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.
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'!
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
what dose "MST3k" mean.
That's a new one for me.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
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 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!!!
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
--
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"?
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-
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.
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.
You mean the spoiled prince is rotten? Did he ferment, or only break down?
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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
--
...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.
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?
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
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"
Also, isn't this review kind of late?
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
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.
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...
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.
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?
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
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.
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
"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.
...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.
There were "intriguing characters" in StarWars? Where? I must have missed them.
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