I tend to think of this score as what Goldsmith would have done if he were given Stargate to work on... what do you think? Does anyone detect a hint of The Prince of Egypt? All of the action music on this cd is awesome - the themes are lush and romantic - it's almost a trip back to the excitement of his score to the Alan Quartermain movies.

I bought this cd at Best Buy - and had no problem finding it there. I am very fortunate to have a Best Buy that orders plenty of newly released scores. I think they had 230 copies of The Phantom Menace! About 10 of The Mummy... 1 of Entrapment... 3 of The Matrix (of what I can remember).

Everyone should NOT miss out on this wonderful score. Check it out!

--Crono/Kyp
Writer/Director/Producer

I saw the movie last night, and I can only say "wow!" I thought the only movie I'd see this year that would surpass the Matrix would be TPM, but Mummy completely blew me away. It was incredible!! And Mr. Goldsmith was always right there where he was needed, and always there to enhance what was working. This is perhaps my favorite Goldsmith score of the decade. Unfortunately, I'm broke at the moment and I've been unable to get the CD. Arrgh!

I just saw the movie, and yes - it's INCREDIBLE... AWESOME story line, AWESOME ILM-SFX... and AWESOME score. Overall this is just a great movie. Perhaps we can hope for this to be the first in a line of several "Rick O'Connor" movies?... all scored by Goldsmith? (it would be a great tribute to the Indiana Jones adventure film-trilogy model).

This movie was a hoot. I had so much fun watching this in the theater that I was laughing out loud during the action scenes.

I actually think Goldsmith has done some FAR worse pictures than THE MUMMY, and wonder if his hostility also stems from some kind of falling out with director Stephen Sommers.

Still, THE MUMMY remains one of Goldsmith's very best recent scores, a pleasant throwback to the busy, blustery KING SOLOMON'S MINES style he had largely eschewed in recent years. I read an interview quote to the effect that Goldsmith went into that one KNOWING it wouldn't be a good movie, but it afforded him a chance to write that KIND of score right then. This suggests to me that perhaps he had low expectations for THE MUMMY as a film as well, yet still saw considerable musical opportunity. Perhaps now he feels "been there, done that," and that's why he doesn't want to do the sequel.

No matter what the silly LP liner notes for THE SWARM say, I can't believe Goldsmith EVER thought that was anything resembling a decent picture, but again, offered him enormous musical opportunities, which he fulfilled in spades (the music is the ONLY good thing about that movie). And I think Goldsmith rather dislikes horror movies, yet does them, again, for the artistic challenge. (Not least of which would be making them sound significantly different from each other -- THE MEPHISTO WALTZ, THE OMEN, THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD, THE OTHER, THE FINAL CONFLICT, ALIEN and POLTERGEIST -- not a lot of musical crossover there, despite all being nominally from the same genre.)

Nevertheless, THE MUMMY is a good movie by whatever yardstick you wish to apply....it is likeable, popular and exciting....though of course, certain elements of the pseudo-intelligentsia will dismiss the movie simply because it is 'likeable, popular and exciting'.

THE MUMMY appeals to me because, to my mind, it epitomises all that 'successful' cinema should be......and its popular mass-appeal is proof of that. The movie recaptures the flavour and all-out entertainment value of the adventures that Hollywood and the British Film Industry seemed to effortlessly churn out during the '30s and '40s. Likewise, I loved BASIC INSTINCT because of its old-fashioned noirish sensibilities, and PAYBACK is another recent example of modern cinema affectionately recapturing the essence of simple and fun family cinema, by gaining inspiration from the Hollywood noir classics of the '40s. Movies such as BASIC INSTINCT, CON AIR, GODS AND MONSTERS, JOE'S APARTMENT, SCREAM, HIGH SCHOOL HIGH, THE BOXER, BRIDE OF CHUCKY, REMAINS OF THE DAY, NOTTING HILL, RUSH HOUR, THE PRINCE OF EGYPT, THE ROCK, EXECUTIVE DECISION, ARMAGEDDON, TRAINSPOTTING, BABE: PIG IN THE CITY, LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS, CRIMSON TIDE, HELLRAISER III, EVITA, SHADOWLANDS, RESTORATION, TOY STORY, BREAKDOWN, LITTLE VOICE, THE NUTTY PROFESSOR, AIR FORCE ONE, MEN IN BLACK, FACE/OFF, AS GOOD AS IT GETS, DEEP RISING, THE MASK OF ZORRO, COPLAND, MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING, THE POSTMAN, PAYBACK, THE MUMMY, amongst many others, epitomize modern cinema's sophistication, maturity and 'family appeal'.

Just like the music industry itself, (where Britain continues to be at least on equal footing with the US), contemporary cinema often takes the best elements of the Golden Age of movie-making ('30s through early '50s) and successfully merges them with modern sensibilities and movie-making know-how. By the same token, on the film-scoring front, it is composers like Zimmer and his Media Ventures school who are successfully merging the traditional with the 'cutting-edge' - such movie-making practices appeal to the more demanding child and 'young adult' movie audience, without alienating the majority of the cinema-going public.

Cinema is all about creating the 'right balance', and Hollywood has developed and refined this art to a more proficient degree than at any time since the early '40s.

Only such miopic and dismally conventional filmmakers as Oliver Stone and the recently deceased Stanley Kubrick have tended to slow the advance of moviemaking enlightenment during the past fifteen years or so. Apart from Kubrick's superb PATHS OF GLORY, I am yet to see any movie made by these two filmmakers that manages to better THE SWARM.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
Movies such as [...] CON AIR [...] THE ROCK [...] ARMAGEDDON [...] AIR FORCE ONE [...] amongst many others, epitomize modern cinema's sophistication, maturity and 'family appeal'.

---

You said - "Having problems controlling yourself?"

Oh....sometimes the need arises.

As John Wayne would have said, "It's quiet....too quiet"

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
Once again your contribution to the discussion is about as welcome, appropriate and intelligent as scabies.

---

I know.

You said - ".... The Swarm is a better film than Dr. Strangelove ... The Swarm is a better film than Spartacus..."

That LINK was a wretched film is beyond question. That LINK is the worst film Goldsmith has scored is rather unlikely, since roughly 81.59% of Goldsmith's film-composing has been for mediocre (or worse) movies.

You said - "....like me, enjoy making fun of movies that are so bad they are funny....."

You must have enjoyed FIRST KNIGHT then.

You also said - ""The Mummy" was pathetic... I am baffled at how it reached such success, however it isn't as bad as Sommer's "Deep Rising""

I notice you rate Goldsmith's FIRST KNIGHT five stars.

You said - "Swarm vs. Spartacus. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate."

Actually, these two movies share many similarities. They are both overlong, they both contain some exceedingly banal dialogue (a common trait of Kubrick movies), both have all-star casts which have seen better days (although a number of the British cast-members of SPARTACUS, especially Olivier, Ustinov, Simmons and Laughton, extract a little mileage out of the lifeless proceedings), and both movies are dramatically weak.

Whilst SPARTACUS is merely a dull and pedestrian historical epic that becomes increasingly listless with each passing year, THE SWARM has become a 'camp classic', thanks to its memorably silly-scripting, amateurish performances and ludicrous storyline. Many cinema historians are now convinced that Allen intended to make THE SWARM into a lampoon, but in the end the movie was marketed badly as a 'serious' entertainment. I don't fully concur with this, although there are many 'comic' moments during THE SWARM that were largely absent from Allen's dull and inferior TOWERING INFERNO and POSEIDON ADVENTURE. During THE SWARM, the local cinema is showing THE TOWERING INFERNO - a nice little touch.

The aims of SPARTACUS were never in doubt; the po-faced, misguided and facile moviemaking style of Stanley Kubrick could not have created anything other than a dismal cinematic endurance test that almost outdoes an Ernest Angley sermon or CLEOPATRA for unrelenting tedium.

THE SWARM is actually a far better film than most critics give it credit for, and you will often find that the first people to dismiss this movie haven't even seen it, and merely rely on its unjustly poor reputation. THE SWARM is a very enjoyable movie, mainly as a 'camp classic', because no matter how risible the dialogue or fatuous the scenario, the actors manage to keep straight faces - and THE SWARM is great for the kiddies.

With SPARTACUS however, the dullness of the proceedings mixed the solemnity of the acting somehow injects the audience with creeping paralysis.

THE SWARM is blessed with some exceedingly poor special effects, worse than those seen in 1998's STAR TREK: INSURRECTION. The shoddiness of the effects and the frequent slow-motion scenes add immeasurably to the entertainment value, and the geriatric love-triangle involving de Havilland, Johnson and MacMurray is worthy of a soap opera like Crossroads.

Both THE SWARM and SPARTACUS get *1/2 out of five, but THE SWARM just shades it, in my opinion.

THE SWARM is a good 'bad' film - the kind of movie you're supposed to hate.

SPARTACUS is a bad 'good' film - the kind of movie you're supposed to respect.

SPARTACUS is one of those movies that has received almost universal admiration, without really deserving it. Much of SPARTACUS succeeds on a basic technical level, great photography, exciting battle scenes, and a straightforward penny-dreadful plot worthy of a Barabara Cartland novel.

However, as the story progresses, the emotions are tugged in an all-too-obvious way, leaving one with the impression that the characters are merely responding to the script, rather than being self-motivated (another common and glaring fault of Kubrick's movies).

Where SPARTACUS falls flat on its face, is in the turgid political shenanigans, which although provide slight interest in themselves, tend to deflate the overall effectiveness of the movie. To be honest, there was simply too much detail plastered into the melodramatic cracks of the movie. Even those with an above average IQ and attention to detail could hardly register even 80% of the movie's sub-plot relevance, leading to a requirement to see the movie a second or third time to fully appreciate some of the intricacies, many of which turn out to be largely irrelevant anyway.

Only usually having a desire to see any movie once, I'm afraid that I am of the school that a movie should succeed fully (or at least to 90% of its capacity to entertain) on the first viewing, thus further viewings of the movie should be born out of a desire to simply re-live the experience rather than 'fill-in-the-holes'. I believe the same is true of film music. To a certain degree, the simpler the music, the more successful it is as film music. In other words, the music must be accessible to the majority of the cinema audience on the first viewing of the movie to be at all effective as a musical companion to the movie's narrative, emotion and agenda. And most composers do create film music that is simple enough. Hence, my belief that, owing to its simplistic, disjointed and necessarily derivative nature, film music usually makes for a wretchedly unfulfilling experience away from the movie; indeed, if a soundtrack album does somehow make a satisfactory stand-alone listen, it won't necessarily make good film music.

Anyway, back to SPARTACUS. Having waded through three hours of cinema that alternates between spectacular eye-candy and derivative melodrama, the movie's ending is a complete shambles. Every opportunity is missed to pack the expected emotional wallop. Another important point to remember, is how much (or how little) Kubrick was actually involved with this film. He arrived on the set with shooting already underway, and all of the pre-production preparations made. Kubrick's lack of involvement with the 1991 restoration perhaps indicates the contempt he had for this movie. I should point out that although SPARTACUS is very ordinary in my opinion, it is better than all of Kubrick's subsequent dire movie-offerings put together - and all this after he showed such promise with the brilliant PATHS OF GLORY.

I guess I'm not a fan of 'worthy epics', which is why I preferred the immeasurably more entertaining BRAVEHEART because of its 'cartoon', fun and simplistic qualities. Whereas BRAVEHEART instilled an omnipresent sense of humour, SPARTACUS was a monumentally humourless production, save for Ustinov and Laughton' s amusing conversations.

The one area in which SPARTACUS does triumph over THE SWARM is the music. North's useful (for him) score comfortably surpasses Goldsmith's ordinary work on THE SWARM.

Yeah I know: As welcome, appropriate and intelligent as scabies.

You said - "Yeah I know: As welcome, appropriate and intelligent as scabies."

Ha, ha. No, your latest comments are much more relevant and interesting. This time your contribution to the discussion is about as welcome, appropriate and intelligent as acne - much more welcome than scabies.

You said - "Why bother with the horribly banal dialouge of 2001 when whe have literary masterpieces like Armageddon, Con Air, The Rock etc."

Whilst I would agree that the dialogue found in 2001 is horribly banal, I would not describe the scripting of ARMAGEDDON, CON AIR, THE ROCK or AIR FORCE ONE as 'litererary masterpieces', merely as adequate scripting that still manages to be infinitely superior to that of 2001, or any other Kubrick non-event.

2001 merely provided an empty canvas onto which egg-headed visionaries could dribble their own meaningless gibberish.

It's good to see a more realistic criticism of Kubrick's work becoming apparent these days. Nothing has dated more than Kubrick's approach to making movies…..witness the hopelessly outmoded, boring and lame EYES WIDE SHUT. The re-release of that old chestnut A CLOCKWORK ORANGE has ignited a wave of ridicule here in Britain. One critic had this to say……"Because of its unavailability for so long, a lot of people will be curious to see the film, but its view of the future now looks comically dated. Kubrick allows his actors to indulge in melodramatic mugging and cartoonish caricature. In fact, most of it is poorly acted, and Kubrick's exploitation of Burgess's material is juvenile and voyeuristic. On seeing this movie thirty years on, it is amusing to ponder the conceit of Kubrick, who is alleged to have withheld release of this film in Britain for fear of inciting copy-cat violence…..ha, ha, ha"….. that's one of the more favourable reviews.

As with Stone's snicker-inducing and lamentable NATURAL BORN KILLERS…..today's cinema audiences know when film makers are making an effort to manipulate them. NATURAL BORN KILLERS' apparent notoriety was born out of media-hype…..the movie itself is inoffensive and far LESS violent than many other often superior '90s movies that have received far less attention. As far as the so-called 'copy-cat' killings that this movie allegedly 'inspired'…..well, if that is the case, it only goes to show just how much this movie failed in its satirical aims. For all of its farcical attempts to shock….surely the point of the movie was to comment on the perceived cynical nature of today's society…..in this it failed miserably…..not least because such a view of society is fundamentally flawed to start with. Fortunately, this sort of preaching, politically correct and obvious 'message' movie is gradually dying a death…..film-makers are beginning to realize that all they are doing is making MOVIES……how can ANYONE take a MOVIE seriously? Especially if that movie, be it A CLOCKWORK ORANGE or NATURAL BORN KILLERS, is so laughable…..and completely divorced from reality anyway.

You see, NATURAL BORN KILLERS can't have it both ways. It is a supposed, and woefully unsuccessful, satire of today's society….and attempts to poke fun at the voyeuristic panderings of the media….the purveyors of sleaze…..a fair observation in itself. However…..at the end of the day…..that's all NATURAL BORN KILLERS itself is doing…..trying to shock and titillate the audience…..because it isn't clever enough as satire…..thus, the movie shoots itself in the foot.

Movies like NATURAL BORN KILLERS merely highlights just how out of touch much of the media, and some film-makers, are with society's maturing sensibilities.
What can one say about Oliver Stone? Well, I can best indicate my appreciation of this misguided big-head's work, by registering 1981's THE HAND, as my favourite Stone movie to date.

Certainly, NATURAL BORN KILLERS is second only to LAST OF THE MOHICANS as an effective cinematic soporific……and, of ALL of the other films I have ever watched, only MARS ATTACKS! has failed so pitifully in its APPARENT intentions. MARS ATTACKS! failed completely in its attempts to spoof the sci-fi movies of the '50s….it was stunningly inept. To the same absurdly exaggerated degree NATURAL BORN KILLERS failed in its witless attempts to satirise the media and society…..it was hilariously contrived and politically-correct, and now serves as the benchmark of contemporary conformity.

It would be easy to dismiss film-makers such as Oliver Stone and Stanley Kubrick as IDIOTS….but patently they are not. Film-makers like Stone and Kubrick….obviously endowed with at least a modicum of talent……..when producing such movies as NATURAL BORN KILLERS or A CLOCKWORK ORANGE are merely taking advantage of the tolerant and comfortable society that THEY live in and that 'The West' now enjoys. All this 'rebellious' mumbo-jumbo, this anti-establishment bent, this attempt at 'coolness', this "satire" on current society is CHEAP point-scoring…..it's easy to shock (some people)…..but to make a movie that actually POSITIVELY uplifts is the more difficult task (like AS GOOD AS IT GETS)…..I'd love to see the likes of Stone or Kubrick try. What do these film makers want?

Are they hankering after some kind of communist regime, complete anarchy, or a fascist state? No…of course they're not…..under such circumstances they wouldn't be ALLOWED or able to make their precious little films…..the sort of movies that appeal to all of those hairy pseudo-intellectuals and fashionable "rebels"…..you know, the sort of people who don't know the meaning of the word hunger, hardship, and state oppression. Film makers like Stone and Kubrick have got their 'fame' the EASY way…..let's see them make a film that BENEFITS society (if such a film is possible), rather than attempting (unsuccessfully) to 'pull it to bits'.

This is the paradox……society is SO comfortable these days, relatively speaking……that people like Oliver Stone have time to 'contemplate their navel', to analyse the hypocritical nature of human nature. In my youth….we didn't have time for such things…..we just got on with life…..we were more worried about getting food on the table and coal in the hearth…..and you know what, we appreciated the little things in life a lot more. The post-war austerity measures, that lasted well into the 1950's here in Britain, meant we often slept with empty stomachs. Don't get me wrong…..I am very pleased that society has progressed as it has done to this day…especially having endured the hardships of the mid-twentieth century myself….that's why I see movies like A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and NATURAL BORN KILLERS for what they are……shallow attempts at audience manipulation. The sad fact is, these movies have succeeded in their UNSPOKEN aims (audience manipulation)……at least in the eras in which they were released. 1994 was only seven years ago…..but fortunately society HAS matured in leaps and bounds since then, and most people TODAY view such movies as NATURAL BORN KILLERS with a wry smile….and an attitude of…..'Mr Stone and Mr Kubrick……you can't fool me.'

If they were GOOD films I wouldn't have any complaints about them. But any success these movies have enjoyed has been based primarily on their notoriety…..not their dismal attempts at satire and social comment. You know how some like to brag…..'I've seen NATURAL BORN KILLERS…..cool movie!'…..well, these people are lemmings.

At least Kubrick's repertoire DOES contain a small number of examples of fine movie-making….and most of his projects have some element of interest…..but on the whole this man's contribution to cinema has been resoundingly dull. That's Kubrick for you……a reasonably skilled craftsman handicapped by his myopic world-view.

The only Kubrick movie that is a true overall cinematic success (in other words a plain good film), in my opinion, is PATHS OF GLORY….a magnificent all-round cinematic experience. SPARTACUS was okay….but any one of fifty average directors could have accomplished this. LOLITA….was a waste of time….pointless and style-less. DR STRANGELOVE was tedious and boring. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is a weak embarrassment, with about as much subtlety, intelligence and flare as a rabid, consumptive, flatulent, and blindfolded hippopotamus with toothache, gallstones, peptic ulcers and an ingrowing toenail staggering through a performance of King Lear. BARRY LYNDON had about as much emotion and spontaneity as a fossilized tree stump. THE SHINING was another complete waste of time…..the movie seemed to go on for days….nice atmosphere, shame about the plot, performances, script, Scatman Crothers and everything else though. FULL METAL JACKET was a textbook piece of Kubrick hollowness. This movie had many of the same qualities as a mirage, except FULL METAL JACKET was less substantial….this was one mirage that everyone was glad to see vanish at the end of two hours. And EYES WIDE SHUT, the pinnacle of crass filmmaking…..a movie as painfully boring as placing your hand in a weak vat of acid and watching your flesh gradually dissolve.

Kubrick's career has seen a promising beginning followed by a gradual diminution, well more like a plummet, of ability and judgement……of Wellesian proportions.
It seems to me, film-makers like Stone and Kubrick may once have appealed to the 'herd'….but as I have said before, today's society appears to have outgrown such risible attempts at manipulation.