Mummy 2-Fun Popcorn film or Hollywood Garbage? - AVS Forum
Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion > Mummy 2-Fun Popcorn film or Hollywood Garbage?
brunsiv's Avatar brunsiv 10:04 PM 10-02-2001
I happen to think that this film is a lot of fun (albeit a solid studio moneymaking machine)- but regardless- a hell of a ride for sheer brainless action.

What do you all think?

Alan Gouger's Avatar Alan Gouger 10:28 PM 10-02-2001
I was quite pleased with this dvd as a whole. The transfer/sound/story.

I agree it was fun and entertaining.
Like a modern day Raiders.

------------------
Alan Gouger
Thanks for supporting AV Science.
www.avscience.com
joekun's Avatar joekun 10:29 PM 10-02-2001
The kid was terrible, the special effects weren't all that impressive and the pygmy monsters at the end were for kids. As a matter of fact this sequel made the original look like a dark and scary movie (which is quite an accomplishment). When I saw the first film in the theater I didn't like it because I was expecting a Universal monster movie and I got a comedy.

I rediscovered The Mummy a few weeks before the sequel came out and enjoyed it for what it was, let's face it, my expectations had been significantly lower and I knew what to expect. I went to see the Mummy Returns expecting more of the same, but it had sunk even lower than I could've imagined. I can just imagine the meetings over this film at the studio, some exec saying "This is good, but can we add a kid? Our demographics would improve considerably!" or "I know, let's cast "The Rock" in the movie for a minute and a half, that'll really bring in the crowds!".

For the record, I liked The Rock's character, but the way he was used it just seemed like a marketing ploy. I guess that's why he gets his own Mummy movie.

LynxFX's Avatar LynxFX 10:46 PM 10-02-2001
Yup, a marketing ploy that worked. I'm not a WWF fan and I was glad that he was in it for just a short bit. I am curious as to what the Scorpion King will be like.
Alan Gouger's Avatar Alan Gouger 09:46 AM 10-03-2001
I have to agree with joekun regarding the kid.

Bad move and his acting sucked!

------------------
Alan Gouger
Thanks for supporting AV Science.
www.avscience.com
Zach Kantzes's Avatar Zach Kantzes 11:06 AM 10-03-2001
The movie was horrible. Some good set pieces, but just a load of cr@p overall.

The effects at the end with the Scorpion King were about the worst I have seen.

I appreciate the original so much more now.
William's Avatar William 12:05 PM 10-03-2001
I was under the impression it was another Aliens or Godfather II http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/wink.gif. I guess not. You think Universal just made the movie to cash in on the success of the original? What an original idea that is. I will watch mine tonight with my critical expectations lowered and maybe some popcorn for the popcorn movie.

------------------
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...nce=0&res=high
William

[This message has been edited by William (edited 10-03-2001).]
alberich's Avatar alberich 02:42 PM 10-03-2001
I really hated this movie and I consider it Hollywood garbage. To me it just felt so manufactured and by the numbers. It was like; "We have to a chase scene here and a big special effect there" etc. I did not feel any of the joy of the first movie. The first Mummy is one of my favorite pop corn movies. It is fun, silly but still somewhat engaging..
rickfromthesticks's Avatar rickfromthesticks 03:14 PM 10-03-2001
Although I was disappointed because I thought the first was absolutely great, in the vein of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the second fell short because so many of the same "gags" were used again, it was predicatble. I thought some of the effects were very good, such as the army hordes fighting, and the "chick fight" at the beginning. Very good, so all in all, I think it's definately worth watching and in my case buying. The first is a household standard and this will be a must.
hob's Avatar hob 04:56 PM 10-03-2001
I believed this was like the Boris Karloff films, I won't buy the new one, my reason it 'sucked'. I would like to know if the Blair Witch 2- 'The Book of Shadows' was any good, neither of my changers would play it.


I ended up taking it back to Walmart, since it said the disc may not play on all players, I got my money back. I own Sony Models CX860-300 DVD and CX850D-200 DVD capacity. If it is good I also have my free rebate RCA RC6000P single drawer progressive to try it in. Let me know if you liked it. TIA

------------------
Hob for Hobby

[This message has been edited by hob (edited 10-03-2001).]
Tim Wilkins's Avatar Tim Wilkins 09:07 PM 10-03-2001
I watched about an hour and finally turned it off. I don't think it is as good as the first one and the kid, geez I can't hardly take much more of him. Previously I watched She Devil, which I thought was a whole lot better and funnier.
CINERAMAX's Avatar CINERAMAX 01:54 AM 10-04-2001
Lighten up you guys, this is a non stop ride unlike any.
b11051973's Avatar b11051973 09:29 AM 10-04-2001
I really like the first Mummy and was very excited to hear they were coming out with a second one. After seeing the movie in the theaters, I was more than a little dissappointed. In the end, I did still end up getting the second one on DVD.

"Is this movie a good popcorn movie or a Hollywood piece of crap" I would say both.

------------------
Sony 108 Hour DirecTiVo
Philips 92 Hour TiVo
Chris Williams's Avatar Chris Williams 11:14 AM 10-04-2001
Quote:
Originally posted by joekun:
Very good point, I can agree with that. I'm glad people enjoy the movie, but I just don't think comparing it to "Raiders" is fair. Brendan Frasier has NONE of the charisma of Harrison Ford OR Indiana Jones.
He can't compete with Harrison Ford in this sort of role, but I disagree with your assessment of his charisma. In the right role, one that takes advantage of his friendly, goofy charm, he's enormously watchable. See him in "Blast From The Past". It's a silly movie with plot holes you could drive a whole convoy of trucks through, but he makes it so re-watchable.

Harrison Ford knows his limitations, so he doesn't try to play goofy physical comedy. Perhaps Fraser shouldn't play action heroes, but I thought his performance in the original "The Mummy" was decent. Also, Fraser has a much wider range than Ford. The furthest Ford has stretched has been in projects like "The Frisco Kid" and the regrettable "Regarding Henry". But to be able to move from "George Of The Jungle" to "Gods and Monsters" to "The Mummy" shows remarkable flexibility. If you want to see how good an actor he is, and maybe re-evaluate his charisma, check out "Gods And Monsters".

Quote:

On the lighter side though, enjoy the movie for what it is, that's cool by me.
I love big, dumb Hollywood movies as much as the next guy. But as someone who liked the first one, I have to agree that the sequel exhibited far too much calculation for me.


[This message has been edited by Chris Williams (edited 10-04-2001).]
CraigR's Avatar CraigR 12:10 PM 10-04-2001
I enjoyed this movie. To me it was just a fun ride a definite popcorn movie. Yes it ripped off Raiders of the Last Ark. I thought the picture and sound quality were very good.
joekun's Avatar joekun 02:13 PM 10-04-2001
Quote:
If you want to see how good an actor he is, and maybe re-evaluate his charisma, check out "Gods And Monsters".
Thanks for the recommendation, I haven't seen that film yet and I wasn't aware Frasier was in it.

On the other hand I do have to stand up for Harrison Ford, and I liked "Regarding Henry". It seems to me whenever Ford has tried to play against type the audience just rejects it, like they did originally with "Blade Runner". Deckard is no Han Solo or Indiana Jones, and Ford played him very well. Granted, Harrison has never done a straight comedy but just because Frasier can do action comedies as well as slapstick doesn't mean he's a better actor than Harrison Ford.

The original Mummy is very good, and Frasier fits the bill, I would just not put it in the same category with any Indiana Jones movie, it's too silly.

Ernie Smith's Avatar Ernie Smith 03:49 PM 10-04-2001
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...
KennyG's Avatar KennyG 07:20 PM 10-04-2001
The Mummy was much better...the first time I saw this was in the theater, an hour into it I was watching the clock, and the scorpion king CGI was terrible, as "the Grand Finale" it stunk.
A couple weeks ago a friend was showing it, so I stuck around to see if perhaps I'd have a different take on it the second time...no such luck, I was watching the clock again...Hollywood Garbage!
joekun's Avatar joekun 10:52 PM 10-04-2001
Quote:
"Is this movie a good popcorn movie or a Hollywood piece of crap" I would say both.
Very good point, I can agree with that. I'm glad people enjoy the movie, but I just don't think comparing it to "Raiders" is fair. Brendan Frasier has NONE of the charisma of Harrison Ford OR Indiana Jones.

On the lighter side though, enjoy the movie for what it is, that's cool by me.
Karnis's Avatar Karnis 02:59 PM 10-05-2001
While it is no Citizen Kane, I would agree with the earlier assesment that it is good popcorn Hollywood garbage.
I wonder when the DTS/special edition will come out?!?!?
A month from now? http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/eek.gif

------------------
Wayne Harrelson
Germantown, MD
My Home Theater
My Home Theater Pictures
Custom Resolution Guide for HDTV/HTPC
rudolpht's Avatar rudolpht 11:04 PM 10-05-2001
Because I can only get my wife to so many "epic" pictures, horror, fantasy, sci-fi, etc. I missed the theater presentation of The Mummy, but it was my first play on my Tosh 5109 shortly after introduction. It was entertaining, focused, and generally fun. Sound was great too.

For the sequel I made it to the theater this time but I actually FELL ASLEEP. Maybe it was overlode from an unbelievable pace around Egypt, jet balloons, etc.

The second Indy was a "thrill ride" but it's generally considered the worst of the set.

Did it stop me from buying the DVD, NO!, but it's still on the shelf. At least I'll be in my own home if I fall asleep again.

Tim

Tim


Larry Davis's Avatar Larry Davis 11:35 PM 10-05-2001
I thought The Mummy Returns was a very stupid but enjoyable film. I had a good time, although it was clear that the CGI was underdeveloped in more than a few scenes. I would have given Arnold Vosloo more screen time and written the kid out of the film. But I still enjoyed it.
CINERAMAX's Avatar CINERAMAX 11:47 PM 10-05-2001
You guys are too much... Look at the kid from a different point ... Remember KKK Kevin in Time bandits this is a refreshing reprise. Better him than more Brandon on Screen.

It is a great flick.

It succeeds where every other attempt at non stop has failed. Like JP3.

------------------
Peter Montoulieu
www.XtremeDTV.com
brunsiv's Avatar brunsiv 12:01 AM 10-06-2001
In response to comments made by Chris Williams and Joekun:

Director Condon's film "Gods and Monsters" is a very interesting and very good film that was unfortunately dismissed by the average american filmgoer due to its homosexual content.

I however do think that Fraser is quite good in that film as James Whale's lawn boy. But again- Fraser's character dynamic is completely dependant upon the electricity created by the brilliant Ian McKellan. The film is a great parable of sexual tolerance and such with the Bride of Frankenstein. If you all havent seen it- have an open mind- a very thought provoking piece.


Chris Williams's Avatar Chris Williams 12:23 AM 10-06-2001
Quote:
Originally posted by brunsiv:
In response to comments made by Chris Williams and Joekun:

Director Condon's film "Gods and Monsters" is a very interesting and very good film that was unfortunately dismissed by the average american filmgoer due to its homosexual content.
Well, it was relegated to the "art film" ghetto by movie executives who didn't want to risk promoting a film about a homosexual and annoying the usual homophobes. The average filmgoer didn't get a chance to dismiss it.

Quote:

I however do think that Fraser is quite good in that film as James Whale's lawn boy. But again- Fraser's character dynamic is completely dependant upon the electricity created by the brilliant Ian McKellan.
McKellan is brilliant, agreed. But I can't think of many other young actors who could have been as good in that role as Fraser. The finely balanced edge between his friendship with Whale and the fear of gays ingrained in most men of his age. The role required a hunk with great acting skills, who can convey both menace and tenderness. Not too many hunks with those kind of chops.

Quote:

The film is a great parable of sexual tolerance and such with the Bride of Frankenstein. If you all havent seen it- have an open mind- a very thought provoking piece.
It's one of the two most brilliant explorations of the Frankenstein theme - the other being Mel Brooks's and Gene Wilder's "Young Frankenstein".


brunsiv's Avatar brunsiv 01:22 AM 10-06-2001
In response to the post from Chris Williams-

You are 100% correct about your assessment of the casting of Fraser in "Gods." Using a teeny-bopper icon as a stone mold of a "hunky guy" that on surface is just a pretty face-but Fraser does convey a genuine warmth and emotion from within that proves he CAN act given the correct material and director.

Films like "George" or "Mummy" or even "Blast From the Past" are worth watching for pure enjoyment- but there comes a time when most actors find that one role which allows them to branch off of the cookie cutter film and explore a genuine character piece that challenges not only them- but the audience as well.

I hoped that Fraser would find work after "Gods" that would allow a deeper exploration- but instead we got Mummy 2 and Monkeybone...


brunsiv's Avatar brunsiv 01:29 AM 10-06-2001
Also-

The use of the Frankenstein theme (both in Gods and monsters-and YOung Frankenstein) allows for the philosophical study of acceptance and betrayal. Where does the individual draw the line allowing for diversity within a certain social clique???

As with Young Frankenstein and Gods and Monsters- The text of Shelley's original novel "Frankenstein" obviously shows an early example of a writer using a pulp frame of the "monster genre" to get the average reader to read the book. But the trick is that once Shelley got them reading- she had a bigger, deeper story to tell- that subconciously ingrained itself within the readers mind. Pretty cool stuff...(this would flow better but i am extremely tired while writing this) :-)

"Werewolf?"

"There wolf."
WynsWrld98's Avatar WynsWrld98 01:16 PM 10-06-2001
HOLLYWOOD GARBAGE!! They used way too many special effects that weren't special at all (many looked like something out of a Godzilla movie), gave the movie a cheesy low budget feel. The Rock was a waste, they didn't use him effectively. The kid was annoying. The first Mummy is still an excellent action adventure movie with some great external shots of Egypt but this movie SUCKS.
Glimmer Man's Avatar Glimmer Man 05:16 PM 10-07-2001
I hated this movie when I saw it at the theater for many of the above mentioned reasons, the kid, the story, the Rocks creature, and I thought this was a special effect story to support a lame story...then I found it for rent in widescreen and gave it another chance and I'm glad I did. I had more fun with it the second time, the picture and sound were much better than in the theater presentation. I think I liked it because I knew what to expect and I didn't have high expectations. It coulda/shoulda been better but if it looks good and sounds good I'm a little more forgiving of the story. Pass the popcorn!
marshalk's Avatar marshalk 05:12 PM 10-08-2001
Fun popcorn or hollywood garbage? Well, I say both. Hollywood garbage for sure but fun, with or without popcorn. For me there are two things, films and movies. Citizen Cane is a film, mummy returns is a movie. I kept my expectations low and had fun. I agree that I liked it better at home then at the theater. Bad as many parts were (the kid, the rock, the pygmies) it was still fun enough.

------------------
marshal
Up
Mobile  Desktop