Thursday, January 1, 2009

Remarks Concerning The Mummy III

Last night, I watched The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor for the first time. It was definitely an enjoyable movie to see, but there seems to be a drastic decline in the quality of the Mummy movies. The original The Mummy had an excellent storyline, an element of horror, and was set in Egypt. It had a dark and mysterious feel to it. The Mummy Returns was a good movie as well, although taking more of an action-adventure flavor. This flavor has repeated but has unfortunately become distasteful in the third installment of the series.
The movie begins with probably the most commonplace introduction possible. Telling of a warrior conquering the known world and then becoming cursed is an introductory sequence already used in the series, and using it again simply makes the film seem repetitive. The focus then switches to the retired hero of the previous films, portraying him as finished with his adventures. Unfortunately, necessary character development is lacking. A different actress portrays the heroine of the previous films, disconnecting the series by disallowing the audience to easily picture the recurring characters in their minds. And before this major change in casting can be adjusted to, the focus switches again to the O'Connells' son, who was only a boy in The Mummy Returns. This transition is made with absolutely no character development, showing him immediately opening the Emperor's tomb and fighting a female ninja. He immediately recognizes this enemy the next time he sees her, but they suddenly join forces against the general trying to summon the Emperor. For a story portraying retired heroes and starring a different cast than the prequel, the plot seems rushed to the action, with nothing spectacular. The characters are simply created and then thrust into the plot.
The plot of The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is also quite below average. The summoning of yetis to defeat the Chinese commandos is obviously an enormous deus ex machina. The Emperor's general is thrown down two flights of stairs by a yeti and is later crushed by an avalanche, yet miraculously survives without breaking a single bone. The final battle lacks the climatic tension one would expect it to have. The terracotta army intends to become invincible by reaching the Great Wall, but they never even come near it. The army of undead holds them off easily, and most of the Emperor's remaining forces are easily broken into pieces by bullets. Jet Li's character is the only villain in the entire movie who ever seems to pose a real danger. The general's miraculous powers of survival return at the end, when he survives a direct hit to his motorcycle from a bomb, and must be crushed and juiced between two turning wheels to be killed off. Essentially, the plot exists as an excuse to show overdone action sequences.
The third Mummy does not measure up at all to its prequels, and is basically a series of fights that the heroes never come close to losing. There is no horror at all as there was in the first movie, and the final battle does not have the desperate feel of the battles in The Mummy Returns. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is unfortunately somewhat of a B-movie action flick, despite its great potential.

7 comments:

  1. I don't think "Deus ex Machina" was the right term for the yetis. One: because they aren't quite god like or angelic like and, two: I don't think the writers were thinking, "Oh this is will be a great Deus ex machina.

    Also, this wasn't meant to be a great miraculous movie like its grandfather. It was aimed towards children, and the producers new that they would make money off of it. They aren't concerned about dignity when they are richer than the people who disaprove of it.

    -Gunn

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gunn, I didn't mean "Deus ex Machina" to be taken literally. I only meant to point out that the yetis' arrival is a similar concept. I also doubt modern writers would intentionally create a Deus ex Machina, since a story usually seems better if the action is resolved in a believable manner by the hero, and not by an unforeseen intervention.

    You're right; once a series of movies becomes popular, they will have enough fans that no matter how terrible the sequel is, it will always make money. There comes a point, usually around the third or fourth film in a series, where the writers simply do not care about quality anymore, because they do not need to.

    ReplyDelete
  3. well, you did say it was an 'enormous' deus ex machina. normally i would take that comment literally.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Deus ex Machina" can refer to a god appearing at the end of a Greek play to resolve it, but in modern context it could also mean any similarly miraculous resolution to a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh yeah, I forgot that Creed Thie was the one who gave us our 21st century definitions of ancient terms. Nevermind. . .

    ReplyDelete
  6. You have a point. The translation of "Deus ex Machina" is "god from the machine," and so in the classical context it should be a supernatural event. The 21st century definition, however, is not of my invention. The looser modern definition of the phrase can be found in most online encyclopedias, including Wikipedia. I would therefore think both meanings are acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I cant believe you actually paid to see that.

    ReplyDelete