Chances are Ebert's complete quote was more along the lines of "I was expecting this to be the best in the Mummy series, but it turned out to be absurd, preposterous, and plain dumb fun". Yeah, they twist the critics' words around so it's in the movie's favor. That's what the studios do when they can't buy good reviews. Starting to see why we like to razz them? 

If you bring back the category for Worst Film Grossing Over $100M, this would probably win outright.

When the commercials for the DVD were on TV, it told me that Roger Ebert called it "the Best in the Mummy series".  He also called it "plain dumb fun," "absurd," and "preposterous" -- and he still enjoyed it?  How laughable!

And it's your Worst New Movie on DVD this Weak.

Originally posted by Headbanger14 The effects in The Thing looked better -- and that movie's 26 years old!

Did you know that one of the reasons the movie was panned by critics was that it was too realistic ?. It had many of them barfing in their popcorn boxes or wanting to hit the exit. Of course, opening the same time as E.T. doomed it to cult status.

Still, IMO, the greatest horror movie of all time.

On topic, I won't even see this film on DVD. Just another example of Hollywood flogging a dead horse that's less braindead than they are.  

If you think this movie is bad, check this out, a second Scorpion King movie!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1104123/

As one message says, it's "a prequel to a spin-off of a sequel to a remake". That sentance alone is proof Hollywood lost what little soul it had.

Despite all this, this movie will very likely crack the $100 million mark.

On a similar (Brosnan's piercingly bad) note, Momma Mia will break the $100 million mark this weekend.

My oh my oh my. . . .

I've seen all 3 of the Mummy movies: First was good, second was ok, THIS...oh God....

What is with films over-using CGI lately? Indiana Jones 4, 10,000 Blows Chunks. I know people are trying to make advances in technology, but seriously! The effects look so fake! The effects in The Thing looked better -- and that movie's 26 years old!

So, based on what Ebert says, the best way to enjoy this movie is to turn your brain off? No thank you, I'd rather see "Dark Knight" yet again... 

Originally posted by moviewizguy Well, not many critics liked it because they are cynical old people who would never try to have fun with a movie and expect logic and rational scenes in a summer movie like this. They expect something like "Citizen Kane" but get something worse. That's why I whole-heartedly agree with Roger Ebert's review. He liked it for being dumb and perpostrous and anyone expecting more should not bother watching it.

Originally posted by thomsonmg2000 However, I have a sinking feeling that this will be a huge bomb for Universal, especially with its $175 million and so far, only negative reviews.

Right now the only movie with a lower critic rating at RT with a $150 million or more budget is EVAN ALMIGHTY, As it stands Mummy 3 is sitting at 11%

WOW -- So critics are old people and hate fun?

Then how come "Snakes On A Plane" has a 70% Approval Rating on RT? (LINK)  

Originally posted by moviewizguy Well, not many critics liked it because they are cynical old people who would never try to have fun with a movie and expect logic and rational scenes in a summer movie like this. They expect something like "Citizen Kane" but get something worse. That's why I whole-heartedly agree with Roger Ebert's review. He liked it for being dumb and perpostrous and anyone expecting more should not bother watching it.

I'm pretty sure the reason is #3, but she used #1 as an excuse to get the hell out.

Well, not many critics liked it because they are cynical old people who would never try to have fun with a movie and expect logic and rational scenes in a summer movie like this. They expect something like "Citizen Kane" but get something worse. That's why I whole-heartedly agree with Roger Ebert's review. He liked it for being dumb and perpostrous and anyone expecting more should not bother watching it.

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Okay, even for moviewizguy, this is one of the more outrageous claims I've seen on this Forum...

Critics do not go into the business of being critics because they're "cynical old people who would never try to have fun with a movie" -- Most of 'em became critics precisely because they love movies (albeit good movies). Otherwise, why would someone seek out a job that basically consists of nothing but going to (and writing about)...MOVIES!

And where do you get off claiming any critic would've gone to MUMMY 3 expecting CITIZEN KANE?? Most critics know better than to expect anything of such superb caliber, except on rare occasions.

Once again, I feel I must ask you moviewizguy (perhaps for the 317th time): You seem to want to be a movie critic, yet you are almost never critical of any movie. And with this posting, you have basically trashed the entuire profession. 

So what is it you DO want to do with your intense interest in (and none-too-discerning love of) the movies??? 

How about this crazy theory? . . .

The reason why this movie exists is because Universal had decided to start a grand tradition of positioning an obvious humongous waste of money during this time every other summer.  Remember Miami Vice? 

Originally posted by Michaels Wow, 0% rating at RT?! This might be a Razzie sleeper hit from out of nowhere. Can "Disaster Movie" top this stupidity?

Well, it has gone up to 12% as of now.

Anyway...my father is a big fan of the (first two) Mummy movies.  He enjoys the goofy humor and the characters involved.  I liked the movies myself...remember the kissing scenes ("Oh, please!").

However, I am going to need to warn my father that this is probably direct-to-DVD material that is appearing on the big screen.  And I seemed to find three possible reasons Rachael Weiz wasn't in this:

1.  She has a child now, and the role was too much of a hassle.
2.  She complained about the script, saying the role wasn't right.
3.  She smelled a turd from the beginning.

Wikipedia currently suggests #1, but I have been wondering about #3...