The idea is great, in theory. Turn the main character into an explorer who goes to different countries to fight mummies (like Indiana Jones, if his enemies were living dead). The problem was that producers recast characters, forgot about others, and made Brendan Fraser’s son an adult. Fraser was not old enough at the time for that to be acceptable. It looked weird. And they did that because they were too greedy, hoping to turn the son into the star of another trilogy. Marvel before Marvel.
The only good part in the series is part 1 because it balanced the horror and action tone. Part 2 was more of the same but dumber, and this one just fully embraces the dumb blockbuster vibe the series was embracing more with part 2.
@@6HauntedDaysdon’t gatekeep. I’m 34. 2008 was CRUCIAL for multiple franchises. Indiana Jones, Iron Man, Hulk, Mummy, Hellboy 2, and Batman ALL had active movies racking up cash from little Edgelords like you. Mummy 3 WAS an attempt to stay afloat as the “failed” Spider Man 3 of 2007 showed that even superheroes can overstay and must evolve. 2009 was even the year many action franchises failed to become the next Pirates of the Caribbean.
Very hard to top the charm of the original. The Tom Cruise one wasn't terrible but doesn't have the goofy humor of Rick O'Connell and I think it needs that.
I always thought they dropped the ball with the sequels fighting mummies AGAIN. Why not go up against a different Universal monster in each one? Rick O’Connell verses Creature from the Black Lagoon would’ve been awesome!
They are planning to do black lagoon but are working on a good script. They just did Nosferatu which is a critical hit but the box office isn't as strong. I just think the dark universe characters can only do about $400 box office tops just because the fan interest isn't as strong as Marvel or DC.
even though this third one doesn't have the same energy like it's two successful predecessor, i do like the China History mix with fantasy, very adventurous indeed
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
At the time, another Mummy movie just felt unnecessary or unwanted, and losing Rachel Weisz and casting an actor for Alex that looks more like Brendan Fraser's younger brother than his son didn't help either.
The director should have had Brendan Fraser grow a beard or something, he was suffering from success of looking way too young to play a father of an adult.
Yeah but even with Rachel it wouldn't have helped the box office much. They waited too long for a sequel and should have added more humor. The charm of the original was the jokes and the chemistry between characters. The villains was also better in the first two.
Stephen Sommers talked about wanting to do a 4th film AFTER seeing the 3rd one flop… like uh you could’ve avoided that had you just done the third film like they originally asked. Smh.
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
The problem for me was the fact that they recasted Rachel and COMPLETELY rewrote who her character was. Like that was sooo unnecessary. It made me feel like i was being gaslighted or something. It made the casting even more worse and I'm sorry but the new actress had terrible chemistry with Frasier. Also the "romance" thing going on between his son and that girl felt very very FORCED. Like they dedicated no time to let it grow but they still forced an unnecessary subplot into an already "okay" movie.
7:15 to be fair, I saw this movie in theaters and I immediately went home and looked up the terracotta warriors. I know it’s the weak spot in the franchise but I enjoyed it.
Yep, loved the first two, hated this one. The chemistry was just not there between Rick and Evelyn in this movie. Without Weiss I just wasn't buying it.
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
I agree but it isn't just chemistry. The comedy was missing. The first one has great jokes and tongue in cheek humor like when the porter spouted every religious incantation to ward off the mummy was hilarious.
The director of the first two OG MUMMY flims Stephen sommers has shown his interest for making the part 4, with the old cast, which is great 👍👏😊. I just can't wait for that THRILL, COMEDY, HORROR, and the chemistry between Brendon and Rachel ❤️🔥
Yea don't get that excited. People change over 20yrs....& with the mostly absolute garbage that almost all big budgets are now.....I have 10% faith it'll be any kind of good.
It's unlikely they'll do another mummy but they would. This one and the Tom Cruise one both made $400+ million box office so it was profitable but the story wasn't as good though.
@@jonfreeman9682 yeah it is strange despite of that huge collection they haven't made part 4. I think they have expected 500M+ for the third movie and it didn't even made more than part 1 that's why. But they should have made MUMMY universe like tom Cruise's MISSION IMPOSSIBLE universe.
Oh, it was mostly just the recasting of Rachel Weisz that did it for me. I like Maria Bello. She's good. She's pretty and talented. She's just not Evie. The very moment Rachel Weisz turned down the script should have been the very moment they rewrote the damn thing. She wasn't an optional casting choice. Stephen Sommer was also pretty critical to the first 2 movies' success. He really wasn't replaceable. And certainly not with a freaking Fast and Furious Director. Ultimately, they should have delayed. Or just put this off until *everyone* was ready to do another one. Let Sommer do his comedy or whatever. Let Rachel spend time with her kid. Then get them back together a few years down the road. It wouldn't have been ideal, sure. They wanted to keep the train rolling. But they didn't have a choice. Doing what they ended up doing was worse and ruined any real prospect of a franchise. Just another example of out-of-touch corporatized studios thinking they know best and that the audience will just watch whatever.
No, cause we'd all be like, "Where is she?" If she never appeared at all I'd be pissed. Maybe if she'd died off screen, and it was about Rick having to learn to live without her. Honestly though, the first two were so built around them as a couple that anything other than them together would have felt like a let down
@@tenchifan72 I honestly don't think so recasting her was completely the wrong idea I feel that having them either be divorced or separated would have been a better idea
No that would've work story wise. Then they'd have the explain the whole backstory. Recasting happens all the time like in Hannibal sequel they recast Jodie Foster with Julianne Moore which was the role that won Jodie Foster an Oscar. It wasn't the same but still worked.
The highlight of the film is Jet Li as the villain. He has the great level of powers and menace. The flaw of the film is the recasting of Rachel Weitz and completely changing her character. They just made a bad choice, as the new girl lacked the chemistry with Frasier and didn't really represent the character she was suppose to. I hated the guy they got to play their kid, found him just annoying. Glad they didn't make sequels with him, as I wouldn't have giving those a shot. I kinda liked this film, but it doesn't hold a candle to the first two, or even The Scorpion King.
They really aged up Rick's son thinking that actor could be a new protagonist for the franchise, lmao. I don't think 'Tomb' is a bad movie but a 4 one with this "passing of the torch" bs would be truly horrible.
Not sure if they should even continue with the Ricky storyline. Without Brendan Fraser in the movie it doesn't have the charm. Even if you bring him and Rachel back it likely won't work. They tried that with Indiana Jones and it didn't work.
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
Wood is earth. It makes as much sense If you need to add a fifth element why not go with lightning? "Because lightning is traditionally part of the wind element" then why do you need to include wood?
The mistake imo was making the movie focused on the son character. The first two Mummy movies worked so well cause Rick O'Connell and the Mummy had almost like a 1 on 1 rivalry. The third movie did away with that and wasted Jet Li's character too cause nobody cared about the son character along with recasting Evie which pretty much everyone didnt like
I actually liked the movie and found it very enjoyable, but Michelle Yeoh is somebody I like to watch anyway. What let the movie down were the continuity errors. And I think at some point it might have been more interesting to shift the focus from Mummies to other monsters. Still, I think the movie doesn't deserve the hate it gets.
Mummy 3 isn’t that bad after revisiting it. Fraser is still great in them. I wish they could have crossed this series over with Van Helsing and made that the dark universe.
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
For the most part, this was an ok film and I enjoyed it. It's sad about the recastings and some of the tone changes, but I would say it's still worth watching. A fourth one would have been nice as long as they stayed true to what the first two had done with the blend of action, horror, and comedy.
If you pay close attention at the Start of the film, Evie is reading a book to a crowd, I believe the scene is meant to convey the Evie we see in the Mummy 1 and 2 is the 'Idealised Version' from the viewers imagination, Like when you imagine a character in a book but then see a illustration from the author. I may be mistaken. Also Abominable Kitty Cats!
Too much overblown CGI and aging actors. Just do a simple explorer story where they solve puzzles, riddles and use historic knowledge to survive a death trap. 😮
Here me out my fan fic idea for the 4th movie and this is condensed. They realze eve is immortal because they brought her back so to get her soul they have to travel to the land of the dead and they could meet the main bad guy again
I remember renting this movie when it first came out. I turned it off within about 30 minutes. The CGI was horrible. This is probably the movie that turned Frazier into the Whale.
No thst c would've been the blacklisting of him from Harvey Weinstein....THAT is why he disappeared almost overnight. And obviously he was wearing fat suit for the whale 🙄 And that movie sucked donkey balls too I.
“The Rock was the best part of the first two Mummy movies, why even bother making a third movie without The Rock?” Dwayne “The Rock/The Scorpion King” Johnson.
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
Am not a big fan of this movie, BUT money wise they had to deal with the 08 financial crisis, inflation, came out about a decade after #2. It could’ve been more successful financially speaking.
“The Rock was the best part of the first two Mummy movies, why even bother making a third movie without The Rock?” Dwayne “The Rock/The Scorpion King” Johnson.
The idea is great, in theory. Turn the main character into an explorer who goes to different countries to fight mummies (like Indiana Jones, if his enemies were living dead). The problem was that producers recast characters, forgot about others, and made Brendan Fraser’s son an adult. Fraser was not old enough at the time for that to be acceptable. It looked weird. And they did that because they were too greedy, hoping to turn the son into the star of another trilogy. Marvel before Marvel.
As if marvel invented the sequel BS. What TF you 12?
The only good part in the series is part 1 because it balanced the horror and action tone. Part 2 was more of the same but dumber, and this one just fully embraces the dumb blockbuster vibe the series was embracing more with part 2.
This movie is like somebody played Indiana Jones And The Emperor's Tomb and thought "I can't make any indi movie but I can make a Mummy movie"
@@6HauntedDaysdon’t gatekeep. I’m 34. 2008 was CRUCIAL for multiple franchises. Indiana Jones, Iron Man, Hulk, Mummy, Hellboy 2, and Batman ALL had active movies racking up cash from little Edgelords like you. Mummy 3 WAS an attempt to stay afloat as the “failed” Spider Man 3 of 2007 showed that even superheroes can overstay and must evolve. 2009 was even the year many action franchises failed to become the next Pirates of the Caribbean.
It's not a horror film 😂
This movie should never have been greenlit without Weisz. She and Fraser had phenomenal chemistry in the first two.
The mummy and the sequel will go down as legendary movies
Already is friendo
@@euj0 it just has the rewatchable energy you know lol
Very hard to top the charm of the original. The Tom Cruise one wasn't terrible but doesn't have the goofy humor of Rick O'Connell and I think it needs that.
@@jonfreeman9682 i might watch the first 1 again tonight
@@grantpowell4135it's the curse, beware of the CURSE!😢
I always thought they dropped the ball with the sequels fighting mummies AGAIN. Why not go up against a different Universal monster in each one? Rick O’Connell verses Creature from the Black Lagoon would’ve been awesome!
Because is called The Mummy. That's what Van Helsing was supposed to do. But they never made sequels.
They are planning to do black lagoon but are working on a good script. They just did Nosferatu which is a critical hit but the box office isn't as strong. I just think the dark universe characters can only do about $400 box office tops just because the fan interest isn't as strong as Marvel or DC.
even though this third one doesn't have the same energy like it's two successful predecessor, i do like the China History mix with fantasy, very adventurous indeed
It sucked 😂
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
@@boomstickcritique902 I saw the second one first and I really loved it. Because I couldn't care less if it was similar to another movie.
At the time, another Mummy movie just felt unnecessary or unwanted, and losing Rachel Weisz and casting an actor for Alex that looks more like Brendan Fraser's younger brother than his son didn't help either.
The director should have had Brendan Fraser grow a beard or something, he was suffering from success of looking way too young to play a father of an adult.
k
Yeah but even with Rachel it wouldn't have helped the box office much. They waited too long for a sequel and should have added more humor. The charm of the original was the jokes and the chemistry between characters. The villains was also better in the first two.
Stephen Sommers talked about wanting to do a 4th film AFTER seeing the 3rd one flop… like uh you could’ve avoided that had you just done the third film like they originally asked. Smh.
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
He was busy with G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.
No Rachel Weitz. That's what was wrong with it.
Among other things
The problem for me was the fact that they recasted Rachel and COMPLETELY rewrote who her character was. Like that was sooo unnecessary. It made me feel like i was being gaslighted or something. It made the casting even more worse and I'm sorry but the new actress had terrible chemistry with Frasier. Also the "romance" thing going on between his son and that girl felt very very FORCED. Like they dedicated no time to let it grow but they still forced an unnecessary subplot into an already "okay" movie.
7:15 to be fair, I saw this movie in theaters and I immediately went home and looked up the terracotta warriors. I know it’s the weak spot in the franchise but I enjoyed it.
Yep, loved the first two, hated this one. The chemistry was just not there between Rick and Evelyn in this movie. Without Weiss I just wasn't buying it.
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
@@boomstickcritique902 Yep, I can see that. I agree :)
I agree but it isn't just chemistry. The comedy was missing. The first one has great jokes and tongue in cheek humor like when the porter spouted every religious incantation to ward off the mummy was hilarious.
The Aztec Mummy movie this teased, should've been this movie. Just for the reason that Aztec mummies are the 2nd most well known than Chinese mummies
The director of the first two OG MUMMY flims Stephen sommers has shown his interest for making the part 4, with the old cast, which is great 👍👏😊. I just can't wait for that THRILL, COMEDY, HORROR, and the chemistry between Brendon and Rachel ❤️🔥
Yea don't get that excited. People change over 20yrs....& with the mostly absolute garbage that almost all big budgets are now.....I have 10% faith it'll be any kind of good.
@@6HauntedDays you are right man but lets hope for the best outcome 😃☺
It's unlikely they'll do another mummy but they would. This one and the Tom Cruise one both made $400+ million box office so it was profitable but the story wasn't as good though.
@@jonfreeman9682 yeah it is strange despite of that huge collection they haven't made part 4. I think they have expected 500M+ for the third movie and it didn't even made more than part 1 that's why.
But they should have made MUMMY universe like tom Cruise's MISSION IMPOSSIBLE universe.
The director wanted to make the movie more grounded. Really? It’s a movie about a mummy dude.
Oh, it was mostly just the recasting of Rachel Weisz that did it for me.
I like Maria Bello. She's good. She's pretty and talented. She's just not Evie.
The very moment Rachel Weisz turned down the script should have been the very moment they rewrote the damn thing. She wasn't an optional casting choice.
Stephen Sommer was also pretty critical to the first 2 movies' success. He really wasn't replaceable. And certainly not with a freaking Fast and Furious Director.
Ultimately, they should have delayed. Or just put this off until *everyone* was ready to do another one. Let Sommer do his comedy or whatever. Let Rachel spend time with her kid. Then get them back together a few years down the road.
It wouldn't have been ideal, sure. They wanted to keep the train rolling. But they didn't have a choice. Doing what they ended up doing was worse and ruined any real prospect of a franchise.
Just another example of out-of-touch corporatized studios thinking they know best and that the audience will just watch whatever.
I feel that Evie and Rick divorced would've been a better reason than recasting her
No, cause we'd all be like, "Where is she?" If she never appeared at all I'd be pissed. Maybe if she'd died off screen, and it was about Rick having to learn to live without her. Honestly though, the first two were so built around them as a couple that anything other than them together would have felt like a let down
@@tenchifan72 I honestly don't think so recasting her was completely the wrong idea I feel that having them either be divorced or separated would have been a better idea
No that would've work story wise. Then they'd have the explain the whole backstory. Recasting happens all the time like in Hannibal sequel they recast Jodie Foster with Julianne Moore which was the role that won Jodie Foster an Oscar. It wasn't the same but still worked.
@@jonfreeman9682 Foster knew a sequel was coming and was foolish not to stay available for what could have been an even huger sequel success.
The highlight of the film is Jet Li as the villain. He has the great level of powers and menace. The flaw of the film is the recasting of Rachel Weitz and completely changing her character. They just made a bad choice, as the new girl lacked the chemistry with Frasier and didn't really represent the character she was suppose to. I hated the guy they got to play their kid, found him just annoying. Glad they didn't make sequels with him, as I wouldn't have giving those a shot. I kinda liked this film, but it doesn't hold a candle to the first two, or even The Scorpion King.
Definitely the villain makes the movie and the first two had Imotep which was a worthy adversary for Rick. This dragon emperor is totally forgettable.
Not my Evie!
Another The Mummy sequel? Take my money.
I'm not one for head canon but to me this movie was a nightmare Rick had after hanging over the edge of the underworld.
This movie got me really into Chinese mythology and legends at the time so I can't complain too much. I'll enjoy anything Brendan Fraser is in.
Honestly The Mummy animated series is a better third installment than this movie.
I don't remember anyone using the word reboot at all when the first came out.
They really aged up Rick's son thinking that actor could be a new protagonist for the franchise, lmao.
I don't think 'Tomb' is a bad movie but a 4 one with this "passing of the torch" bs would be truly horrible.
Yeah, big oof. Guy's career never really took off either.
Not sure if they should even continue with the Ricky storyline. Without Brendan Fraser in the movie it doesn't have the charm. Even if you bring him and Rachel back it likely won't work. They tried that with Indiana Jones and it didn't work.
I kinda lost interest with Jet Li being plastered all over the advertising before I even saw it and then got annoyed when he was barely in the movie
This was a fine entry, but "Journey to the Center of the Earth" was the more enjoyable Brendan Fraiser action movie of 2008.
All this time i thought it was just a awful attempt at setting up a spin off about the son
So basically, it's Battle Beasts the movie? Earth, Fire, Water!!!!
Love this channel.
We appreciate that!
@@JoBloHorrorOriginals When This Movie Came Out I Was Paying A Whole Lot Of Attention To The Dark Knight At The Time.
I don't have a problem with thus one. I don't think it deserves so much hate
Only the first two mummy movies were good. The rest are forgettable.
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
Wood is earth. It makes as much sense If you need to add a fifth element why not go with lightning? "Because lightning is traditionally part of the wind element" then why do you need to include wood?
The elements in Western and Eastern philosophy are different. Wood is a traditional Chinese element, that's why they chose it.
Still cool, glad he came back
I saw the movie, it's decent but doesn't come close to its predecessors.
The mistake imo was making the movie focused on the son character. The first two Mummy movies worked so well cause Rick O'Connell and the Mummy had almost like a 1 on 1 rivalry. The third movie did away with that and wasted Jet Li's character too cause nobody cared about the son character along with recasting Evie which pretty much everyone didnt like
I actually liked the movie and found it very enjoyable, but Michelle Yeoh is somebody I like to watch anyway.
What let the movie down were the continuity errors. And I think at some point it might have been more interesting to shift the focus from Mummies to other monsters. Still, I think the movie doesn't deserve the hate it gets.
Just who would think of China when we talk about mummies? The idea should have been scrapped from the very beginning!
7:25 is exactly what Black Myth Wukong accomplished 😅
Funny thing, in the animated series, they went to China and Peru.
The Mummy III: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor Rulez✊🏻& It's Fun🤩!
😂
Mummy 3 isn’t that bad after revisiting it. Fraser is still great in them. I wish they could have crossed this series over with Van Helsing and made that the dark universe.
It had no soul 😂
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
Its not a bad movie. In fact it's really good. The problem is following up two great movies.
None of the mummy movies are horror films...
Uhhhh yeah they are
@@goodburger1114 yes, 3 is horrific
Although not as good as the first 2, i really enjoy the third mummy movie
what about WTF happened to SIR CHRISTOPHER LEE?
he died?
@@darkstar55087 yeah, they well gonna uploaded this video like Vincent Price
I think you got wrong on the first films box office wrong it made 417 million
No were near as good as the other 2 but i didnt think it was to bad 😅
Nowhere *
I liked em All & own all 3!
There’s 4 movies if you want to count Scorpion King.
@WesternXC i don't but also enjoy it just not it's sequel
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
@@boomstickcritique902 beauty is in the eye of the beholder 👁🎥
@MattPowers209 A Grenade when off next to my face it's why I'm so pretty.
For the most part, this was an ok film and I enjoyed it. It's sad about the recastings and some of the tone changes, but I would say it's still worth watching. A fourth one would have been nice as long as they stayed true to what the first two had done with the blend of action, horror, and comedy.
I had this playing in the background on Sunday.. Mummy 3 is a disappointment
Where is the early gang at?
With ur mom
@@goodburger1114hahah
@@goodburger1114rip mum :(
@@mattrockets391thts what I like to see friendly banter taken as friendly banter as heeth only jest for sport
If you pay close attention at the Start of the film, Evie is reading a book to a crowd, I believe the scene is meant to convey the Evie we see in the Mummy 1 and 2 is the 'Idealised Version' from the viewers imagination, Like when you imagine a character in a book but then see a illustration from the author. I may be mistaken.
Also Abominable Kitty Cats!
This movie would have been so much worse if it was made now. It would be some AliBaba slop blatantly geared to a specific market
Chinese propaganda.
Crouching tiger, hidden mummy.
Nice job on stretching the Imdb page into an 11 minute video.
👍👍👍🎥
Too much overblown CGI and aging actors. Just do a simple explorer story where they solve puzzles, riddles and use historic knowledge to survive a death trap. 😮
As much as I love Jet Li, Brendan Fraser and Michelle Yeoh, this movie wasn’t very good. I’ll stick with the first one.
I can think of one the actress who replaced evee her English accent was dreadfull couldn't act her way out of a bag 😂
Here me out my fan fic idea for the 4th movie and this is condensed. They realze eve is immortal because they brought her back so to get her soul they have to travel to the land of the dead and they could meet the main bad guy again
Movie is fun, but it's more of the recycled same.
A terrible sequel. It begins well enough with an interesting premise/prologue, but it then quickly falls apart.
I remember renting this movie when it first came out. I turned it off within about 30 minutes. The CGI was horrible. This is probably the movie that turned Frazier into the Whale.
No thst c would've been the blacklisting of him from Harvey Weinstein....THAT is why he disappeared almost overnight.
And obviously he was wearing fat suit for the whale 🙄
And that movie sucked donkey balls too I.
1st😮
It was dogshit and boring, painfully boring
“The Rock was the best part of the first two Mummy movies, why even bother making a third movie without The Rock?” Dwayne “The Rock/The Scorpion King” Johnson.
The Rock was the best part? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@OldPirate1718 didn't you see him... he was everywhere in the sand dunes... rocks as far as you can see :D
brain rot this one.
honestly I thought Maria bello was a fine replacement, I thought she had some good chemistry with Brendan Fraser
More like she barely had any chemistry with him.
I liked this movie more than the two original ones. I don't know why it got so shit on. This movie was better than the majority of what 2024 put out
The only good one is the first the 2nd was a dumber retread of part 1 with the same villain while 3 embraces the already inherent silly blockbuster vibe of the franchise that 2 started embracing and 3 brought full circle. The first is the only good one because it balances the horror and comedy and action well the other 2 are just more mindless action flicks.
That's exactly what I wanted tho lol. I wasn't expecting amadeus🤷🏼♂️@boomstickcritique902
Am not a big fan of this movie, BUT money wise they had to deal with the 08 financial crisis, inflation, came out about a decade after #2. It could’ve been more successful financially speaking.
I enjoyed this movie, I hated the second film
LMFAO! Rotten tomatoes reviews don't mean shit.
“The Rock was the best part of the first two Mummy movies, why even bother making a third movie without The Rock?” Dwayne “The Rock/The Scorpion King” Johnson.