Review: The Mummy Returns 197
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 ... (Score:1)
Re:Just to clarify the Rock's paycheck (Score:2)
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'!
Re:NO! REALLY??! (Score:1)
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.
Re:Let's hear it for old school! (Score:1)
----------------------------------------------
Re:Irony Schmirony (Score:1)
-------------------------------------
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
okay, you really need to lighten up... (Score:2)
----------------------------------------
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
Look for the video game! (Score:1)
Re:MST3K (Score:1)
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. )
what dose "MST3k" mean [Re:NO! REALLY??!] (Score:2)
That's a new one for me.
Just an other reason NOT to read Katz.... (Score:1)
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
Re:Lighten up, Jon. (Score:1)
--
Re:Pulp and Camp (Score:1)
--
Re:sigh (Score:1)
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...
--
No-nak-a-MON (Score:2)
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
The most important thing to note about this movie (Score:2)
The Mummy Returns... (Score:1)
My most insightful post ever: (Score:1)
An unfair review Katz (Score:1)
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!!!
Listen to the DVD interview tracks (Score:2)
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!!!
I wish we could moderate (Score:1)
I agree, but... (Score:1)
Poor script, unbelievable characters, a very contrived story. At least the new mummy movie has some funny points AND NO JAR JAR EITHER.
Re:Star Wars? (Score:1)
? 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....
Re:Appropriate Introduction. . . (Score:2)
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.
Re:Step Back (Score:2)
This was all narrated at the beginning of the movie.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:Step Back (Score:2)
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?
Step Back (Score:5)
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?
Re:This Just In: (Score:2)
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.
--
SFX (Score:2)
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
************************************************ ** *
Re:This Just In: (Score:2)
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.
************************************************ ** *
Onion story (Score:4)
"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"
************************************************ ** *
The only problem is... (Score:2)
--
Re:Is it just me... (Score:1)
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.
Did Jon pay to see it? (Score:2)
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.
grubbylanguage used in the film (Score:2)
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"?
Re:I don't think JonKatz "gets it" with this one. (Score:1)
"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.
Screwy as usual (Score:2)
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-
Who cares about plot? (Score:1)
You gotta be kidding! (Score:1)
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!
Re:Onion story (Score:2)
So what if the plot sucked... (Score:4)
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 [aintitcool.com]
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.
great computer graphics? (Score:1)
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.
Re:This Just In: (Score:1)
Re:Considering ... (Score:1)
Thing is, Hollywood CAN make decent action flicks, with wit, character, AND shit blowing up real good (Aliens, Predator, Die Hard, Desperado) it just takes much more effort on the writing end and less on the marketroids telling us what we want.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:I never saw the first one. (Score:1)
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
Re:Lighten up, Jon. (Score:1)
Re:This Just In: (Score:1)
Eesh man, what were you expecting? (Score:1)
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.
I can't help but wonder (Score:2)
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.
Re:ahahahahahaha (Score:1)
Flopped? Our theater was full. (Score:1)
--
The kid wasn't supposed to annoy the viewer (Score:1)
--
Spoiled Rotten (Score:3)
You mean the spoiled prince is rotten? Did he ferment, or only break down?
Katz doesn't get it. (Score:1)
"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.
*cough* (Score:5)
Meesa thinka you missed his last movie.
Re:Ah... yet again, slashdot is way too clever for (Score:1)
-=C
Pulp and Camp (Score:5)
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
Final Fantasy (Score:3)
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.
Appropriate Introduction. . . (Score:3)
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). . .
Re:Let's hear it for old school! (Score:1)
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.
Re:Lighten the hell up Jon (Score:1)
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
take a lighter approach to life... and STFU. (Score:2)
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
Re:This Just In: (Score:1)
I don't think JonKatz "gets it" with this one. (Score:2)
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.
And yet it's a sequel... (Score:1)
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*
Lighten the hell up Jon (Score:5)
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
NO! REALLY??! (Score:2)
Take a group of friends, wait a week till the crowd dies down, and go MST3k it.
FunOne
dukes of hazzard (Score:1)
The train has "01" painted on the side!!!
me
sigh (Score:1)
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])
Rick's running 1000+ miles/hour is *FUN*, yeah... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Rick's running 1000+ miles/hour is *FUN*, yeah. (Score:2)
It's not "speed of shadows in general," it's "speed of the terminator (dividing line between day and night)."
We liked it. (Score:2)
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!
Star Wars? (Score:3)
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
It's not a horror film you twit (Score:3)
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
--
Re:This Just In: (Score:2)
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
Things I expect from the Mummy Returns (Score:2)
- 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:
There's more to this movie than meets the ear (Score:2)
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?
Re:language used in the film (Score:2)
Re:There's more to this movie than meets the ear (Score:2)
Then I saw the University of Chicago return address.
Re:Lighten the hell up Jon (Score:2)
The Mummy never took itself seriously at all. It (mostly) wasn't meant to be scary, shocking, creepy, or to make you think about any sorts of issues... It was a horror romp with an ancient baddie and a sarcastic lead, which made fun of itself constantly and was enjoyable for just that reason.
Now I must see the sequel.
-Puk
Um, it's called Entertainment? (Score:2)
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
This Just In: (Score:5)
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
Let's hear it for old school! (Score:2)
Also, isn't this review kind of late?
And throw in... (Score:2)
What I found amusing is that this movie is about half the AD&D games I've ever played in....
-- fencepost
Intriguing Characters? (Score:3)
You mean like the painfully idiotic Jar-Jar, or like the only-gets-one-lame-line presumably evil Darth Maul? Thank god for that.
Re:George Lucas Approach To Filmmaking (Score:2)
Guys, you missed a key point (Score:2)
Just to clarify the Rock's paycheck (Score:2)
The Rock (Score:2)
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?
Lighten up, Jon. (Score:5)
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
Re:take a lighter approach to life... and STFU. (Score:2)
1933 is still a tad on the early side for jets - I believe Whittle was getting his first patent on the thing about then. The V1 engine was actually a rocket rather than a jet - the Third Reich never actually used jets, employing lqiuid-fuelled rockets instead, but by 1945 the first jet fighters were in use. The Gloster Meteor, as I recall.
Re:Lighten the hell up Jon (Score:2)
Then there are the Matrix/Jackie Chan/CTHD styled fight scenes.
It could almost be considered a parody of horror and adventure movies. Ha, they invented the hot air balloon in this movie!
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
George Lucas Approach To Filmmaking (Score:2)
You obviously didn't see Star Wars:Episode I.
Re:This Just In: (Score:2)
---
Jar-Jar wasn't Lucas worst move (Score:4)
Anakin: Will I see you again?
Mother: What does your heart tell you?
Anakin: [ehh... I dunno, seeyoulaterbye]
-Kraft
Re:This Just In: (Score:3)
While Katz scrutinized every other detail in the movie, I do believe he failed to maybe catch that maybe the movie was meant to be a typical "mummy" movie that's purpose was to poke fun at all the other mummy movies, recursively including itself.
I suppose that Katz's job is to view these movies analyzing every little insignificant detail, but I have a different view.
I go to movies to put my brain on standby for a while and get away from studying and if I can see cool special effects, cool fighting sequences, and some funny situations (considering my maturity level), I leave with the feeling I have been entertained.
IMHO, I can't believe the Rock got paid that much for having one line in the movie and allowing them to use his head on the computer generated scorpion king at the end.
Re:This Just In: (Score:2)
Indiana Jones and the Final Fantasy (Score:2)
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.
Is it just me... (Score:2)
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.
Star Wars? (Score:2)
There were "intriguing characters" in StarWars? Where? I must have missed them.
Best part was the trailers (Score:2)