Slashdot Mirror
Review: The Mummy Returns
It takes perhaps the greatest of the ancient civilizations, puts it through the odd prism of highly-sophisticated computer rendering imagery, and leaves us with hordes of dog-headed warriors and humming munchkins racing across vast deserts to collide with an equal number of digitally rendered warriors of God.
This approach to animation seems to hold that the more figures you can replicate and move, the cooler the movie. So this film turns out to be an ancient myth Disneyfied to the max, The Mummy meets an infanticized Indiana Jones, all set in Pirates Of The Caribbean, with a few odd touches from The Wizard of Oz thrown in for good measure. There's one scene taken brazenly from Jurassic Park.
The black-and-white Old Hollywood versions of this story are 10 times creepier.
If you are, say, nine years old, this is a fun way to spend 125 minutes -- although Hollywood execs would do well to ponder the reality that Baldur's Gate II and Everquest are far more imaginative and skillfully done.
Adventurer Rick O'Connel (Brendan Fraser) survived the The Mummy and returns to the desert with his horny, fearless anthropologist wife Evelyn/Nefertiti (Rachel Weisz). A new twist on the Indiana Jones-style lone adventurer loner is that they also have a precocious kid, who gets snatched, abused and tortured repeatedly while his parents are groping one another. In the U.S., these people would get turned in, arrested, and end up on Dateline sobbing to some reporter.
Rick O'Connel has a wise-ass response to everything, even the vast forces of the underworld rising up to destroy the planet, but he is not fit to hold Indiana Jones' whip. As in the first movie, Arnold Vosloo has the bad luck to play Imhotep, the evil ancient bald warlord who simply will not die graciously, and whose presence is invariably signaled by the prescence of some whining and carnivorous beetles.
But character, motivation and plot are all kind of besides the point. the star of this movie is the occasionally-arresting animation which roars onto the screen in the opening scene with a lot of energy, then peters out, to return sporadically throughout. The action, though, never stops. If the ghosts of ancient Egypt hover over this old tale, so does the spirit of Jackie Chan. The slam-bang-crash feel of the movie even offers a high-speed chase involving a London doubledecker bus and some vengeful mummies loosed from the British Museum.
Here's a case where computer animation becomes the be-all and end-all for lazy filmmakers. In the Star Wars films, George Lucas makes lavish use of computer- generated characters and scenes, but they never overwhelm the intriguing characters at the center of the saga. He uses animation to imagine worlds, not replace story-telling and acting. Good use of animation, it turns out, requires discipline, and the people who made this movie didn't have any.
In The Mummy Returns, Sommers brings snakes, roaches, scorpions, cannibalistic beetles, tidal waves, screaming munchkins, holy warriors, evil clouds and hordes of soldiers from Hell roaring out of the ground, then scurrying back in. Our heroes are pursued by a stunning assortment of evildoers, many carrying machine-guns, some supernatural, many wearing badly-designed fezzes and robes, all repeatedly uttering annoying gutteral grunts and chants like "No-nak-a-MON!", none of which are translated or make any particular sense.
There really is no plot one could safely describe, other than adventurer/explorers-dig-up-ancient-stuff-better-left-alone-and-mess-with-it, unleashing apocalyptic forces they can neither understand nor control. Generally, the armies of the Underworld are unleashed to destroy the earth (yet again), although it isn't clear why they ever went away. Our guys are scrambling to stop them, mostly by retaining control of an ancient bracelet that's gotten locked onto the wrist of the kid. You'd think the gods of the Underworld could off one dunder-headed family without too much trouble, but the superhuman creatures from hell, while they have astounding powers, are just incompetent, and can reliably be blown to bits by a shogtun blast or a bullet from a .38. At the end, Armageddon of a sort does come, in the form of collapsing pillars and giant holes that open up on the ground (more Indiana Jones).
Out of nowhere in the middle of this movie, two Egyptian warrior-babes, a re-incarnated Nefertiti and Anck-Su Namum (Patricia Velasquez) launch into a series of utterly-out-of-place kick boxing, knife-wielding duels. In both The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, death is illusory, to say the least; characters die and return to life so often it's impossible to keep track. In this film, resurrection is just a chant away. But not to worry: there's no reason to keep track of anything.
There are only two good reasons to see this movie:
One is the truly astonishing appearance of The Rock as the Scorpion King, reportedly paid more than $5 million for this two or three-minute gig.
The other is that the many trailers crammed in promise more interesting things to come later in the summer -- Jurassic Park III, Pearl Harbor, Shreck, Final Fantasy and Spielberg's AI .
As much of a stinker as The Mummy Returns, the trailers offer hope.
Considering what else we're being offered at the moment; flotsam and drek and "Freddy Got Fingered" and "Joe Dirt" -- this is friggin' "Citizen Kane".
The Rock's paycheck for this roody-poo movie doesn't matter to The Rock. The Rock can lay the smack down on Brendan Fraser's candy-ass any time he wants, as long as it doesn't involve ruining The Rock's $500 shirt and $700 loincloth, because The Rock is the most electrifying man in Egypt-based sports entertainment.
Brendan Fraser. You run your mouth about The Rock? You say you can go one on one with the Great One? Well, The Rock will show you where you can go. The Rock will bring you to the corner of Know Your Role Boulevard and Jabroni Drive. The Rock will carry your ass down to the Smackdown Hotel, and The Rock guaran-damn-tees you'll go crawling back to your Hollywood hole right after The Rock takes that Oscar you'll never win, shiiiiiiines it up real nice, turns that sum-bitch sideways, AND STICKS IT STRAIGHT UP YOUR CANDY-ASS!
IF YA SMELLLLLLLLLLLALALALALALLALAA....WHAT THE ROCK...ISSSS COOKIN'!
That said, the movie was pretty bad, and definitely not worth the $11.50 CDN ticket price. (As an aside, I have a question: was this movie played too loud? I noticed many parts were really loud, and I understand the reasoning behind it, but I'm half-deaf from listening to loud music :) and I thought it was way too loud) Yeah, it was bad. The action was bad (except for the girl knife fights), the effects were rather average, with the face effects the only memorable bits. The acting was attrocious (except for Anck-Su-Namun, she's realy cool ;) the dialogue literally made me cringe it was so painful to listen to, the plot (what plot there was) was pathetic, none of the characters were believable. Need I go on? Take any film genre and sub genre, and this movie failed to do well in any of them. It was not funny, it was not scary, it was not suspenseful, it was not romantic, it wasn't dramatic, it wasn't even cheesy, it was just borderline entertaining.
The first Mummy movie has a reputation for good sound, and this one will likely follow as well, so get the DVD if you have a good sound system. There are better and more entertaining movies playing this week, go see them with your friends instead, at least you'll have something to talk about afterwards.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
ummmm...the mummy returns was released two days ago...so no, it isn't late...and it didn't flop... from what I saw (and admittedly, the numbers won't be out until monday) it was huge...I'm talking the 10:30 showing was sold out before the 9:30 showing started. I'm talking the people at the movie theater told me people had nearly sold out the 7:30 showing the day before. I don't know about you, but a movie has to be pretty big to get that kind of reaction - I don't remember the last time I went to a movie it's opening weekend and had to go to a showing later than I arrived for (and I go to most movies opening weekend and about 45 minutes early...)
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
----------------------------------------------
You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
http://propheteer.org
I think a point you may have missed was that even the white people in the original mummy were whiny, greedy, simpering yes men. hell, the heroine's brother was one. The two parts of the movie that stick in my mind (about the first one) are when the mummy unhinges his jaw and screams this echoing scream at brendan fraser, and brendan fraser looks at him for a minute and then screams back...and the other is when they uncase him for the first time and the chick says "oh...this is unusual...he's still..." and the two guys say "juicy." just...generally amusing...- --------
-------------------------------------
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
http://propheteer.org
The Mummy Returns is just another in the long transformation of the Adventure Movie into the Comedy Movie. The majority of it is actually supposed to be funny (and is). The plot? Not too bad if a little contrived. The final explosion of the pyramid is well explained before they even leave England, the two kickboxing women are QUITE well explained (Brendan's wife and Imhotep's girlfriend are these two women reincarnated). They at least went and read a history book so they got the right King with Nefertiti, and other than that it wasn't intended to be a "masterpiece" or "work of art", it was intended to be a visually stunning (check), amusing (check), fun (check), action packed (check) summer flick (check). If you liked "The Mummy", go see this one. If not, don't bother. If you haven't seen either, rent the first one first. (hitch shrugs) no big deal. and BTW, AI was NOT one of the trailers in my area, but a lot of other really interesting ones were...- -----
----------------------------------------
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
You see, without that little doohicky, the universe stops.
http://propheteer.org
I just couldn't help thinking throughout the film: "Hmmm, this scene will be in the video game...that scene will be in the video game" It sucks that movies can't be made just for movie sake. They have to be made as a "package" to slime out as much consumer money as possible. We'll see.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Now the coments make sence.
I used to watch that show on SiFi. All the movies they did stank but the coments just made the whole experience fun.
I wish they would do "Big Sister 2000".
This is the worst low budget movie ever in my book. Watching it gives the distinkt impresion that someone rented equiptment and emploied cast and crew to do 4 porn flics in a week. He got them all done by Friday morning and then set out to creat this monstrosity betwean Friday afternoon and Saturday night with the same cast, crew and equiptment from the porno flics.
The tipoff to this scenario was females playing male characters ( Militery gear with partial masks and paded jakets make it almost beliveble. )
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
what dose "MST3k" mean.
That's a new one for me.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
I work for a movie exhibition company, and this weekend was huge for us....you know why? Because this was a fun movie...not a serious horror movie...
The fact that Katz didn't like it, and can't appreciate just going and losing yourself in a fun , campy movie is another reason I just ignore his writing completely. rm
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Of course not -- The Mummy and The Mummy Returns are not even in the same genre. I'm going to smack the next idiot who says The Mummy failed as a horror film, or as a romance film, or any other genre is clearly wasn't and wasn't meant to be...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
...aside from the fact that it is a *Fantasy*Action*Film*... Is that after seeing this movie last night, I am certain it will be nearly un-reproducable on DVD without being totally unwatchable. Nearly all of the film is high-speed, high-detail action sequences... So I can see it now, two hours of blure, smear, blure. You doubt me? Take a look at how Gladiator transfered to DVD. All of the detailed camera focus work in the high-speed action sequences is lost in smeary blure. Sadly, while this is where I would normally make a plug for Laserdisc, I somehow suspect that even with an uncompressed transfer, the movie still wouln't hold well on a small screen. In any event, I loved the film. It was fun, and a total *Fantasy*Adventure*... (ie, check brain at door, kick back and enjoy).
I thought it was a decent movie, i'd give it a 7/10... and no one i know that has gone to see it has given it less than a 6/10... its a hell of alot better than the first.
Shadus
Because Jon Katz doesn't like it, I'll probably go see it.
[ home ]
Okay, before I go any further. TMR is an "action film", with all that that implies. It was never meant to be some deeply philosophical/intellectual work of film. If you didn't know that from the first one, you should have.
That being said, aside from your distaste for the movie (hey, you didn't like it, this sort of movie isn't for everyone), the movie wasn't THAT bad. And it appears you've exaggerated some issues completely out of context.
What you see as stupid and derivative, I see as a fairly tongue-in-cheek homage to the old mummy movies, as well as a great number of more modern films (did you miss the Slim Pickens impression).
Also, I find your "Dateline" crack to be both petulant and self-serving. It's an action movie. There's no "high drama" here. Only melodrama. You should know this by now Jon. You're more than old enough.
As to Fraser's wise-ass character. How many of these movies have you seen where people are dragging their jaws around on the floor as some gristly old codger pronounces the end of the world is at hand unless someone does something? In these more jaded times, "The world's ending, the world's always ending." is a much more believable response in Hollywood features.
As for your preferences with computer animation, I'm not going to argue them. They're YOUR preferences. All I'll say is that synthespiansim and CG sets are becoming more common all the time. Why? Simply because some things are more easily/economically done. Not every film can be one a Joan Collins "Cleopatra" with a cast of zillions. Additionally, there will always be locales in films that simply cannot be reproduced in analog. Like it or hate it. It's fact.
As to your inability to make out every line of dialog in the movie. They repealed the Universal Translator on every movie. It's no longer a law that every creature under heaven speaks English. It's at least an attempt to lend a small measure of verisimultude to a fantastic situation.
You'd think the gods of the Underworld could off one dunder-headed family without too much trouble
Then there'd be no movie Jon. Sheesh.
Additionally, your crack about people dying and coming back endlessly is no more correct that a great portion of your hatchet job^H^H^H^H^review.
There is exactly ONE character death followed by ONE resurrection in the movie.
Yellow journalism is beneath even you Jon.
One is the truly astonishing appearance of The Rock as the Scorpion King, reportedly paid more than $5 million for this two or three-minute gig.
The Rock (Dwight whatever his last name is), had approximately 15 minutes of screen time. Also, they're spinning the "Scorpion King" character off into a star vehicle for him.
Do a little RESEARCH. It'll add, immeasurably, to your arguments.
And in closing, I'll summarize.
No, the movie isn't for everyone. If you don't like it, oh well. You're apparently not in the target audience, or you just missed all the easter eggs in the movie.
But don't descend to lies and misrepresentation just because YOU don't like it.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I really believe that the cast and crew of "The Mummy" knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They were not trying to create a horror flick. They were after parody from the first.
I could go on and on. The first movie was a camp film from beginning to end. The second was the same, just kicked up a notch.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
articles down. Katz is an idiot. I would not take directions to the bathroom from the Dork much less consider his input in a movie review. I am 90% more likely to go to the movie now that Joke Katz has downed it.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
the last Star Wars wasn't Star wars either. It had many similarities to the New Mummy movie...
Poor script, unbelievable characters, a very contrived story. At least the new mummy movie has some funny points AND NO JAR JAR EITHER.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
? Jar-jar bink et al as a bunch of do nothing rastafarians
? The evil traders as scheming asains
? Europeans as noble fonts or civilization
? blacks as only security guards
? fat = corrupt/evil (bigger belly->bigger evil)
? democracy allowing coruption to run rampant
? monarchy being the most benevolent form of government
plus many many more....
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years.
So you disagree with the statement: The top priority of any post on slashdot.org should be to foster discussion. When you rate articles by who posts them and how many reply posts there are it is really hard to beat Katz score.
Personaly I have the right to be offended. No, the duty. If any day goes by and I'm not offended at least once then something is greatly wrong with my society.
USA-Democracy is 270 million YESes and NOes a day, not one every four years.
This was all narrated at the beginning of the movie.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
At no point did anything suddenly disappear without explanation.
Scorpion King leads his army in battle.
Scorpion King and his army is defeated.
Scorpion King's army wanders the desert and slowly dies.
Scorpion King makes pact with Anubis to spare his life in exchange for his soul, and to prevail over his enemies.
Anubis provides the Scorpion King with a powerful army.
Scorpion King goes on to annihilate his enemies.
Mission completed, Anubis reclaims the Scorpion King's army and soul, per the arrangement.
What's not to understand? It was all explained quite clearly.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I went to go see this movie last night, and I absolutely enjoyed it. While it certainly wasn't as good as the first, it does a damn good job of living up to, and surpassing sequel expectations. I will agree it was a bit heavy on the effects, but it was still a really good movie.
The black-and-white Old Hollywood versions of this story are 10 times creepier.
That's nice. The first "Mummy" and "Mummy Returns" weren't meant to be horror movies in the sense that "Frankenstein" is a horror movie, or the black and white "Mummy" is a horror movie. It's meant to be an action adventure movie with a bit of light-hearted comedy thrown in here and there.
If you are, say, nine years old, this is a fun way to spend 125 minutes -- although Hollywood execs would do well to ponder the reality that Baldur's Gate II and Everquest are far more imaginative and skillfully done.
Guess what? I'm 22, and I had a fun time. Plus, comparing a movie to computer games in the sense of which is more entertaining isn't right. They're two completely different mediums with opposing levels of interactivity. Each serves its purpose on the entertainment scale in a different way.
Adventurer Rick O'Connel (Brendan Fraser) survived the The Mummy and returns to the desert with his horny, fearless anthropologist wife Evelyn/Nefertiti (Rachel Weisz). A new twist on the Indiana Jones-style lone adventurer loner is that they also have a precocious kid, who gets snatched, abused and tortured repeatedly while his parents are groping one another. In the U.S., these people would get turned in, arrested, and end up on Dateline sobbing to some reporter.
Excessive tenderness, yes. Horny? Come on. Did you even watch the movie? You're over-analyzing the minor parts of the movie, and trying to criticize it for what it's not. (Other than kidnapping, I don't recall a single scene where Alex was tortured or abused. Stop making stuff up.)
Rick O'Connel has a wise-ass response to everything, even the vast forces of the underworld rising up to destroy the planet, but he is not fit to hold Indiana Jones' whip.
It's called HUMOR. That IS something people like to put in movies these days.
Here's a case where computer animation becomes the be-all and end-all for lazy filmmakers. In the Star Wars films, George Lucas makes lavish use of computer- generated characters and scenes, but they never overwhelm the intriguing characters at the center of the saga. He uses animation to imagine worlds, not replace story-telling and acting. Good use of animation, it turns out, requires discipline, and the people who made this movie didn't have any.
As I said earlier, yes, this film was heavy on the effects. However, other posters have already pointed out the flaw in this argument with 'Phantom Menace'.
There really is no plot one could safely describe, other than adventurer/explorers-dig-up-ancient-stuff-better-
Um, that IS a plot. Adding to the fact that the adventurer/explorers now have to find a way to undo what they have done, and save a few people in the process? Hello?
Generally, the armies of the Underworld are unleashed to destroy the earth (yet again), although it isn't clear why they ever went away.
Because they were defeated the first time around, genius! This is even *explained* in the narration at the beginning of the movie!
Out of nowhere in the middle of this movie, two Egyptian warrior-babes, a re-incarnated Nefertiti and Anck-Su Namum (Patricia Velasquez) launch into a series of utterly-out-of-place kick boxing, knife-wielding duels.
Again, you say "out of nowhere", but these scenes are explained REPEATEDLY throughout the story. Both women have been reincarnated from the past. One of the fights is a flashback, the other is in the current setting. Wake up, Jon.
death is illusory, to say the least; characters die and return to life so often it's impossible to keep track.
Are you trying to keep track of every soldier from both armies? There aren't that many main characters, dude.
Your review sounds like you missed the first half hour of the movie. It also takes on the tone that you went into the movie expecting to not be impressed, and had such a closed mind that even seeing the movie wouldn't change your mind.
Both "Mummy" and "Mummy Returns" didn't take themselves seriously. Why are you?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Exactly. I haven't seen the sequel yet -- still trying to find a babysitter -- I loved the first movie. It's a spoof of the genre, not a serious attempt to represent anything remotely resembling ancient Egyptian culture. And as spoofs go, it's pretty damn funny.
I have a pretty high level of sensitivity where Egypt is concerned; I've been an amateur Egyptologist most of my life, learned to read the language (if not especially well, yet), etc., and I hate seeing Egypt misrepresented as much as anyone. But The Mummy isn't about Egypt, it's about bad Hollywood archaeology/horror movies in much the same way that Scream was a spoof of bad teen slasher pics. Except that The Mummy was much more fun than Scream.
Katz really needs to have that alien probe removed.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
What did strike me about the first film is how utterly unscary the computer generated special effects were. I recently saw The Thing and Predator again, and the old puppet monsters of the 80s were just so much better.
Of course, best of all is when they manage to combine good effects with good plots like Alien or Hellraiser.
Oh well, I'll go put on my asbestos suit now.
Cheers,
Lars
************************************************ ** *
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Agreed. I was afraid I was the only one who thought that. There are about 100 posts bashing Jon so far for not "having a sense of humour". I think Jon knew that it is a homage to the Indiana Jones films and 50s horror movies. Maybe it is toungue-in-cheek, it's just that it doesn't do it intelligently. Even porn movies have irony these days, that does not make them better.
************************************************ ** *
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
"Quite simply, the collective intelligence level is dropping so rapidly that it's becoming increasingly difficult for producers to insult the intelligence of the American public," said News Corp president and COO Peter Chernin. "Without a way to set a floor for the lowest common denominator, even the stupidest material we can develop is not stupid enough for audiences to enjoy"
************************************************ ** *
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
--
should that be Bruce Campbell instead of Brendan Fraser in that role?
That statement is indeed accurate, but possibly misleading. It's not that there's anything wrong with Brendan Fraser, it's just that Bruce Campbell should be in every roll everywhere.
Another damned comic
+++ NO CARRIER
Is Katz actually a movie reviewer who got to see it for free or did he pay for it expecting much more and wound up feeling ripped off?.
10 minutes into the movie, upon realizing he'd been suckered in, he sat there stewing away muttering "oh you wascally wabbit, wait untiw I potht to thlathhdawt!"
If he ever did like a movie he'd just end up bitching about how expensive the popcorn was.
grubbyTrolling is a art,
Can anyone identify the 'egyptian' language used in the film? It sounded a little too real for it to just be empty babble, but I didn't see any appropriate-sounding consulting credits for it to be invented, or an attempt at the real thing. The consonants sounded a bit like that anglicized short-hand egyptologists use for pronouncing hieroglyphic transliteration, but I thought we were all afraid of glottal stops. :)
Likewise, I'd like to hear about the accuracy of the writing in the film. Does the temple wall really say "This way to the Scorpion King"?
Absolutely. The Mummy wasn't a "good" movie in the usual sense (Pi, American Beauty, The Seven Samurai, Amadeus, etc). However, it was campy. Because of that, my friends and I absolutely love it. How can you not like lines like:
"I hear you've got some new friends, Benny."
"You're my only friend, O'Connell."
The Mummy is up there with Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The Shadow on the list of so-bad-it's-good movies. Hopefully, The Mummy Returns will join that list.
I guess that it's possible that when somebody told Jon Katz that the movie was "campy" he though that they said "creepy" and then was disappointed.
On the other hand, I suspect that this is a little more like the usual dreck that Katz dishes out: poorly researched, full of errors and simply trading on the "reputation" that a few folks at /. seem to think that he earned with his "Hellmouth" series.
My opinion? Katz can't write articles that are in line with the (admittedly high) expectations of this audience. It's like Scientific American asking Art Bell to write an article on extraterrestrial exploration. While Katz's writing can be funny from the point of view of the poor schmuck that thinks that he's saying something grand and erudite, yet is only showing his own ignorance and self importance, it's really painful to read. I don't care for stories about those same schmucks who get used by those around them for some kind of cynical, cruel entertainment, but I guess that's what the /. management must be doing.
Maybe someday the /. gang will realize the cruelty of their actions towards Katz and replace him with somebody who has at least a little bit of journalistic ability.
(Psst...just in case JK is reading this, the last bit was sarcasm...look it up.)
-h-
I just want to see CGAnubus ;)
New twist? C'mon! There was a horrible little "precocious kid" in the second (I think) IJ movie, and there was one in Jurassic park II and in that POS Star Wars: Episode I the precocious kid was the movie...
In fact it's hard to think of a movie that doesn't have a precocious little ten-year-old whippersnapper with a 44-year-old mouth on him. Hollywood seems to be incapable of producing a movie without one, and they are all in need of a serious spanking as well. Not that they are going to get one of course...
Sheesh!
Katz,
Perhaps you do not understand the concept of the summer blockbuster movie. Summer movies (like the previous two Jurassic Parks, all of the Batman movies, and The Matrix), according to critics and the Academy of Motion Pictures, suck. The Oscars and critics typically think that most movies that are released during the summer (with a few noted exceptions) are not worth their time, even though these films typically make two to three times more at the theaters than the films that critics do approve of.
But why are Summer Blockbusters (that suck according to the people who get to see them before the rest of the public) making so much money? Because people like going to movies to have FUN! Be as critical as you want of a movie, but know this: When critics rip a movie, it means it's probably going to be a fun film to see.
I'm not going to see a film so that I can reflect on my inner being and experience a life changing event. I go to see movies to be entertained. This is why I don't listen to film critics, and I believe the Oscars are a joke.
If you want a real measure of what films are actually good entertainment, go to Ain't it Cool News
I did see the Mummy Returns last night. Yes, the plot was hokey, and The Rock had a cameo appearance at best. The CGI effects of the final character were mediocre, but I had fun. There hasn't been a decent movie to come out in months. This is the first 'Summer Blockbuster' of the season and I enjoyed it. I wouldn't give it two thumbs up, but I would give it a large butter soaked, sloppy tub of popcorn.
I went to the movies with a friend opening night and caught this movie. There have been a few posts here mentioning they thought the graphics were great for this movie. I have to disagree, I didn't think the computer graphics were good at all. The scorpion king at the end looked like a character straight out of 'A Bugs Life'.
To be fair though, there haven't been many movies where I have liked the computer graphics. Does anyone know which company made them?
I suspect that most graphic artists could open up a version of blender or 3d studio max, and within a few hours have a more realistic looking version of the scorpion king.
If scream made fun of horror movies, then i guess scary movie made fun of making fun of horror movies? :)
Well, I've seen the first movie and thought that it was pretty entertaining. What you have to remember is that we all have different likes and disklikes when it comes to stuff like this.
While I enjoyed the first movie and thought that the Benny character was my favorite. (Just weasly and funny) I do not think that its a work of art.
I will see the second movie and make the judgement call for myself. There are several movies that people said sucked that I have enjoyed and there are movies that were supposed to be great but in my opinion sucked.
Ok ok I think everyone pretty much agrees that Battlefield Earth REALLY REALLY did suck.
My 2cents
Well, your daughter can be excused since she's just _studying_ to be an egyptologist, but no decent person digging up Yucatan could have enjoyed this movie.
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
Yes, that's exactly what it is. It's meta-crappy.
Did you not see the first Mummy? Were you thinking this was a serious documentary on Egyptian culture?
The movie isn't *that* bad. I don't think anyone who saw one of the trailers was expecting a real brain-buster of a movie. It's big, loud, mindless fun and shouldn't be taken for anything more than that. And the characters were self-effacing enough to make the 'bigness' of it all funny. I was actually surprised they did try and throw some little story twists in there. (And please don't bring up George Lucas, he's still on my hit list for that last horrible horrible mistake.) At least the kid is this one can read his lines and isn't just there for the cuteness value.
The CG is done well (albeit overdone in some parts). The ending is weak, but *eh* who really cares. I think most Slashdotters would find the movie to their liking, so long as they're not expecting Jane Austin going into it.
Oh and about those previews. Yes, they did have some nice ones of Fast and Furious and Final Fantasy. But how can you be looking forward to Pearl Harbor or Jurassic Park III? The former is obvious follow-the-bomb-mush, and the latter is such a tired plot, even star William H. Macy is now dogging it.
On the Mummy: get some friends, go to a late showing, laugh at the Rock, and have some fun.
Random Pygmy mummies are fun.
Corny romance is fun.
Smart-ass remarks in the face of danger are fun.
Airships (literally airbags with ships) arefun.
The objective of the mummy was to make a good hybryd action/commedy, just as the first one. Once again, the critics pan the movies, because it doesn't appeal to their intellectual need for movies, and the rest of us have fun. I highly recommend this movie.
Really? How did they generate that wireframe drawing of the Death Star, then?
I'm not exactly sure what you think a "flop" is. But I would be surprised if, when the numbers come out on Monday, this movie is not number 1 for the weekend.
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
Okay, maybe he was a little bit. But he really annoyed the bad guy, who finally was like "Can I please kill him now?"
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
You mean the spoiled prince is rotten? Did he ferment, or only break down?
This is a fun movie. In fact, I would say this is the most fun I've had at a movie in ages. I went with the guys that I game with we went in expecting great camp action. And we were happily provided. I mean, even the characters were aware that it was the same thing all over again. And it was made to MST3K your way through, no question... Lemme see some of the stuff I said:
"Dude, she got a new character class" re: Rachel Weiss' character now kicking ass.
"Poor extras, they should have known what was going down since they had red uniforms." re: The bad guys 'Stormtroopers'
"He bought mega dex!" Re: Bredan Fraiser's character catching knives out of midair.
Just lots of dumb, silly and incredibly enjoyable stuff. Ahhh. I've got a fully happy stomach.
http://www.somethingpositive.net Funny + bitter = comedy gold
George Lucas makes lavish use of computer- generated characters and scenes, but they never overwhelm the intriguing characters at the center of the saga. He uses animation to imagine worlds, not replace story-telling and acting.
Meesa thinka you missed his last movie.
Actually the bit with the mirrors is one of the correct bits of the movie. The Egyptians actually used them, their use and history are genuine.
-=C
Mr. Katz really embarrases me in this review - he completely gives away his ignorance and isolation in his take on the movie.
The Mummy and The Mummy Returns are movies that celebrate and honour the Camp of serial action movies, and in retrospect the Pulp novels of the 20's -40's that inspired those movies.
The plot was thin and predictable? Yes, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. Acting/lines hackneyed and sterotypical? Yes, THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE! Has Mr. Katz *ever* read any Pulp? Has he *ever* seen any original flash gordon?
To complain as he does, I would imagine that Mr. Katz would complain that Impressionist paintings are too out of focus to be good, and that the music of Charels Ives and Arnold Schoenberg are horribly unharmonic.
Movies in this genre, such as the Indy Series, Big Trouble in Little China, The Rocketeer, have varying amounts of camp vs. seriousness, homage vs. originality, etc. But to my mind, none has captured the glorious, make-no-excuses pulp action that The Mummy series has shown so far. If you do not like it, it is your taste, not the fault of a truly successful (as far as intent) movie.
Jeez, Mr. Katz, what next? Will you denouce Lichtenstein for just blowing up frames of comic strips? Eschew Monty Python as juvinile because you do not understand satire? The First step of a review (and the duty of a reviewer) is to understand the genre and intent of the artist. To be misinformed or ignorant makes your review and article completely devoid of information and worth.
-=C
Did anyone notice the way this movie played out like a Final Fantasy game?
Remember how every Final Fantasy game has a point where you get into an airship? Yep, that's there. You know how you always go to one place in the world to find out where in the world you go next? Yep, there's a lot of that. You know how there are always flashbacks? Look at FF8 and the whole Squall/Laguna thing. Check. Characters finding hidden powers/destinies? A lot of that, too.
The cheesiness of it all? Yep.
I really did like it though. I had to suspend my disbelief quite a bit. (double decker bus hits low bridge, top comes clean off, bus maintains high speed, top of bus apparently made from balsa wood)
I also noticed how Gladiator-like the opening scene was, the way the cameras were used.
Not to start a flamewar, but Katz's periodic sensationalist articles (with big words!) are not only ridiculous, but they're the last thing slashdot needs the editors are already under fire for bias in their articles (and article selection). . .
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
And yes, originality would be nice, but old school originality was adapting stories from books (eg Disney movies from Grim's Fairy Tales, Jurassic Park, The Lord of the Rings, et al). New school originality is adapting from previous movies (Jurassic Park II, III) and from computer games (Wing Commander, Final Fantasy). The only movie coming out soon that sounds promising on the originality front is Dreamworks Shreck.
Yes! That was my first thought. It is FUN.
Yes, my kids (11, 11, 12) loved it. I loved it. While not as novel as the first -- and packed with FX from beginning to end, it was FUN!
--
Charles E. Hill
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
This film had a lot of redeeming characteristics - excellent soundtrack, humorous, witty one-liners, and those little pigmy demon things (cute and hillarious). But what made me enjoy the film was being able to go without some idiot telling me not to see it because it sucked, and going knowing it would suck as far as a 'work of art'. I went to be entertained, knowing that it would be a cheesy action flick, with poor acting and no plot, with lots of factual screw-ups. (Jet propulsion in 1933? Please.) But all in all, these things made the movie more entertaining. I laughed and laughed while watching this movie - due to the incredibly silly acting, horrid plot, and sometimes-screwy CGI. That entertained me. It was a farce on good films like Indiana Jones I and III, whether intended to be or not. And as far as being a repetitive 'mummy' film? Who gives a crap. Popular themes are oft redone, since people like them. Yes, people like them, Katz.
All in all, this film reminded me of "Army of Darkness," which was a complete farce, and quite entertaining. I'm sure many geeks would agree. While Army of Darkness was intended to be a farce, Mummy2 prolly wasn't, but who cares.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The orignal had some sort of Egyptean scientific advisor listed in the credits.
The first movie, The Mummy, was supposed to be horror and failed miserably at it. It was more like a Disney does horror. No actual blood was ever shown in the movie except as an afterscene.
The marketting department failed miserably. The first movie was campy and funny and hilarious. Myself and my group of friends were rolling in the eyes. On the good movie scale, this thing was a 3. But on the bad movie scale where you got a movie to see the absolute hilarity in it, it was a 9.
We were all waiting with baited breath for "The Mummy Returns" so we could see another bad movie that rated at least 8 out of 10. And I believe that was delivered.
Now with that said, I think what Mr. Katz doesn't get is that the folks who made "The Mummy" realized their mistake and played to their strengths in "The Mummy Returns". They knew that the campiness and ridiculous farce-like quality of hte situation would be throughly appreciated by the cult-like following of folks that actually enjoyed the first movie. And so they made another one. And I believe that they will do well. Because no one who saw the first movie and hated it is going to be brave and desparate enough to take a chance and see the sequel. But those that liked the first one for whatever reason will be more than happy to throw money at a sequel for the same reason.
After all, no one seriously watched the last few "Friday the 13th" movies for the horror aspects yet they still brought in tons of money.
Just showing you the other side of the story.
What amazes me is that this movie was made, because the original was pretty much the same way. Terrible acting; the movie unsure whether it was a comedy or an action film or...or I don't know what; but the animation was excellent.
So if you liked the original, I assume you'll like the sequel...I'm just amazed that enough people liked the original to make this. *shrug*
It wasn't meant to scare you, it wasn't meant to run chills down your spine. This movie never took itself too seriously.
As for the Jurassic Park homage, you should have looked a little closer. There were also scenes from Star Wars, Dr. Strangelove, E.T., and Titanic. There was even a brief scene where Rick wore a fedora for god's sake! This was just meant to be a fun movie. Saying things like "The black and whites of old hollywood were much scarier" just proves how much you did not get this movie.
I advise watching it again, and be willing to laugh this time. You'll enjoy it a whole lot more
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Sorry to spoil it Katz but this movie was obviously not meant to be serious. It was a silly movie with a couple of laughs and no dull moments. Sure its full of plots holes, cheesy lines, and predictable behavior. But its still entertaining.
Take a group of friends, wait a week till the crowd dies down, and go MST3k it.
FunOne
FunOne
The train has "01" painted on the side!!!
me
Does anyone even bother to read Katz's comments anymore? If the dot com economy has truly gone extinct, can't it at least take him (and his completely boring and uninformed comments) with it?
The point of the Mummy Returns is that it's the first ILM movie of the season. You don't go to the movie to compare it against Boris Karloff classics... you go to watch the CGI!
I like my summer movies the way I like my internet porn: Tons of action, little dialogue and as simple of a plot as possible!
(Forgot to login first post... Even I couldn't read my own comment with a score of 0! [comment #71])
Having to outrun the sunrise sorta blew it for me. There's the poking-fun-at-the-genre kind of silly, and there's the not-taking-ourselves-too-seriously kind of silly, and there's even the if-we-use-enough-F/X-we-don't-really-need-a-plot kind of silly, but running faster than the rotation of the planet somewhat bothers me. Armies of undead don't, but that does.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
It's not "speed of shadows in general," it's "speed of the terminator (dividing line between day and night)."
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
My wife and I saw this yesterday and we both really liked it. It's a good summer movie. The action was good...most of the special effects were very cool, but a few weren't. The kid in the movie didn't get in the way a lot or make it stupid.
I thought it was definately worth the price, especially the matinee we saw. Since it wasn't a total action movie or anything it's also a good date movie!
No offense to the myriads of Star Wars fans who no doubt read Slashdot, but COME ON!
Episode 1 was exactly like this movie. Lucas forgot how to write a story and make a movie. The animation overwhelmed the entire f*cking movie. The characters were terriblly developed, one was just plain annoying, the racial stereotypes were nauseating. I almost refuse to believe this movie could have been as _bad_ Star Wars Episode 1. The only redeeming scenes in the entire movie were the first scene involving the the Jedi and Light Saber battle.
-sirket
In short, it may not be a 'film,' but it was the best movie I've seen in months.
Seeing an ewok(*) mummy ride a burning log down in an homage to Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove is going to have me chuckling for days.
Ray
--
Does it strike anyone else as a bad idea to train your courtesans as fighting machines? I am for female empowerment and all, but if you are god-emperor of Egypt, maybe this is not the bightest idea if you are planning to see the completion of your pyrimid.
-------------------------------END--COMMUNICATION
...generated scorpion king at the end.
And a bad scorpion king to boot. Especially compared to a lot of other special effects...
Instead of muscle-definition, it was a 2-D mapped graphic of muscles... (oh, and facial features, to...) When will these people learn that doing realistic looking humans is TOUGH.
Dave
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
I have not yet seen the Mummy Returns, but I will soon. I fully expect to recieve the following:
- Explosions
- Lots of Bad jokes that are so cheesy you laugh anyways
- A handlful of good jokes that are subtle enough that I won't get them until I watch it months later on HBO.
- Bad guys that are designed to be hated from the get go.
- Stunning scenery.
- Fight scenes
- Bad guy lackeys that you love to see get abused.
- Fantastical CG creatures
- General absence of any real socially provactive plot.
- Oh. And the Rock bashing heads. Lots of heads.
Interestingly enough, this is what I expect from Planet of the Apes (although there is a small chance of plot there), Tomb Raider, and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and any other big budget summer movie. It is now May. I do not expect any movie to have any kind of plot until October. I do expect, however, to BE ENTERTAINED in a mind-numbing-forget-all-my-problems-for-2-hours fashion.
Sig:
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
EOM
I saw it this past Saturday night with my wife. She cringed at several places, but I liked it. I saw the first one but can remember only a few details about the story. Overall I enjoyed this instance of the fight of good and evil. Regardless of the plot, I enjoyed watching those two women fight with those sharp, pointy thingies.
int 20h
Goodness knows why I would bother responding to a Katz post. I certainly have no intention of refuting his review, because that would be a real exercise in futility. I might annoy the man by pointing out that Rachael Weisz's "older" character is not "Nefertiti", because the queen of the heretic king Akhenaten has no place in this movie. The character's name was "NefertiRi", who is someone else entirely. It's really annoying to read a dismissive review by someone who doesn't even bother to get the names right. And he complains about nonsense chants that aren't translated or explained. Well, well.
No, this missive's purpose is to point out that there was more going on here than a series of brief homages to Hollywood past. I wanted to comment on the script...
The language of the ancient Egyptians went through as many changes in the 3,000 years of Pharaonic history as English has done in the past 3,000 years. The "Pyramid Texts" didn't make any more sense to the Ptolemies than they do to us. Then after the Christians got done trashing the place, the language was lost. It didn't help any that although it was basically alphabetic, it threw in a bunch of extras, like a few ideographs, determinative signs, biliteral and triliteral signs, idioms, abbreviations, and so forth - enough to keep people guessing for a good long time. They also threw out all the vowels. Gardiner, in his still essential Middle Egyptian Grammar, theorizes that because the vowels shifted from one side of a consonant to the other as words changed case and aspect, the Egyptians regarded them as too "shifty."
Whatever the reason, the pronunciation of ancient Egyptian has been so problematic that for most of the history of modern Egyptology, nobody's even tried. One or two really hilarious horror movies, attempting some sort of legitimacy, have used the highly artificial modern academic pronunciation of ancient Egyptian, but even the most conscientious of moviemakers have never tried for the real thing.
Until a little number called Stargate came along.
The makers of that little summer sleeper approached Dr. Antonio Loprieno, then of UCLA, and asked him for help in rendering "real" middle Egyptian on the screen. Whether they knew it or not, they came to the right fellow. Working backward from Coptic, the lineal descendent of the ancient Egyptian language, modern linguists now have a pretty good handle on how the language was actually pronounced. All of about six people in the world can render spoken middle Egyptian in a reasonable hope of being somewhere near correct. Dr. Loprieno, now of the University of Basle, is one of them.
Dr. Loprieno was too busy to take on the job, being, lucky Egyptologist, actually employed at the time. There are more under- and unemployed Egyptologists than in just about any other specialty on the planet. However, he did have a recently graduated student, Dr. Stuart Smith, who was looking for work. It was a marriage made in purgatory.
Stargate shot mostly in Yuma, Arizona, a pleasure ground for desert seekers but a hellhole for movie companies. Dr. Smith took all of the considerable portion of the Stargate script that was to be in ancient Egyptian and rendered it, to the best of his considerable ability, in a form of archaized Coptic that approximates, as closely as we currently know, the spoken form of ancient Egyptian. The actors were very happy with this. Instead of some nonsense "gabble booble", they were speaking real lines. Of course, this also meant that Dr. Smith had to spend weeks in Yuma. They'd bring him out even for reshoots and pickups - a "half day's work" would turn into another week, he reported.
Stargate was a runaway sleeper success, and the makers of The Mummy knew a good thing when they heard it. Dr. Smith was brought on for that film as well, though there was not a lot of ancient Egyptian in that film.
With The Mummy Returns, we once again have a considerable percentage of the script in ancient Egyptian. What's notable in this film as in the original, is not that Arnold Vosloo is able to memorize this stuff and spit it back out as if he means it. To an Egyptologist's ear, the interesting part is to hear what Smith has done to revive this ancient language. As in Stargate, students of the language can actually pick up on the spoken lines and compare them with the subtitles. This includes Jon Katz's "nonsensical" chants, of course...which all make perfect sense. Really.
And the really, really interesting thing is Patricia Vasquez. Not only for the truly admirable body paint, but for the fact that she blows Arnold Vosloo out of the water in delivery, just as she did in the first movie.
She has a really good ancient Egyptian accent!
Of course the really interesting thing would be to check it out to see if Vosloo/Imhotep and Ankh-Sun-Amen are speaking, not Middle Egyptian, but Old Egyptian, in conformance with their period.
Any takers?
Seriously, this is a movie that's not meant to be reviewed. It doesn't try to be an Academy-award winning movie. It doesn't pretend to have complex, rich characters or a captivating, intriguing plot. It doesn't try to give the audience a message or preach a subject. What The Mummy Returns does do and does well is entertain me for a good two hours.
My girlfriend and I saw it last night and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. It was hilariously funny and there's just so much action that I might haveta watch it again just to remember everything.
Oh, and Jon, the movie is meant for people who can turn off their serious mode and for people who can have a laugh.
I highly highly HIGHLY recommend this movie. I've seen the previews of most of the big movies this summer, and while some seem funnier, some seem like they have more action, some seem like they have better special effects (ok, my one knock on The Mummy Returns was the horrendous Scorpion King CGI at the end), I doubt any of them will be as FUN as this one.
Can't wait for the DVD!
.. or was the first Mummy basically Army of Darkness with a bigger budget?
I mean, in both of them, trouble was started with an Ancient Book of the Dead.
Another observation, for any Diablo 2 players.. Was it just me, or were those pygmies Flayers?
Many directors today are forgetting that the good, classic movies try to draw the audience into the story with every technique they can. This movie is an example of a director or producer or probably both getting a great demo of what CGI can do, and going to town with it. It wouldn't pass a chapter exam at film school, unless that was the 'special effects' chapter. Thanks for telling it like it is, Jon.
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
What exactly were you expecting when you went to see this movie? Were you expecting to see deep philosophical concepts, touched off by extraordinary Oscar-caliber acting, with a hint of mystery? Of course not. I could tell you from the trailers that I saw this movie would have none of that. And you know what? That's OK.
Not every movie has to intrigue the viewer. Not every movie has to make you leave humming a tune. Not every movie has to invoke great, deep discussions afterwards. Some movies are entertainment. I saw The Mummy earlier this week. I was expecting to see some good special effects, to be taken along for the ride, and to not have to think too much. And you know what? I enjoyed that movie. It was not a "good" movie in terms of acting, drama, or musical score. But it was entertaining.
Just because we read Slashdot doesn't mean that we expect every movie to be completely believable and tear it apart when it isn't. Sometimes, it's good to turn off the brain, suspend your disbelief, and just watch the fucking movie. Who knows? You might just enjoy yourself.
------
That's just the way it is
Perhaps Jon expected this movie to be a bit more than a hollywood film. I'd suggest watching an indi film if you want a plot.
But your reaction to his comments on a movie he clearly did not like (probably because it was a useless waste of time that could have been spent outside or doing something better in reality) strikes a nerve. I wonder if you take the same sort of care-free attitude when it comes to politics, war, media and the like. You probably could care less about things you have no power in changing... which is why you have no power to change them. That's too bad for the rest of us.
AP Wire Report -
Unnamed sources within the White House have revealed that Jon Katz has no understanding of the concept of irony.
Sources also indicated that Katz's forthcoming stories will detail why South Park is disgusting, and that Tom Green's sarcasm is simply not appropriate in public discourse.
Janeane Garofalo declined to comment. The MST3K Group of Independant States is expected to hold a press conference Monday morning. Denis Leary's comments were not printable in this family weblog.
-carl
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
Just a minor point, though. I found it a little better than the reviewer, but not too much.
You're in a crater-like depression, halfway between the middle and one side, the sun comes over the rim behind you. Now, does the sun strike the opposite wall first and come down, or does it strike the floor of the canyon behind you and go towards the middle, so you can see if you're outrunning it?
The sunrise went the WRONG WAY. :-)
Oh, and as far as running 1000mph, I think you're not thinking about how shadows work. Personally, I thought the speed of the shadow wasn't too bad. The line was quite a bit too sharp, but compare it to the shadow cast by, say, you. Does it really move at 1000mph? Mine sure doesn't.
I think its your taste. I prefer the good girl, and thought the bad one was damn ugly.
And Dr Strangelove was actually fun *and* a well made film at the same time. It sounds like this movie has more in common with Starship Troopers though, a movie which also ended being a hilarious parody of itself. The very B-movieish quality must be hard to maintain, yet they pull it off!
LOL!
What irony.
Also, isn't this review kind of late?
Maybe he "got" the movie, but maybe, like the first one, it was just a stupid movie. I just saw the first one a couple days ago, and I must say that I was quite disappointed. I like a good mindless swashbuckler action-adventure as much as anyone else--for God's sake, I loved The Fifth Element--but The Mummy was simply not fun. How do I hate The Mummy? Let me count the ways:
- Unimaginative action in the age of Yuen Woo Ping - Every time a bad guy shows up, somebody shoots it. Huh.
- Criminally unremarkable dialogue in a genre known for snappy one-liners - "I think we're in trouble." Next line: "I think we're in serious trouble." *Snore*
- Awful acting - This wouldn't be so bad if there was something else in the movie to enjoy.
- Offensive (not ironic) characterizations of people of color - I'll be damned if one of the Arabs in the movie didn't get directly compared to a hairy, stinky, spitting camel. Not to mention that all of the non-white people save one or two were either greedy simpering yes-men or bumbling idiots or both. Maybe this is a staple of the genre, but now that I'm not 10 years old, it pains me a bit more to see it.
Screw this. I think I'll go rent a Jackie Chan movie. His movies may be dumb, they may be shallow, and they're not so politically correct, but they sure as hell are always fun.If you enjoyed the first Mummy, you will probably enjoy The Mummy Returns.
Good action flick, mediocre animation (The Rock model at the end of the movie was pretty horrible IMO), so so story, but all in all, entertaining. I enjoyed The Mummy Returns much more than the first Mummy.
Patricia Velazquez is just so freaking attractive in this film.
-Xian
YES! I actually thought this particular one was so subtle that it was probably the animators who chose to put it in, not the director. Pay attention to when our heroes are escaping from the undead pygmies and are crossing the bridge. Rick O'Connell throws a stick of dynamite at the log bridge and it explodes. One particular pygmy rides the pieces of wood down into the ravine like a cowboy.
--
Shake and shake
the ketchup bottle.
None will come,
Shake and shake
the ketchup bottle.
None will come,
and then a lot'll.
I guess I expected more from Phantom Menace and suspended by disbelief for Mummy Returns.
I was expecting an action film, not a classic mummy film. Note I hadn't seen The Mummy so no comparison was available.
If I think about it my problems with the film
Linear Plot with no surprises
Don't think about history when seeing the film.
Fight sequences were good if compared to non-Hong Kong films. Actually the kid in The Mummy Returns wasn't nearly as annoying as the one in Star Wars.
Why are moderators only allowed to moderate comments on articles, and not the articles themselves?
----
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
What I found amusing is that this movie is about half the AD&D games I've ever played in....
-- fencepost
fencepost
just a little off
Did anyone else laugh with their friends and say "Look, Carvers!" when those little pygmie guys showed up? We kept looking for the Carver Shaman who should be ressing them.
Scott.
doesx jon like any movie? ever? I have this fuunny feeling that if movies were never invented that jon would repeatedly pan books instead of movies. when did he last like a movie that had special effects. and now he's comparing theis digital flick to episode 1? come on. episode one really sucked. i think we've all determined that. but we still like it cause it was kinda cool so will the mummy be. i just want to enjoy a nice movie with some creepy ghouls a fight scene and something that makes the girlfriend jump in my arms. who cares if the movie makes any damn sense.
-
Offtopic!? Someone have a sense of humor, and mod this +1 Funny.
In a bazarr twist, Blizzard, the maker of the popular "Diablo" computer game series has sued the movie "The Mummy Returns".
The contention that they used a race of pygmies with big sharp knives stolen from the Diablo series was refuted when the director of the movie stated "Jon Katz never mentioned it in his review, so it cannot be"
Jon Katz has never been proved incorrect in any of his reviews. This is a damning argument against Blizzard.
Slashdot readers continue to enjoy the movie and make it the highest paid movie (70 million) for a non-holiday weekend.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
No thats just the basic list of commands for using vi. Hell O'reilly even published a book on it.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Mystery Science Theater 3000!
A show in which some guy and two robots sit and make fun of cheesy movies.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The movie was fun. Lots of action. Cool animation.
It's probably a little more for the kiddies. I bet if I was a little kid I would have thought it was the coolest movie ever.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
In the Star Wars films, George Lucas makes lavish use of computer- generated characters and scenes, but they never overwhelm the intriguing characters at the center of the saga.
You mean like the painfully idiotic Jar-Jar, or like the only-gets-one-lame-line presumably evil Darth Maul? Thank god for that.
As for the blatant plagiarism and the utterly predictable plot twists I have no comment.
Katz has shown that he really doesn't get gaming in the first place. Shouldn't surprise anyone that he does get a Gamer film.
Now,if there are any GAMERS out there that don't like it that would be more intresting. Well,to me anyways...
I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
Who cares? I watched the whole trilogy in a sitting a couple of years back. I thought, "I don't remember the films being this hokey!" But I didn't care, I loved them anyway, because they were fun movies. When viewed from that perspective, even Jar Jar is much easier to take.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
The first Mummy cleared some 400+ million in worldwide revenue. That, and only that, is why the Mummy has yet again risen from the grave...
...is HOT!
Hell yeah! A friend of mine saw it in the afternoon on the day I went and he said "Remember this as you watch the movie: They go from Act 2 to Act 3 and get revenge." I forgot about that phrase until I saw the pygmies and then I couldn't stop laughing. They were exactly like those bastards in D2!
As a first-time movie actor, the Rock was not paid the $5 million quoted above for the 10 minutes of footage he put down for this movie. While I don't know what he DID make for this movie, I think that $5 million figure people have quoted is what he's making for his starring role in the prequel ("The Scorpion King") that he is currently filming.
" lone adventurer loner" Just like the repetative redundant repeater? *shrug* e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
I ran out of moderator points... ...
So here is an extra (+1 insightful)
Rehab is for quitters...
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
I was kind of disappointed, seeing The Rock for only 2-3 minutes, I expected to see more of the most electrifying man in the history of entertainment . But the movie was real fun.
The other thing that disappoints me is how they choose the actresses, the good girl is damn ugly and the bad one (Anck Su-Namum) is pretty hot. Is it my taste or their mistake?
LOL.....The Star Wars series (esp. Episode 1) are simply bad movies. Period. OK, the first movie has a certain charm, but come on, Lucas aint no Kurosawa or Truffaut.
It's called "play", Jon. I spend a great deal of time dealing with "deep" subjects and tough technical issues (surprise, you're not alone!), and my mind needs to take a vacation sometimes. For two hours, The Mummy Returns asked nothing from me: no moral questions, no grand themes -- hell, no plot, either! ;) Just some silly in-jokes, OK (but not great) CGI, a couple of cute babes, and a good doses of bad history. My eldest daughter is studying to be an Egyptologist; my wife has work on digs in the Yucatan -- and both of them loved this flick.
You take everything far too seriously, Jon, and you're going to hurt yourself doing that. That's why more and more people tune you out -- you're painful to listen to these days. I know, I've been there -- and I ended up bitter and burned out, before coming back to center again.
You'll find it much easier to cope with the complexities when you let your brain take a vacation every once and a while... you might find your mind refreshed after letting it rest.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
All about me
Yes. I used Perl to split the whole lot into words and then stuck them into whereis. You have to convert it to lowercase though...
:)
Come on, mod me as informative
I can't believe how far off base I think you are with this review. I saw it on Friday, a matinee, and while I did notice the plot was a little contrived, I enjoyed it immensely. FAR more than I enjoyed The Fandom Menace. Much as I enjoyed the original Mummy far more. I don't know what movie you watched, but it wasn't the same one THIS 31 year old watched and enjoyed.
Meh.
And where they hell was slashdot when the canceled "Jack of All Trades"?
I really hate Dan Patrick.
I appreciate hi-tech computer generated special effects. I am waiting for computer-generated plots, and computer-generated acting as well. Development of these advances in technology will advance the film making art tremedously.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
I'm not trying to be a troll, but why on earth did this deserve to be posted? Just because Jon Katz wrote it doesn't mean it's appropriate. If a reader had submitted this, it would have gotten rejected.
This movie isn't Ishtar or Daikatana; you could actually get right into the plot and enjoy it, just like the original one. A few regulars at ShackNews watched it, and liked it. Don't pass judgment on this until you see more than a glimpse (in other words, wait for Roger Ebert's review, or better yet, watch some of the scenes and judge THOSE, and not the teasers).
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
In the Star Wars films, George Lucas makes lavish use of computer- generated characters and scenes, but they never overwhelm the intriguing characters at the center of the saga. He uses animation to imagine worlds, not replace story-telling and acting.
You obviously didn't see Star Wars:Episode I.
The Mummy Returns officially kicks off the 2001 summer of big-budget no-brainer movies. There will be a couple of standouts this year (Pearl Harbor and Planet of the Apes), but these kind of movies are meant to make money off teens and young adults. It sold out at every theatre around here this weekend, and will no doubt be profitable, so be ready for a sequel.
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
John, Aside from the fact that it's supposed to be fun and mindless entertainment (amply pointed out by others..) check your own facts. The reincarnated daughter of the pharoah (Rachel Weisz) was Nefertiri, not Nefertiti. Very different queens. Of course... it doesn't really matter anyway since they aren't exactly historically accurate - come on, Anubis wasn't evil, they really oughta use Set for the bad guy in Mummy III. ;)
Basically I was entertained by the movie, and had fun, but also found flaws (outside of it's comedy) and major plot holes that kinda kill the ending of the movie...but yes, I'm aware it's a 'FuN' movie. So go easy. ;)
BytesTemplar.com
Lets see, the first movie was panned by the elistist know-it-alls of movie reviews. The first movie was marketed as a scary-but-funny-but-campy mummy movie. It was purposely over the top like the original Indiana Jones films.
The second film follows suit, gives women prominent roles that are not just as scared little girls. It promises to have a little more horror but all the laughs the first had. It promises action scenes that are unbelievable but exciting to watch. It promises special effects that are cutting edge and a sight to behold.
Guess what Jon, this wasn't meant to be a documentary or a pure horror film. The lead actor himself doesn't take his role as a Shakespearian presentation, he knows exactly what its all about.
I suggest that until you understand what its all about and go back to commenting on things you have a knowledgeable opinion on.
Unfortunately I find that most of your reviews and even articles lack substance, and seem to be nothing more than elistist whines about why the world fails to see your utopian viewpoints.
* ooh - time to lose some karma, just wish I could use my moderator points versus the actual article!!!!
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I liked this movie and The Mummy, I think they're going in a direction like The Evil Dead & Army of Darkness guys. The first was made seriously then realized that it was kinda funny, so decided to go full bore in that direction. Granted they use computers now instead of stop-motion skeletons, but it's still funny
I can find faults with movies when they pretend to be something they aren't-- the Mummy returns doesn't do this. It's a very entertaining film. The first was better and less far-fetched than this one, but I think the money I spent on my ticket was well worth it. The characters are fun and unique, even if cliched at times. The movie often falls back on the dialogue pointing out it's loop-holes which is funny, albeit done too much. Towards the end I felt they went too far with coincidence and special effects taking over the plot... but I still enjoyed it immensely. The women were hot, the action was sizzling, and the mummies were as un-dead as they could be!
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
The movie was supposed to be neither a horror movie nor a documentary of Egyptian culture. It was a very entertaining self-mocking movie. I thought it was hillarious. Sure it won't get an Oscar, but it entertained me.
My dingo ate your honor student.
Spending 20+ mins on the pod race and 30- secs on Anakin leaving his mother to maybe never see her again was missing out on possibly the biggest character development scene in the whole movie. I mean, Anakin - kid, 10 years old - who doesn't know if he will EVER see his mother again, does call for a bit more depth than:
Anakin: Will I see you again?
Mother: What does your heart tell you?
Anakin: [ehh... I dunno, seeyoulaterbye]
-Kraft
-Kraft
Live and let live
I don't know about all of you, but when my wife and I go to that movie, and usually leave entertained... now isn't that the point of going to a movie? To relax, and watch something that is far fetched, geeky, romantic, stupid, etc? Why do we have critics anymore? I look at a preview, if it looks good, I go, if not, I don't. it's that simple.
Anyway, just wanted to comment on two specifics:
Out of nowhere in the middle of this movie, two Egyptian warrior-babes, a re-incarnated Nefertiti and Anck-Su Namum (Patricia Velasquez) launch into a series of utterly-out-of-place kick boxing, knife-wielding duels.
This didn't come out of nowhere. The movie was setting up the fact that Evelyn was the reincarnated Nefertiti and that these two had a past rivalry that only grew worse since Anck-Su Namum killed her dad, the Pharoh. YES this is all very hokey, but its all internally consistent and doesn't come from nowhere, if you are paying the least bit attention (which is all the movie asks of you anyway).
In both The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, death is illusory, to say the least; characters die and return to life so often it's impossible to keep track. In this film, resurrection is just a chant away.
Again, maybe a bit hokey, but is it much worse than Indiana Jones 3 (part of the series that you mentioned various times) in which his dad is miraculously saved by the power of the holy grail? Or the Alien series where the hero is reincarnated through the wonders of genetic engineering? Or The Matrix, where the hero is brought back to life from, of all fucking things, THE POWER OF LOVE?
You really do need to lighten up Katz. I was half expecting to see some bullshit in here about how Mummys are just misunderstood and striking back at the world for having the nerve to display them in glass cases to be laughed at by the bullies of the world..Or perhaps that the rise of the mummies was an interpretation of the rise of global megacorps, out to destroy the world...Ah well, maybe next time.
I saw the Mummy Returns yesterday with (get this)1 preview! I couldn't believe it. Not only that but it was a preview for some macho street racing flick with Vin Deisel. Not exactly sci-fi. -brand
I use phrases like "darn good" and "rootin' tootin'", but only when there's a darn good, rootin tootin' reason!
"a series of utterly-out-of-place kick boxing, knife-wielding duels"
Its not a knife, its called a sai. (Think of the TMNT...)
Hopefully Lucas will notice the success this movie has at the box office, and do something we all want, RE-RELEASE INDIANA JONES! Seriously, I'd rather watch Dr. Jones kick some shit out of Nazi's than George of the Jungle running around with some kid who decides it would be fun to play with ancient bracelets.
And all I know is that if the third Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within trailer isn't being played on my local theater with The Mummy Returns...I'm asking for my $8.50 back, since I know that beyond that, there will be NO entertainment value in what lies ahead.
The movie was a good movie and it was done the way it should have been.
Davewpw
---
The movie is worth going and seeing on the BIG screen.
...or should that be Bruce Campbell instead of Brendan Fraser in that role?
Seriously, though, I may see it once it comes to my local, cheap, second run theater. It'll be my chance to see tomorrow's "bad, old, sci-fi / horror movie that one loves to hate" today, when it's still in theaters.
Guess he went to the Mummy Returns expecting to see a powerful Schindler's List type movie... imagine that, he was dissapointed.
Stop thinking Katz.
Casual Games/Downloads
There were "intriguing characters" in StarWars? Where? I must have missed them.
Wrong...it was meant to be campy in it own way. It was way scarier in some scenes than 99% of horror movies,but still was done with a little humor. The Thing by John Carpenter had its share of funny scenes but was one of the scariest movies ever
This is not a Sig.
Man, what got his knickers in a bunch.
Ok, this movie is INCREDIBLY cheesy, and more than a little dumb, but THAT'S THE POINT.
It's essentially a radio serial, or pulp comic of the '30s put to the screen, and as far as I'm concerned it succeeds admirably in that.
It has genuinely funny moments, and complete non-stop action. No real plot other than the standard "Oh oh loved one in trouble 'again' must save, oh and yeah the world will end if we don't thing".
In fact in one of the funniest scenes in the movie, they make fun of the hackneyed plot. Actually they make fun of themselves throughout the entire movie.
Final analysis, it's not Indiana jones, but Harrison Ford will be 60 in eight months, so it's the best we've got.
Oh and Rachel Weisz and Patricia Velasquez are both yummy.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong
The eyes may be the windows on the soul But the word is the doorway to the mind
The Mummy Returns is completely mindless spectacle that is perfect to take your 9 to 14 year old kids (or nieces and nephews) to on a rainy afternoon. Not too scary, no bad language, non-stop action; perfect for kids and adults who want to switch off their brains for a couple of hours.
Anarchists never rule
I went and saw the movie with some friends. For me, the best part of the entire ordeal was getting to see the Jurassic Park 3 and Final Fantasy trailers that ran before the movie. Did anyone else notice that The Rock did not have a single line other than a grunt at the very beginning. Pretty sad for one of the central characters.
[move
Well, the first one looked just as stupid anyways, so I saved a bit of pocket cash myself ;)
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the incredibly stupid half-human half-scorpion thing that should not be deemed worthy of even a ClarisWorks user seem like the animators got a little lazy by the end of the movie? They went a little overboard. I mean, the midgit things were so damn annoying I wanted to go all out on the screen with the awp! Now that is sinking really low. If you think you are paranoid, maybe they really are watching you.
The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them.
I trailed along to this movie as part of a work morale event, expecting it to be squirm-in-the-seat bad. Typically if something is a "movie" rather than a "film" it's beneath me. Well stick a carrot up /my/ butt, though, because despite being indeed crap, including the most ludicrously bad first five minutes in which "The Rock" plays the main role, I was entertained throughout and laughed pretty hard in places. There's both more and less than meets the eye here, including homage to a number of other films if you watch closely. The "plot" is possibly the most preposterous "plot" in any film I can recall seeing /ever/. It's clear that they threw in more nonsense just for fun. Truly it surpasses mere crap and becomes meta-crap, crap about crap. None of the "actors" - again, I use the word loosely, and note that if it wasn't for this aside, the Rock would not be in this sentence - take it seriously; they play for bathos throughout. In places the crapness truly transcended itself to a new magnitude of crap, and the audience in my showing broke into applause. Truly a pastiche of crap, special effect overladen movies. If you want a good belly laugh for a couple of hours, have a few beers with your mates and traipse along to this. Make sure to have plenty of Raisinets to throw at the screen.
Right after the little pygmy mummy things were blown to bits by the stick of dynamite as they crossed the fallen tree, one of the pygmy mummys grabs half of the fallen trunk and finds a branch and starts doing the funk nasty on the tree. Some people have a sick way of leaving there mark in a movie. (Kinda reminds me of fight club)
There were actually three reasons to watch. Rachel Weisz was looking damn hot.
-------------
-------------
Andy Tomaka
But why do I care? I'll just stop by a friend's house and watch it in DivX?
** The DietCoke of Evil is upon you **
I never understood why people would go into movies trying to find flaws when they could always just sit back and enjoy the ride... and oh what a ride the Mummy Returns was, even more fun then the original;)... I'm just happy to see it rake in 70+ Million this weekend, cause I haven't had this much fun in a movie for what seems like forever. It's just too bad though how a small movie like Memento never had the chance to pull in those kind of numbers =(.
While I'll admit that it was action packed, the film had the weakest story since the Matrix. The audience is just supposed to accept that Rick is a Medjai warrior without any backing from the first movie to support this. Also, we are just supposed to accept that Evelyn is a reincarnated Nefertiri even though in the first movie Imhotep, who knew Nefertiri, didn't recognise her and in fact mistook her for Anak-su-namun. And speaking of Imhotep, why is it that he no longer causes the seven biblical plauges or the end of the world any more? Now I know a lot of you are gonna say "the movie was just meant to be fun" and "It doesn't need a strong story, stop putting so much thought into it". While all those may be perfectly valid statements, they are also perfectly disturbing things to be hearing a a slashdot forum of all places. This is supposed to be where intellegent and objective thinking people post their comments and oppinions. But the general attitude seems to be everyone wants to bash Katz and defend TMR. By saying "it was just meant to be fun eye candy, let it alone" is a clear message to hollywood that we as movie goers don't feel that we are worth a good story AND good special f/x. Movie ticket prices and consessions are going up more and more every year yet the quality of films seems to be going down. What gives? We need to show the movie industry that people will no longer go see a movie just because it has a trailer with lots of cool special f/x, yelling, gunfire and things whipping past the screen so fast that you can barely see them. Otherwise you can expect to have the standard by which movies are set to be determined by the most easily entertained.