Mummy Returns

[mr procter]

Just watched the region 1 version.

this Film is non stop action from the start,
I must admit, I was really entertained by this action fest.

the picture and sound are both pretty good, although not up with the very best.

I know lots of people hated this movie,

not me,

I like these sci fi action movies.

[JohnMac]

I agree. I enjoyed the film for what it was: a great piece of entertainment on a decent DVD as well. I posted a review (http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20039) of the DVD a while ago.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Yeah, sometimes you have to let yourself go. It's completely ridiculous, but it's emmensely good fun. I just wish they'd left out all those corny "Just like last time"/"What are you doing here?"/"You???"/"Here come the bad guys" lines.

[Tony Keats]

The following point is a sweeping generalisation, but I still think it's a valid one:- Critics and discerning viewers didn't slate the film on the grounds that it was silly (or brainless), they were just disappointed by the ham-fisted plotting/unfunny one-liners (not to mention the ever-present hit & miss special effects).

Most of the negative stuff I read intrigued me greaty, simply because those same reviewers had praised the first film unreservedly. I liked the previous film myself and thought it was a fairly endearing, well-paced popcorn movie.

Mummy Returns isn't anything like as enjoyable though and it has some very questionable plot-points too:-
Didn't anybody else resent the Highlander 2esque overtones of the "past lives" nonesense?. In the Lambert sequel, they suddenly decided that he came from another planet (although they failed to mention this in the original!). Similarly here, it suits there story to have Weisz be a descendant of the Egyptian ruler and Fraser be a protector "sent by God". Was there really any need for this distractingly far-fetched development?. Also, they killed Weisz off in a temporarily bold move, but she was casually resurrected later-on and presumably they're all immortal now they've realised how to perform that particular act?!.

The "blanket" complaint of most critics (and some forum members) is that the movie never pauses for breath. I'm not sure about that myself though and I think it's more a case of not utilising the (admittedly brief) pauses properly. The action does stop every so often, but they don't attempt to fill these gaps with anything substantial or with anything that contrasts effectively with the rest of the film.

It's not unwatchable or anything, but they certainly botched-up the formula this time around. It's helplessly overloaded with half-explained perils and consistently blunt dialogue (especially when compared to the likeable previous film). Watching the two Mummy movies back to back would be a great way of demonstrating that sometimes "less is more".

[Steve1977]

Had someone told me the story and how it panned out before the movie then I wouldnt have seen it. Infact it would go in my list of #films which are so stupid i aint gonna see!
Past lives? what the hell?? lol
But then you watch it and what a film, what a ride. I saw this on a Bank Holiday, the perfect time to watch it. I felt good cause of no work and wanted to watch a very loud brainless effects spectacle and boy what a spectacle it was.
This film was funnier than the first film, I was laughing in the cinema along with everyone else and a great time was had by all. Sure people can knock the story etc... but this film isnt mean to be anyalized, its meant to be enjoyed. It succeeded in this part. :)

[Mr M0by]

Originally posted by Tony Keats
The following point is a sweeping generalisation, but I still think it's a valid one:- Critics and discerning viewers didn't slate the film on the grounds that it was silly (or brainless), they were just disappointed by the ham-fisted plotting/unfunny one-liners (not to mention the ever-present hit & miss special effects).

It's helplessly overloaded with half-explained perils and consistently blunt dialogue (especially when compared to the likeable previous film). Watching the two Mummy movies back to back would be a great way of demonstrating that sometimes "less is more".

Ditto. I really found this painful to watch.

[DamienB]

Yeah, personally I preferred the first one, being a bit nastier all-round.

But having received the R4 release today and given the first 5 minutes a watching with both Dolby and DTS sound, I'm amazed by the superiority of the DTS track - it's a *lot* louder for a start, and has much more subwoofer use, with more noises from the swords and shields used in the initial battle being audible too.

Very surprised about this as the review on www.michaeldvd.com.au said the DTS track was only marginally superior! Highly recommended to show off a DTS system if nothing else!

[Tyler]

Well,
Having loved the original, I was looking forward to seeing the sequel but I listened to the bad reviews, it received and didnt go to see it at the cinema but bought the dvd and watched it over the weekend - twice. I loved it. I have to agree the story is quite unbelieveable (what Mummy film isnt) but it was really enjoyable. It took me awhile to get into it as I think with every sequel but what a rollercoaster ride it was. I have to say the Rock in the end was really stupid and pointless but other than that I loved it.
I loved the pace, the corny one liners and the not very subtle references to the orignal. Sound was great and I wasnt too bothered with all the cgi except as I said the Rock bit at the end.

Great Saturday night entertainment.

Tyler

[Kit_Taylor]

TMR could only work at the cinema. It's simple non stop violence and extremely loud noise (my ears were ringing after I saw it) once watch fun, and I just can't imagine it having the same punch on the small screen.

[yaffle]

But on the plus side, it has our wedding car in it!

[Michael Mackenzie]

I still think the second one is better than the first. Although it's quite clearly a cash-cow (despite what everyone involved would have you think), it's more entertaining and in the end just more rewarding. I didn't like the "feel" of the first one as much. It was still a good thing in its own right, but I think they really stepped up the mark with the sequel.

A third one would be dire though.

[Tony Keats]

I can kind of understand why people would enjoy Mummy Returns (despite its flaws). I honestly can't grasp why anyone would prefer it to the first one though and the differences between the two are easily spotted.

Obviously they're thematically similar (and both far-fetched), but the second instalment is deeply uninvolving and only works on a completely mindless level. The main aim (or only aim?!) was to be:- more expensive/faster/louder/bigger etc. That speaks volumes about the mindset of those involved and it's a shame they didn't try for:- more likeable/better dialogue/good characterisation etc etc etc.

The requisite blend of attributes that make a film palatable (including blockbusters) were recklessly ignored and some superficial "Look at THIS!" visuals were used to plug all the gaps. Even those that say they were entertained by the film noticed the various problems, so the filmmakers shallow approach wasn't successful in anyone's eyes (although some easily-pleased viewers are prepared to overlook the dodgy content altogether). Sommers & co failed IMO because they lavished all their attention on the "garnish" and left the meal un-cooked.

I only bring all of this up because if we just accept these half-assed blockbusters (with the "Oh it was alright really, stupid characters & story, but I cranked up my amp and put my brain in a jar for an hour or two" mentality) then hollywood will assume that their insultingly dumb formula is perfectly acceptable and they'll be happy to churn-out yet more thought-free illogical rubbish.

Lots of other films have demonstrated that we can be thoroughly entertained without the gripes and reservations, so why should Stephen Sommers get off so lightly?. With the recent big-budget crop consisting of Tomb Raider, Planet of the Apes AND Mummy Returns, it's fair to say that the art of storytelling is being completely ignored by blockbusting fare these days.
(Phew! Please excuse the overly lengthy nature of this comment... I just couldn't seem to stop myself once I got started!)

[Arch Stanton]

Oh... I hate, hate, hated The Mummy Returns. I'm not ashamed of that fact, so if you feel you must get your "you critics suck because you only like stuffy flicks" e-mails ready, then fire away my friends. But I will say that I already disagree with your defense of this film. And I think I have room to, because I usually love crap flicks. But I love crap flicks that actually make sense. This film has no integrity whatsoever. It's silly, it doesn't follow the "mythology" set up in the first film and it creates relationships that make no sense at all. It's dumb. It's stupid. And it's on DVD, so rejoice all you Mummy fans.


That was from The digital bits (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews2/mummyreturns.html) review of Mummy Returns and it pretty much sums up how i feel about it.

They they don't even mention the ropey effects.

[Michael Mackenzie]

I'm just not following. I fail to see on what count it is inferior to the first one. Yes, okay, so it is mindless. But was the first one really any different?

[Arch Stanton]

I'm just not following. I fail to see on what count it is inferior to the first one. Yes, okay, so it is mindless. But was the first one really any different?


To quote the 'Tap' there's a thin line between clever and stupid.

In the first film you do at least get some reason for all the mayhem and there's some script to actually make you care about the charecters no matter how cliched they are.


The sequel was like it was written by an hyper active 12 year old on speed who could go longer than 30 seconds with out seeing 300 pigmy mummys flying at the screen!



Example of bad scriptin in The Mummy Return's No: 125245. Kid wants to escape train. Pretends to hide in toilet. Pulls emergancy stop cable as the train drives through desert. Kid then legs it through a hole in the floor. But by pure chance the train has stoped just outside the temple they were going to any way. And just how many secrect temples have there own train station any way?

[Tony Keats]

Originally posted by Whiggles
I'm just not following. I fail to see on what count it is inferior to the first one. Yes, okay, so it is mindless. But was the first one really any different?

It was profoundly different!. In all fairness to the recent sequel, it does look more expensive and is a "technical" improvement over the first one (in places). It's probably more action-packed aswell and arguably more exciting (in a purely visual sense though). Beyond that (and I'd dispute both!) the original is massively superior in every other department! (all of those departments are considerably more important too IMO).

The characters are very weakly drawn in the second movie and everybodys dialogue is interchangable. The story is a convoluted array of bits & bobs that are explained sparingly (with no conviction). The unwanted (and puzzling) additions to the mythology (see spoiler of my first post) were an arrogant idea, badly implemented. The pacing was breathless and brainless, so the occasional lag in the action was filled with MORE self-aware dialogue and unfunny droll observations (and not story/character development). It even fails in a "technical" sense later on with the hilariously inadequate Scorpion-King.

Now, that sounds like a particularly damning list (and it should do!). That's not really the point though, the point is that The Mummy didn't suffer from any of the above problems. It needed to be cut slack in terms of believability, but that's to be expected in this genre. The pace was very well-judged and there were some conveniently placed exposition pieces that still propelled the tale along (while explaining the pending jeopardy and clearly defining all the participants).

The effects were consistent and succesfully intergrated into proceedings (but never swamped things). The movie has a discernible beginning, middle and end too, never drifting into bizzaro-nonesense like the recent offering (I could go on forever!).

Anyway, that's the general gist of it....

[Ben Martin]

Originally posted by Tony Keats
but the second instalment is deeply uninvolving and only works on a completely mindless level

surely not intended to imply that the first one was any better in these departments?! i don't recall it being a cinematic-tour-de-force of any kind. fair enough if people like these movies, that's great, i know you're not trying to force those of us who hate them to watch them. but presenting them even as quality films of their type i personally find to be stretching the truth.

i actually thought the sequel was better than the first one, although imho we're talking shades of ****** here! i despised the first one for many reasons, not least the fact that so often did the script not seem to know where it was going next i was becoming convinced that there was no script. i envisioned the crew standing around asking each other "what did 'raiders' do at this point?" and then not even managing to plagiarise successfully.

yet the second film was almost constantly 'entertaining', though for me not in the ways intended. the sheer lunacy of some of the characters and dialogue was priceless. first example: a englishman of black origin in egypt in 1936?! not too sure about that, especially as he had a 'london' accent and was called 'Izzy'. next up: the exchange where o'connell persuades 'izzy' to fly them (and what a joke that contraption is!) to wherever it is they're going. he offers that gold thing as payment and izzy says: "for that you can shave my head, wax my legs and use me as a surfboard"!! oh, you mean that same 'surfing' that will be invented on the west coast of the states in about 25 years time?! :D :D ROFL!!

i guess my general point is that i find it amusing the way people are arguing "the first one's better!" ... "no, you're wrong! the second one is far superior!"... when the truth is that they are both cr*p! :D

[just joking 'mummy'-fans! ... no need to flame me now!]

[Welshlad]

Watched this last night and absolutely loved it! Every bit as good as the first, if not better!
Superb film on a wonderful DVD...Looked and sounded magnificent, and not even had a chance to check out all the extras yet...Top Stuff!