RopeofSilicon was running ads for The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor for about the last month or so, but it wasn't until recently that critic quotes started showing up in the ads following the release of all the reviews. Considering the film was firmly placed on Rotten Tomatoes with a 10% rating at the time (down to 9% now) I was wondering just who the hell was supplying the quotes. I thought this film was awful and assumed it would be a bunch of critics I had never heard of, maybe that Lyons dude that writes for E! or Peter Travers at "Rolling Stone," since they love to shill themselves out. I wasn't ready for what I found though...
Roger Ebert gave The Mummy 3/4 stars!
Here's the thing. Ebert can like a stupid movie. He can like a downright awful movie. Sure, I could say he has earned the right to do so, but above that, can't we all like a movie for most any reason? As long as the reasoning behind an opinion is explained that's all we need right?
I just wrote an article about how much I hated Swing Vote and Step Brothers and gave my reasons why and certainly attempt to shut the door on anyone that could try to argue against me. Guess what, I know people disagree with me and that's fine. If people always agreed with me this would be one of the most boring jobs out there.
It was just plain dumb fun, is why. It is absurd and preposterous, and proud of it.
Guess who didn't like that reason. That's right, Joker_Phantom didn't like it. I have heard this is a guy you don't mess with so when he says, "You're an idiot," on the RT comment board you listen. Or how about Orga777, he/she says, "Ebert... You need to retire now. Before you start hurting your legacy." Hurt his legacy? One day I am sure it will be said by some moron that Ebert's career was like the Godfather trilogy, fantastic at first, even better in the middle, but terrible in the end. Personally, I would rather read Roger Ebert glad-handing every single movie released before hearing one word from either Joker_Phantom, Orga777 or any of the other people on RT's site suggesting Ebert is not qualified to review movies now based on the fact that he liked The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.
Recently I was talking about movies with another critic and they said something to the effect of, "At least I didn't like the first two Mummy films." This was said, seemingly, as a dig on my opinion on movies. It also occurred in the throes of me once again saying how bad an actor Nic Cage is, but that is for another time and place. To this I replied, "Sure, I like the first two Mummy films, but I don't deny they are terrible movies." You see, it is entirely possible to like bad movies, a notion many people don't seem to have a grasp on. I don't have to think the acting, directing or cinematography is ground-breaking and amazing, but I can still enjoy myself, which is what seems to have happened with Ebert during The Mummy 3.
He calls the film "dumb", "absurd" and "preposterous" in his RT quote. That pretty much sums up the film and if you like that then more power to you.
I originally found the review and sent the link out to three of my friends. I'll admit, I was shocked. I thought the film was everything Ebert said it was and hated it for it. What could he be thinking?
Ebert quotes his 1999 review of The Mummy and the final sentence really says all that needs to be said when a professional critic finds a dumb popcorn movie a lot of fun:
There is a little immaturity stuck away in the crannies of even the most judicious of us, and we should treasure it.
I am sure all of you, no matter what your taste in movies may be, can find a title that drums up all the immaturity inside of you. I know the first two Mummy movies do that for me and so do films like Half Baked and National Treasure. There is something to be said for the ludicrous films, they offer up the true escapism many are looking for in films. Yeah, movie critics often adore the foreign independent film, but that is only because they also slosh through the rest of the film sewage of any particular year. Film critics see more bad movies in a year then you could even imagine. They are going to be harsh on the mediocre ones and when they truly love something the review will actually glow.
Ebert's review of The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor may be against the norm, but it
As I was discussing with another critic what they were going to give Tomb of the Dragon Emperor they said they weren't quite sure, "maybe a C," they said. I knew this person hadn't liked the film just about as much as I and I was shooting for a D+. "What? Why" I asked. Turns out he had given Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a C as well and while he believed The Mummy was a better film than Indy he couldn't go higher than a C.
This is what I am talking about when I say credibility folks. I also disliked Indy 4 and gave it a C-. I respect my friend for being honest with himself and his review of Mummy and considering his thoughts on a comparative film and feeling some sense of duty to his audience. Ebert loved Indy 4 and gave it three-and-a-half stars out of four. Indy 4 and The Mummy 3 are on equal terms in just about every sense. They both have a shitty script, outlandish effects, bad acting and ridiculous plotlines. So tell me why the Rotten Tomatoes reading for Indy is 76% while The Mummy sits at 9%.
It's hard to find an honest critic. It's hard to find a critic that you can trust. I set out to earn your trust on a daily basis. I will give you my honest opinion and admit when I am wrong. Hopefully that is why you keep coming back. However, if you come just for the news and not the opinion you can only do worse than Roger Ebert as a one-stop-shop for movie opinions, whether he likes The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor or not.
To answer the question in the headline... HELL YES!