Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

JokerMichel From the second you watch the first two minutes of the movie you know it's gonna be bad.Just look at the CGI !!

jaredpahl The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is stupid. The plot is goofy, the dialogue is banal, the actors are going through the motions, and the direction is ordinary. The thing is, nobody going to a movie called 'The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor' is expecting anything from these traditional pillars of cinema. This movie is made for 12-year-olds looking for something cool to daydream about and inner 12-year-olds who want a diverting two hours of adventure. On that front, how does this third Brendan Fraser led Mummy film hold up? Well, let's call it an admirable disappointment. From the perspective of a huge 'Mummy' fan, Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is a clear step down from the first two Stephen Sommers blockbusters. Mummy 3 lacks the energy, scale, and humor of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, not to mention their director and star. With Rachel Weisz gone and Stephen Sommers relegated to producer, Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is clearly a lesser caliber popcorn blockbuster. For late summer entertainment, it gets by. The sets and costumes are pretty, the characters are likable, and the action is fun, but there is no escaping that old familiar feeling of franchise fatigue. The most noticeable change for The Mummy 3 is the ancient history the filmmakers plunder for the story. Gone is ancient Egypt and, ironically, mummies. The background of Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is ancient China, where a ruthless emperor, played by Jet Li, and his army are cursed by Michelle Yeoh's immortal sorceress to become terra cotta statues for the rest of time. Of course the emperor has to be resurrected, so retired adventurers Rick and Evelyn O'Connell, as well as they're grown son Alex, can go through another series of conventional Indiana-Jones-style exploits. This is the type of story where there is a sacred book, curse, or crystal to suit any situation. There are admirable attempts to bring some familial drama to the stock adventuring, but the bottom line is, this is dopey, schlocky stuff. Not that anyone really cares about the plot of a Mummy movie.What really matters in an action adventure like this is the action and the adventure. This is where Sommers' movies really shined, and The Mummy 3 comes up short. While the sets and locations are attractive (I can never get enough of hidden temples or secret tombs, and the Himalayan/ Chinese ones here are nice) the director, Rob Cohen, just doesn't have the skill or personality to bring the pretty pictures to life. Stephen Sommers is no Martin Scorsese, but when it comes to personality, energy, or even action staging, he is a major leaguer. Cohen is playing Little League by comparison. Still, what Cohen does with the action is satisfactory. The obligatory shootouts, fights, and chases are diverting, sometimes fun, competently helmed popcorn action. Brendan Fraser and John Hannah, two thirds of the charming and good-natured cast from the previous two movies, return, and they do what they can. The exception is Rachel Weisz, replaced by Maria Bello who tries her best, but can't match Weisz' natural enthusiasm. With Bello, everything seems forced. She looks like Weisz and behaves like Weisz, but she just doesn't have the spark that Weisz brought to the character.In any case, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor can't quite pass this fan's summer adventure test. The filmmaking is subpar, and there are no surprises to discover. It's a hacky job from Cohen, who fails to make use of the lovely set and costume design, as well as Brendan Fraser's always-welcome manic energy. It's not impossible to enjoy The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. It's a high-concept popcorn adventure. That alone keeps me interested, but I can't, in good conscience, recommend the movie. For fans it will be a diverting but disappointing step down in quality, for those who never embraced the goofy Mummy franchise, don't bother.52/100

jimbo-53-186511 Centuries ago, a witch Zi Yuan (Michelle Yeoh) puts a curse on an evil emperor (Jet Li) for killing the man that she loved. Several hundred years later Alex O'Connell (Luke Ford) discovers the mummified body of the Emperor and unwittingly leads to the Emperor being resurrected after he is stabbed in the back by his close friend Professor Wilson. Alex's parents arrive in China with the Shangri-La (a precious stone) which they intend to hand back to the Chinese. However, General Yang manages to get the stone from the O'Connells and begins the process of resurrecting the Emperor and his army; the consequences of which will have a catastrophic effect on humanity...The first question that ran through my mind when this film started was where was Rachel Weisz? There are conflicting stories according to IMDb trivia explaining her absence from this film; one being that she didn't want to be away from her son for several months during filming in China or two that she didn't like the script... Hmmm I wonder which was the real reason? As one other reviewer rightly stated it's hard to believe that Rachel Weisz would be missed from this franchise(until you watch this film). Maria Bello does try her hardest, but she isn't as good an actress as Weisz and her chemistry with Fraser is rather poor. This has a knock-on-effect with Fraser who sadly seems rather ill-at-ease in this film. Whenever I watched him here he looked uncomfortable and rather embarrassed and you're left wondering if he thought to himself "Hell maybe I should have bailed with Rachel". The performances are a big problem here and another issue lies with Luke Ford's portrayal of the O'Connell's son. Rather than just being his own character it felt like he was trying to emulate Brendan Fraser in the first two films, but he has neither the screen presence or the acting ability to carry this off. The Asian members of the cast fare much better with the likes of Yeoh and Leong putting in strong performances and Jet Li was good in the non-CGI aspects of the film.The only person who seemed to keep in spirit with the original films was John Hannah who managed to make a lot of this film more enjoyable than it has any right to be - although even he has become less funny with each passing film.I would only recommend this film if you absolutely loved the first two films because in this film the weaker aspects from the first two films are magnified much more. It's not as fun to watch as the first two films, not as charming, and not as entertaining. In fact, the kindest thing I can say about it is that it was, at least, slightly better than The Scorpion King.

formaggia I am trying to think if I have ever seen a more awful movie and I can only think of one "Carry on Columbus". To give the cast the title of actors would be a breach of the trade description act. The film has all the wit and humour of a funeral on a gray January. The special effects would have been bad 50 years ago. This has to be one of the most miserable offerings ever made. I had to watch to the end to check that the awfulness was maintained throughout. You know when yo watch a film that is so bad it becomes good? This is not one such film. It is so bad that you will want to go and have your memory erased. Truly atrocious in every way.