Shawnkara, you hit the nail on the head-- "Not to be missed!" NM

[ Reply ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Thefumegator from Adialup84.slkc.uswest.net on May 06, 2001 at 11:28:56:

In Reply to: "The Mummy Returns": not really a review of the film, but a review of the reviews posted by Shawnkara on May 06, 2001 at 00:29:22:

: So far the forum members that have seen the film have given it favorable marks, however I've seen a few remarks that seem to come up rather often; 'weaker story than the first one', 'rehash', 'Indy rip-off', 'shallow performances' to name a few. I was going to say that this was a far superior film but had to reconsider once I sat back and saw the big picture. You can't compare the two films in this way. I think some of the people that have labeled the film with the above remarks should sit back for a moment, as well. Did everyone else miss the fact that the story seems to be playing out epic-style, leading to something bigger? If you look closely many of the sub-plots tie directly into those of the first film; The fact that Evie's Mother was Egyptian stands out most of all for me. Rick wore his leather gauntlet through out the first film, never removing it. We know now that it concealed a very realevant tattoo. Although in the prison scenes of the first film I don't recall seeing the tattoo, which I'll have to say is one of the 'plot holes' Austin was talking about. I was honestly expecting a '2 1/2 stars-out-of-4, bland, shoot-'em-up', as this was what I was led to expect. But I was very surprised. They've done things with this story and expanded upon the characters in ways that I was not expecting, and I think the story is far from over. I was pleased to see nearly the entire cast return to provide a level of continuity and progressive story telling that is almost always missing from sequels. There is even a key scene from the first film re-enacted, showing it from a different perspective that you'd never have imagined seeing. The only key character missing (but for obvious reasons) was Benni. But the value of the comic relief provided by Benni was not overlooked, as he was aptly replaced by Izzy. I feel that this film challenges fans in the same way that 'Temple of Doom' and 'Empire Strikes Back' did by showing the characters in a different light rather than just repeating what has already been done. Again, it's plain to me that this is not just a rushed sequel to a surprise hit, but a more elaborate tale that has only begun to unfold. It was great to see that Rick and Evie are still together and, though their lives progressed beyond 'aimless wanderer meets naive girl', they have not lost their spirit of adventure. I enjoy seeing characters progress and evolve. It adds a very necessary level of realism; the feeling that you can watch them on the screen and.... 'remember when', so to speak. It gives you the sense that they are real people that you've known for a while and just lost touch with between 'films', if you know what I mean. I hate to say it (REALLY... hate), but not even the Indy films have given us this. Aside from the reccurrence of the Nazis and that 'Ark of the covenant' gag in the knight's tomb in 'Crusade' there is not one link or aire of continuity between any of the three. The return of 'Star Wars' seems to have re-inspired the epic approach to storytelling; the forth-coming Toilken (sp?) films, 'The Matrix' the 'Scream' films and now (I think) 'The Mummy'. Don't let ANY amount of bad reviews sway you from this film! 'The Mummy Returns' is NOT TO BE MISSED!!




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:  


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