Mummy Love
Roger Ebert was mixed on the original The Mummy ('99), which I hated with with every last fibre of my being. Ebert was "not pleased with The Mummy Returns ('01). And yet he recently called the latest version, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, "the best in the series." At the end of his review, he writes, "Now why did I like this movie? It was just plain dumb fun, is why. It is absurd and preposterous, and proud of it."
I really and truly consider all three Mummy movies (the first two directed by Stephen Sommers, who produced the current installment) a blight upon our souls. It is industrial-strength pollution in the American cultural river. Giving a pass to these movies is like blowing a kiss to the devil himself.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 3, 2008 at 9:51 AM
comment #1
Ray says ...
A-fucking-men Jeff. It's not even fun enough to enjoy on a cursory "I just had my frontal lobe removed with a chainsaw" level of dumb fun. There is no damn point to this other than to pickpocket additional funds for the ailing Universal.
http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/reviews/the-mummy-3-tomb-of-the-dragon-emperor.php
Posted by Ray at August 3, 2008 10:34 AM
comment #2
Nick Plowman says ...
I agree and am therefore not going to watch "Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" even though I have nothing better to do with my life anyway. I'd rather, I don't know, jab needles into my eye or play in the traffic or something else along the lines of manic suicidal behaviour.
Posted by Nick Plowman at August 3, 2008 10:50 AM
comment #3
Bocephus says ...
In this movie, Yetis are a force for good that show up at just the right time to help the good guys out of a pickle.
And I still don't want to see it.
Posted by Bocephus at August 3, 2008 10:59 AM
comment #4
George Prager says ...
Where is Kim Voynar's 7000 word essay on why Jeff missed the boat on this one?
Posted by George Prager at August 3, 2008 11:03 AM
comment #5
D.Z. says ...
Jeff: What about Scorpion King?
Posted by D.Z. at August 3, 2008 11:07 AM
comment #6
erniesouchak says ...
I agree with you 1000 percent, Wells.
Posted by erniesouchak at August 3, 2008 11:27 AM
comment #7
Ogami Itto says ...
In this movie, Yetis are a force for good that show up at just the right time to help the good guys out of a pickle.
And I still don't want to see it.
I feel the same way. How hard is it to make a movie with heroic Yetis and have it NOT suck? I mean really. Based on the lousy ads and trailer I'll be skipping this one like I did the others.
Posted by Ogami Itto at August 3, 2008 11:43 AM
comment #8
adaml says ...
Ebert raves about another shit film. Same old same old.
Posted by adaml at August 3, 2008 12:52 PM
comment #9
Mr. Blood Vessel says ...
It's the old age setting in, i.e. taking stock of things he is thankful for..why be mean to people just trying to make a buck and live their lives?
Roger Ebert always sounded like a nice guy, so I'm sure he's at the point in his life when he's just not angry about things anymore.
besides, when your own show that you built from the ground up with your best friend is now stripped of its own individuality that you two created together and your legacy is now a distant memory, would you still have the drive to really do anything?
Posted by Mr. Blood Vessel at August 3, 2008 1:11 PM
comment #10
Mr. Blood Vessel says ...
maybe best friend is a little much..but you get the idea.
Posted by Mr. Blood Vessel at August 3, 2008 1:18 PM
comment #11
BurmaShave says ...
The first MUMMY is really not that terrible, and it was one of the better CGI spectacles of its time. Also Wells aren't you a fan of DEEP RISING?
Posted by BurmaShave at August 3, 2008 1:27 PM
comment #12
ZayTonday says ...
I enjoyed the latest Mummy movie a WHOLE lot more than the Indiana Jones movie. Also, nothing in it was anywhere as logic-defying as the fridge-nuking scene or seeing Shia LaBeouf swing on all of those vines.
Posted by ZayTonday at August 3, 2008 2:03 PM
comment #13
bb says ...
Ebert has been much kinder to movies since his cancer problems began. I can't fault the man for his changes. I don't know that I would be able to continue on as he has.
Posted by bb at August 3, 2008 2:18 PM
comment #14
JTag says ...
Burma, there are many fans of Deep Rising. Deep Rising is a fantastic B-movie. How can you not love the end? I'm talking specifically about the scene where Treat Williams and Famke Janssen are escaping from the monster-thing on a jet ski and Treat Williams shoots at it with a shotgun, then shouts "Cock it!" at Famke. She does, he shoots, and then he yells "Cock it!" again. I always watch this scene when the movie plays on TNT/TBS.
Posted by JTag at August 3, 2008 2:20 PM
comment #15
WallySparks says ...
Ebert's opinoon means very much to me, he is a very intelligant man. But the man cleary has fell of through out the years. And when i saw the first Mummy i was very young, and i watched it over and over. Maybe because im older now i have a no intention on seeing the latest installment of the mummy. But Dam does it look bad...
id rather go see the Dark Knight for the fifth time on shrooms in the imax, than listen to Eberts opinion.
i dont trust this movie at all.
Posted by WallySparks at August 3, 2008 2:27 PM
comment #16
Chase Kahn says ...
Roger Ebert lost me when he gave THE GOLDEN COMPASS 4 stars...
Posted by Chase Kahn at August 3, 2008 2:33 PM
comment #17
Agent of NERD says ...
Ebert has always given decent reviews to bad films that he thought were bad but entertaining enough to make it worthwhile. Everyone has a different threshold in the " I know it's a piece of crap but I liked it anyway" department. If I remember correctly, he gave a thumbs up to the Phantom Menace but a thumbs down to Attack of the Clones. He liked Tomb Raider but not Temple of Doom. This type of movie is about as subjective as it gets. The only thing you can say with certainty is that it was poorly made and can't be logically defended. "I just want to see yetis, three headed dragons and an immortal emperor who transforms himself into a giant foo dog." isn't logic, though.
Posted by Agent of NERD at August 3, 2008 2:34 PM
comment #18
cinefan says ...
Actually, Agent of NERD, Ebert gave a four-star review to Temple of Doom .although, I think in his recent review of Crystal Skull, he says it's not in the same class as Raiders: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19840101/REVIEWS/401010348/1023
Posted by cinefan at August 3, 2008 2:44 PM
comment #19
Agent of NERD says ...
I also think the bar for genre films has really been raised in the last few decades. Harryhausen movies are great fun, but you went to see them for the monsters. Now we can sometimes get monsters and good story, acting, direction, etc. Clash of the Titans was not a very good movie but it had Medusa, Calibos, the Kraken and excellent breastfeeding scenes. Aliens, The Terminator, The Devil's Backbone, The Lord of the Rings, Pan's Labyrinth, The Mist, The Dark Knight and more have come along in the last 25 years. You can have Sci-Fi/Fantasy and quality at the same time now.
Posted by Agent of NERD at August 3, 2008 2:57 PM
comment #20
Agent of NERD says ...
Cinefan, you are right. I was confused. I often am.
Posted by Agent of NERD at August 3, 2008 3:16 PM
comment #21
AndrewOwens says ...
Stephen Sommers has made one, honest to goodness great B Movie - a great comfort food bit of fun called Deep Rising. But The Mummy films have gotten steadily worse - and given where the series started, quality wise, that's pretty shocking.
Posted by AndrewOwens at August 3, 2008 3:58 PM
comment #22
frankbooth says ...
The first Mummy had great atmosphere, though it's a bit slow. But I love the makeup on Karloff.
Wait. You mean the NEW one?
In that case, I agree. Chris Lee ROCKS.
Posted by frankbooth at August 3, 2008 4:26 PM
comment #23
Hallick says ...
When I saw Ebert's review on his site, it mildly sickened me but it didn't surprise me. Anybody that's followed his criticism for a few years can tell you that every once and a while he gets a wild hair up his butt and throws praise at a certain kind of movie when nobody else is. I know he did the same for Anaconda. Possibly Congo, back when, but I'm not so sure about that one. It's always in the name of dumb fun and I don't get bent out of joint about it. Every critic has a flukey reaction from time to time. Big whoop.
Posted by Hallick at August 3, 2008 5:09 PM
comment #24
Terry McCarty says ...
Doesn't Ebert feel the need sometimes to be at one with what's out in the marketplace to make studios happy? I remember when SPEED 2 got unwarranted praise from him--and made a supposition on a film listserve as to whether this was a way to make peace with Fox after Roger and Gene were temporarily banned from Fox screenings after panning NUNS ON THE RUN.
Sidebar: Last night, I watched about 30 seconds of Doug Liman being interviewed on the making-of-JUMPER featurette on the Blu-Ray DVD and Liman said something unintentionally hilarious about JUMPER having an indie sensiblility inside a big commercial film.
Posted by Terry McCarty at August 3, 2008 5:44 PM
comment #25
lipranzer says ...
I also thought DEEP RISING was fun for what it was, but the first MUMMY was a piece of crap, despite Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz's best efforts (John Hannah I don't blame because he was miscast).
Posted by lipranzer at August 3, 2008 8:21 PM
comment #26
Undercover Brother says ...
I love Roger but he should've been stripped of his movie critic credentials years ago. One review after another is a love letter to blatant mediocrity. He seems so happy to still be alive that he fawns over one piece of garbage after another. The man wrote a *** review for Space Chimps. It's been over for him for an age, yet he continues on telling us how great this crap is. It's like he's turned into Roberto Benigni in "Life is Beautiful." The end of life as we know it is knocking down the doors but he keeps trying to convince us it's all just a joke. Please Roger, retire with that last little bit of dignity you have left.
Posted by Undercover Brother at August 3, 2008 9:25 PM
comment #27
Terry McCarty says ...
lipranzer wrote:
... but the first MUMMY was a piece of crap, despite Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz's best efforts (John Hannah I don't blame because he was miscast).
Won't argue the "piece of crap" opinion, but I thought John Hannah and Kevin J. O'Connor were two of the few saving graces.
Posted by Terry McCarty at August 4, 2008 12:38 AM
comment #28
Gordie Lachance says ...
Why would anyone who wasn't a paid film reviewer see a CGI Mummy film?
Roger Ebert does not give movies an automatic pass. Last week he panned Step Brothers with an angry review that proves he should have quit 4-5 years ago.
Posted by Gordie Lachance at August 4, 2008 4:24 AM
comment #29
Bocephus says ...
If I want to find out if a movie is any good before I see it, I won't let an Ebert review convince me. But if I loved a movie, I will always go to his site afterwards to read the review.
Ebert writes reviews for casual moviegoers. In my opinion, he gets a pass for his weekly turdbomb raves when he champions a great indie, overlooked DVD, or classic film.
His Great Movies column convinced my boyfriend (whose favorite movie last year was Transformers) to watch Au Hassard Balthazar with me, nuff said.
Posted by Bocephus at August 4, 2008 8:48 AM
comment #30
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability disaster recovery
Posted by janee
at May 17, 2011 8:29 AM