The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

Review #2583: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.

Cast:

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Maria Bello (Evelyn Carnahan-O'Connell), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Russell Wong (General Ming Guo), Liam Cunningham (Mad Dog Maguire), Luke Ford (Alex O'Connell), Isabella Leong (Lin), Michelle Yeoh (Zi Yuan), Jet Li (Qin Shi Huang), Anthony Wong (General Yang), Jessey Meng (Colonel Choi), David Calder (Professor Roger Wilson), Albert Kwan (Chu Wah), with James Bradford (Jameson), and Freda Foh Shen (the Narrator) Directed by Rob Cohen (#043 - The Fast and the Furious, #924 - The Boy Next Door, #1089 - Stealth)

Review: 

"I think it's the charisma of the idea of the undead and how they are cursed because they can't be successful denying mortality. I think we ascribe powers to the undead--if something has transcended death, it can't be normal. And whenever something unsettling has power, it makes a great villain. Movies are made by great villains, not by the heroes. A movie like this depends on how bad the bad guy is, so the good guys can rise to the occasion."

You know, with The Mummy [1999] (as devised by Stephen Sommers, Lloyd Fonvielle, Kevin Jarre, which in turn was a loose remake of the 1932 movies of the same name), you could see the appeal of having a good ol' adventure within a loose deal of romance within tinges of horror, and, well, some humor. The Mummy Returns [2001]...was almost as decent. Maybe it was rushed, maybe it was a bit too hollow to really make for a quality sequel, but it was still a crowd-pleaser. Seven long years later, there was a third The Mummy movie for folks of the new millennium to enjoy. I suppose it seems timely to cover a film that won't even be considered a "direct sequel" to Returns (2001) by 2027 because somehow, someway, there is an impending Mummy movie (okay, there was that one Mummy movie released in 2026, but let's not get into that now*). By 2004, Stephen Sommers, director of the previous Mummy movies, was not keen on coming back for a third movie, feeling that it would just be too hard to make it really come together like the first two, although he did co-produce it; directing duties went to Rob Cohen*. Screenwriting duties went to the duo of Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (you might recognize them from such scripts as Lethal Weapon 4 [1998], the Shanghai movies [2000, 2003]). Made on a larger budget than the last two films (estimated at over $145 million), the movie was a mild success with audiences.

It's not exactly a mummy movie, if you want to be technical, since the Emperor and his army is actually just encased in clay as part of a curse that draws upon actual history, mainly the Terracotta Army (the real Army is a collection of ceramic sculptures of the armies of Emperor Qin Shi Huang that was buried with him in his mausoleum). Now, are we talking about archeology (because sometimes I have links for that) or we talking about a middling sequel? Honestly, I didn't have many expectations for this movie, mainly because the recasting of Rachel Weisz for Maria Bello could not possibly be a good omen for a film that will also feature further moments within the parent-son dynamic of adventure that surely isn't a discount version of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (incidentally, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull came out two months before Dragon Emperor). And, well, it is a pretty mediocre movie, filled with possibly even less energy between the people you want to see (our human goofballs stumbling around in the history books). But it is sometimes funny within all of the stops thrown in to try and elevate this shambling spectacle that honestly is almost more interesting than the previous movie. You get CG catlike yeti, Shangri-La (who else but crib from Lost Horizon?), attempts to look like 1946 that doesn't really look that timely, further CG amusements involving dragons, the Great Wall having a litany of dead folks coming out of it, and more within a 112-minute runtime that somehow seems rushed to oblivion. Fraser* just doesn't have that much to genuinely do besides be stuck in cartoonish dynamics with a present-only-in-spirit Bello and present-in-theory Ford, who each can't deliver anything other than tired remarks and only hints of an actual connection. How hard is it to have gone with a plan to move on from Arnold Vosloo in the whole "evil mummy with a reign of terror"? Evidently, not too easy of a plan. It isn't even worth trying to see Li or Yeoh try to pull the local flavor of "go-go mystic bullshit" because honestly, there is barely anything worth mentioning that you haven't seen in some way before in constrained drama (they are the ones who start the movie, mind you, hence the narrator credit) that goes for little charm and little everything, honestly. Hannah might as well be sleepwalking through the experience, which isn't something worth saying for the only other regular besides Fraser to be in all three movies. After a while, you really do just go through the motions of watching this movie do the bare minimum. The magic of the first movie was those folks (Fraser, Hannah, Weisz) intermixing with mayhem for actual warmth and fun. The second just ran with the spectacle at the expense of really challenging anything and the third just feels tired when undead folks are going around mowing each other down or in its evitable finish of folks getting the girl and so on. You can do better than checking out this middle-of-the-road movie.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars,

Song of the day!

*Honestly, I didn't have time to see it. Who the hell releases a mummy movie in April? Also, who the hell thought it would make sense to call it "Lee Cronin's The Mummy"? Are you kidding me? Really? Oh but it was to alleviate the confusion from other "The Mummy" movies - shit, just put the year in the title to really set yourself apart. Quibble over.

*In 2019, Cohen was accused of sexually assaulting his trans daughter as a child. Incidentally, he has not directed a movie since 2018.

*There are some movies that have future Academy Award winning actors, why not two with Brendan Fraser and Michelle Yeoh here?

A History of Violence.

Review #1220: A History of Violence.

Cast: 
Viggo Mortensen (Tom Stall / Joey Cusack), Maria Bello (Edie Stall), Ed Harris (Carl Fogarty), William Hurt (Richie Cusack), Ashton Holmes (Jack Stall), Peter MacNeill (Sheriff Sam Carney), Stephen McHattie (Leland Jones), Greg Bryk (Billy Orser), and Kyle Schmid (Bobby) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future and #1127 - eXistenZ)

Review: 
I suppose there is something to be said about violence and how it pervades our lives from time to time, and how people deal with the consequences of said actions in trying to survive and where it can go from there. This is adapted from the 1997 graphic novel of the same name written by John Wagner (writer of works such as Judge Dredd) with art from Vince Locke that Josh Olson turned into a screenplay, which kept parts from the first half mostly intact while re-writing the climax involving Stall and his brother. In any case, this is a nice pulpy tale with plenty of noir elements to go around, having capable performances from its cast that makes this a worthy piece to check out alongside other Cronenberg pieces. In a sense, it feels like a take on the Western genre, with its take on the reluctant gunfighter and his fight to escape the impulses of his dark past. It moves at its own pace for 96 minutes, having its share of violence alongside interesting moments with its characters that allow to seem more than just figures to play around with. Mortensen is wonderful, playing his man with the right sense of balance between trying to toe the line of morals and his true nature, being convincing and selling his paths in two different worlds with plenty of conviction to go around. Bello also shines well, being capable with passion and grace with plenty of chemistry to go around with Mortensen. Harris makes for a worthy adversary when he shows up on screen, showcasing menace with ease and a pair of sunglasses. Hurt shows up right for the climax, but he makes it all worth it with his own degree of threatening nature (with ensuing Irish accent) that makes his time on screen work just as well as any big bad in a noir type of film does. Holmes is decent when needed, as can be said for MacNeill. McHattie and Bryk do well with their moments on screen in the first half, being capable at showing aggression as expected with subtlety. It is a film that makes its violence ugly and shocking without dwelling on going for overkill or distraction. This is a well-done blunt instrument of a film, showing violence and its mingling with identity without becoming just another crime thriller movie. We never find ourselves cheering for when the characters get into a shootout but instead think about the circumstances that drive people to do such things in the first place. This is a effective film that wraps itself in tension and violence without losing its target in all of the ruckus and blood.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Payback (1999).

Review #1191: Payback.

Cast:
Mel Gibson (Porter), Gregg Henry (Val Resnick), Maria Bello (Rosie), Lucy Liu (Pearl), Deborah Kara Unger (Lynn Porter), David Paymer (Arthur Stegman), Bill Duke (Detective Hicks), Jack Conley (Detective Leary), John Glover (Phil), William Devane (Carter), James Coburn (Justin Fairfax), Kris Kristofferson (Bronson), and Trevor St. John (Johnny Bronson) Directed by Brian Helgeland (#372 - 42)

Review: 
The strangest thing about films can be the ways that it can sometimes transition into numerous forms before a final shift into the form that goes to audiences. This film is a particular example of where a director's vision can verge differently from ultimately made it to the screen. Brian Helgeland was making his directorial debut after meeting up with Gibson on the set of Conspiracy Theory (1997), a film that he had written for. During the post-production stage for that film, Helgeland happened to have the script with him when Gibson inquired about the pages he had with him, for which he read the first act of. A few weeks later, Gibson agreed to finance the film with his production company Icon Productions provided they could shoot within 12 weeks. The film is as adaptation of the 1962 novel The Hunter by Richard Stark (pen-name for David E. Westlake), the first of 24 novels from 1964 to 2008 with the character Parker as the main lead. It had already been adapted a movie in 1967 as Point Blank, featuring Lee Marvin, and other novels had been given film adaptations.

Before I talk about the circumstances that led to Helgeland's dismissal from the film, let's talk about how the movie is first. For a neo-noir, it certainly is a decently entertaining one. It maybe a bit routine in terms of its story and action, but it is a road worth walking onto in part because of its dark charm, which in some ways feels like a guilty pleasure. Gibson is certainly up to task in delivering a character worth following with a subtle grin in a film with oddball people basked in noir types. Henry is fairly adept at showing menace for his time shared with Gibson. Bello does fine with her material, sharing her time with Gibson quite well. Liu (playing a dominatrix) is quite quirky. Paymer plays his role with a good deal of sleazy ooze that is pretty amusing. It is amusing to see Coburn briefly, but interesting to see Kristofferson all of a sudden in the film appear; he isn't really too menacing as the big bad but he is at least neat to watch. The movie moves with a dynamic pace to try and garner up excitement along with a chuckle, and it works out fine for the most part, playing to the noir type handily. It is sometimes a bit wobbly with its plot motivations (and its action violence on occasion), but the final product works out mostly because it manages to distract itself enough to where while you can see where "producer's notes" may have stepped in, you can at least find something to watch without too much disapproval. It has a bit of fun with its aspects of revenge without being too demanding.

Helgeland's version of the film was felt to be too dark for a mainstream audience in terms of story, tone, and look. he was fired from the project, which occurred two days after winning an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for his work for L.A. Confidential (1997). Thirty percent of the film was re-shot (with new material written by Terry Hayes), with John Myhre (production designer) doing un-credited directorial work. Helgeland would have his version of the film (referred to as Straight Up: The Director's Cut) released on DVD in 2007. His version differs from the theatrical version in several ways, such as a shorter length (90 minutes as opposed to the 101 in the theatrical), a female Bronson un-seen by the audience that is voiced by Sally Kellerman, the removal of the narration by Gibson, and the restoring of the look of the film from a bleached tone to one more normal. Honestly, the look is okay as is (even if sometimes it may seem better in black-and-white by simply taking the color out of the screen manually), but at least there exists two versions to compare. I don't have too much interest in watching the other cut, but if you are curious about what makes a movie go in different directions, I'm sure it is right up your alley. The film as is just fine, not being any kind of big statement as a neo-noir action flick, but it will serve just alright for the tastes of people wanting some entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

original image: