee it entertained someone out there.

For example, much of the art community has been RAVING over Speed Racer as a flick that's ahead of its time - and I personally thought Indy was great because it nailed what the franchise is about. If you were someone who went into Indy thinking it was meant to be like the last three, you kinda missed the point of Indiana Jones.

Put it this way. Everyone who is in the entertainment biz does one of two things. Either they're A.) Trying to rush job/milk something to make money or B.) They're legitimately trying their darnedest to make something great. In either case, there is the chance of failing. Cohen said himself that he pushed the effects crew to their absolute breaking point, keeping things going until the last possible day - yet the effects in Mummy were terrible. Is it then fair to call it "slack-film making" because you didn't have the right people behind you? At the same token, we can all pretty safely say that Mummy 3 was the studio milking a franchise. Does that mean that the people behind the film don't believe in it? After all, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my name attached to crap. If it turned out to be crap, at least I could say I tried my hardest to get it right, and if it doesn't go right, then it doesn't. Brush off them shoulders and move on to the next thing.

So what can you do? You make lemonade from lemons like I did with Mummy. Hell, look at Evil Dead.

(Reply to this)

Crabman32 writes:
on Aug 03 2008 09:41 AM

Box Office Mojo estimates are in. The dark Knight is still number one.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Aug 03 2008 10:02 AM

In reply to this comment (#1948156)
It's still too close to call. I hope TDK wins though.

(Reply to this)

dtroit writes:
on Aug 03 2008 10:50 AM

Yeah somethin tells me that the Mummy was steered by a lot more suits than Evil Dead was. Sam Raimi went out with no budget and made a horror movie. Them Mummy 3 cost 7.9 billion dollars and seven virgin's souls to make so I doubt they had much say in whether or not Brendan's Frasier only had the ability to say "I hate Mummies" just like his action figure does.

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Aug 03 2008 11:16 AM

The "point" being that Evil Dead started off to be a legit horror movie, which was terrible AS a horror movie, but gold as a comedy. So instead of saying it was crap and letting it die, the people who believed in it took the idea and morphed it into something else.

It's like, the ultimate example of the point I'm trying to make, suits or no suits.

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Aug 03 2008 11:50 AM

The Book: A farewell to arms.

"WHO'S LAUGHING NOW?!?!!?!?!"

"Grooooooooooooooooooooovey!"

(Reply to this)

jca666 writes:
on Aug 03 2008 02:43 PM

I saw TDK yesterday - even better the second time and BTW - all of the imax shows near me were sold out!

(Reply to this)

Trevor S. writes:
on Aug 03 2008 03:33 PM

i think pineapple express might derail The Dark Knight's run, then followed by Tropic Thunder

(Reply to this)

starvin writes:
on Aug 03 2008 03:40 PM

I hope the Mummy makes 3 million dollars next week and is at #13

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 03 2008 04:00 PM

I put my money into the "Keep The Dark Knight on top" fund. Good lord, as someone who was slightly let down the first time, I have to say I was wrong. That movie is truly special.

(Reply to this)

dystopiandweller writes:
on Aug 03 2008 04:11 PM

In reply to this comment (#1949130)
Agreed, arendr, it was even better the second time. I said this somewhere else too, but the last 20 minutes, which were weak to me on my initial viewing, seemed to fit much more the second time. Also caught a lot of little details.

Whoever liked TDK their first time, do yourself a favor and watch it again. And whoever didn't care for it, I notice that this is a film that rewards multiple viewings, so try again.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on Aug 03 2008 04:46 PM

I saw it three times and i actually liked it less each time because the batman voice became more and more hysterical that i could no longer hold it in. And the last act seemed worse and worse each time i saw it.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 03 2008 04:52 PM

I don't get the hate for the Batman voice. Have you people never seen a Clint Eastwood movie?

And the 3rd act is brilliant. That's what makes the movie, in my opinion.

(Reply to this)

edgarandstephen writes:
on Aug 03 2008 05:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#1949268)
the third act is comparable to stopping the movie and putting in another movie labeled "batman 3" and watching two face get defeated without concluding the joker/batman story -im surprised no one else found this disappointing, i mean i was pissed that the joker was literally left hanging...it was still a good film, but the last act is what ruined it for me

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Aug 03 2008 06:16 PM

The last thirty minutes or so of Dark Knight is pretty weak, yeah, but the first two hours are pure gold.

It was definitely better the second time around, though.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 03 2008 06:29 PM

The 3rd act ties together the entire point of the movie. The people of Gotham have disproved Joker's theory on anarchy, while their savior Harvey has succumbed to it. I'd like to see someone logically tell me what scenes could have been cut. I understand if you want that stuff to happen in the 3rd movie, but who knows if that's even going to happen.

(Reply to this)

dystopiandweller writes:
on Aug 03 2008 08:29 PM

^^^

Yep, that was exactly what I realized, pretty suddenly, during my second time, and I literally went "oh man, I get it now! What a great movie, and perfect ending."

(Reply to this)

InsaneNinja23 writes:
on Aug 04 2008 02:39 AM

Not quite sure why people think Pineapple Express is going to debut huge. Is this an online joke or is there really supposed to be a lot of steam behind an R-rated film that appeals mainly to stoners?

As for Mummy 3... I actually liked the first 2 films (the first moreso than the second), but I can't get excited about this third one. Glad 'Dark Knight' beat it.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links