Ramblings about The Mummy....

Posted by MK from adsl-63-194-18-73.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net on December 29, 2000 at 00:09:27:

The first time I saw the Mummy, I was watched it being very familair with the 1932 version starring Karloff. Nobody is going to make a better Mummy then the original. About half way through the viewing I realized this is more of a Raiders movie then a Mummy movie. In the end I my opinion was it was just ok. I just viewed it again in that context and I have to say it is a cool flick. Great characters, rich cinematography, a good score, great locations......It really is good. The only thing I wish would have been omitted from the Mummy was all the obvious CGI (computer generated imagery). CGI is good for back grounds and matt paintings, but it falls far short of creating believable, organic, tangible characters. My eye tells me it's fake. that takes out of the movie. Suspended disbelive works in Raiders (except the melting heads perhaps). I don't believe the mummy or the bugs. It looks like a good Nintindo game. The rest of the movie is really good. I could do with less of the evil magic stuff. That's one of the reasons I don't like Temple of Doom.

I am glad I gave The Mummy a second chance. There are so few cool adventure movies. Now I looking forward to The Mummy II. OK...I am done rambling now.

Follow Ups:

About the Mummy II Indy Coil 00:37:29 12/29/2000 (9)
- Something else about the Mummy sequel... Austin Powers 03:27:52 12/29/2000 (2)
  - I agree, except on one point.... MK 12:23:05 12/29/2000 (1)
    - I was comparing the movies. The Mummy was like an Indy MOVIE on steroids. (nm) Austin Powers 20:51:36 12/29/2000 (0)
- I agree Kent Allard 02:12:46 12/29/2000 (5)
  - What ever happened to the good ol' days where child actors had personalities? IE Short Round and the Goonies kids. (nm) Austin Powers 02:41:49 12/29/2000 (4)
    - Oh Man! MK 12:25:13 12/29/2000 (3)
      - Why, is this a geritol crowd? (nm) Austin Powers 20:52:56 12/29/2000 (2)
        
        No harm intended..... MK 14:53:51 12/30/2000 (1)
        
        I hear that... Austin Powers 22:27:44 12/30/2000 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: The first time I saw the Mummy, I was watched it being very familair with the 1932 version starring Karloff. Nobody is going to make a better Mummy then the original. About half way through the viewing I realized this is more of a Raiders movie then a Mummy movie. In the end I my opinion was it was just ok. I just viewed it again in that context and I have to say it is a cool flick. Great characters, rich cinematography, a good score, great locations......It really is good. The only thing I wish would have been omitted from the Mummy was all the obvious CGI (computer generated imagery). CGI is good for back grounds and matt paintings, but it falls far short of creating believable, organic, tangible characters. My eye tells me it's fake. that takes out of the movie. Suspended disbelive works in Raiders (except the melting heads perhaps). I don't believe the mummy or the bugs. It looks like a good Nintindo game. The rest of the movie is really good. I could do with less of the evil magic stuff. That's one of the reasons I don't like Temple of Doom.

: I am glad I gave The Mummy a second chance. There are so few cool adventure movies. Now I looking forward to The Mummy II. OK...I am done rambling now.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]