Hollywood writers have become lazy. It seems that film makers are more concerned with blowing things up and creating the next best thing in special effects than they are with producing a good story.

Lancelot, you are a student of mythology. You should know that the resurection motif is one of the most powerful and meaningful motifs in mythology. The person doing the resurection (if they are on the side of good) usually must make some supreme sacrifice or go through some sort of psychic anguish to accomplish the deed. It's not just some kid reading from a book.

I went to "The Mummy Returns" because I liked the way the characters in "The Mummy" were developed. Evie went from being a clumsy bookish nerd to an adventuress. O'Conner's seeming rouge turned into a hero. Even Evie's brother jerked himself out of his alcoholic fog to provide a key incantation during the climax.

It wasn't a lot, but there was something. The Mummy Returns had no character development at all, even though it introduced us to two interesting ones, the one played by Patricia Velasquez and the other one being the boy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
Great. Now stop griping. You pay as much for a fantastic movie as you do for crappy movie. I guess you don't always get what you pay for...but isn't it great when you do?

---

quote:

---

You don't really mean "you've seen it before"--what you imply is: "you've seen other movies similar, and based on those pre-existing formulas, you can predict the end."

---

quote:

---

Well, swell. Got a disappointment for you, 99% of movies are like that, once you understand the formulas.

---

quote:

---

I think that many are a little disenchanted with the usage of digitally enhanced effects--it's sort of like looking at one of those 3-D pictures. Once you see it, you know what to look for, what to expect. Well, guess what--get used to it. You're not going to see any less of those.

---

quote:

---

You don't want digital effects, grab a ticket to your local playhouse. (Usually more than movie tickets cost.) Hopefully, there, you'll find substance, story, dialogue, and maybe something you've never "seen before".

---

Being part of this message board, perhaps the unpopular part, I've learned that no force on Earth will quite make anyone like anything except--perhaps (and only perhaps)--time. So, when I write, I'm rarely trying to convince anyone--maybe I'm writing for my own benefit, just so the thoughts solidify themselves, or at least begin some kind of process of solidifying....and I can say "Good or bad, I offered an opinion."

Being a writer, I know that the writers aren't lazy. (Uninspired, sometimes, but that's not my point, either.) A movie that bills itself as an action-adventure movie can't always be character development. The characters have pretty well developed themselves (and, after all, we've "seen it before", right? We know that the good guys and the bad guys, and how they're supposed to act....I admit that I too, was left wondering about the ressurected princesses, and how that was a whole new story in itself--it could be a whole other "prequel", of sorts. Most of it was left in mystery. (Why did the Imhotep recognize Evelyn in the first movie as his love?) At any rate, there needs to be a bit of action--the bus chase was fine. Perhaps the producers were pressuring a bit for that, too. Another pitfall. Something like this doesn't suffer nearly as many pitfalls as the rapidly-produced teeny-bopper horror movies that get churned out. (There was never so much character development, I think, as when the "evil princess" makes that crucial decision at the end, and you see the reaction on Imhotep's face...Amazing!)

Anyways...

The (obvious) basis of the whole "Mummy" story is about Ressurections. Reading from a book is how they ressurected Imhotep in the first movie, right? Wasn't a big deal, wasn't an elaborate ritual--just reading from a book. (Aloud, albeit...if that makes a difference, which apparently it does. Besides, if reading from a book resurrects a 3000 years dead mummy, how difficult would it be to resurrect a 3 minute dead heroine...)

(Note: think about the last words of Imhotep in the first movie.)

"Ressurections" aren't necessarily about anguish and sacrifice, either. Sometimes it's just about realization. (Sometimes Death isn't literal death. It's just a state of denial.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by wistiti:

If only there were more of those...
Wasn't there a time in Hollywood where every movie tried to be original?

---

No, never. Everything's been written before.

quote:

---

Now let's see, how many good Hollywood movies have I seen in the past 12 months? Oh... just about 2!!!!! No wonder these days I prefer spending entertainment money on CDs rather than in theatres.

---

Only two? How sad.

quote:

---

Oh, believe me, if it was just predicting the end I would be happy. But when I can predict the dialogue of most scenes, and when I know what will happen 30 minutes before it does happen, from beginning to end, and all because I've seen it before, then it really becomes annoying.

---

Again, how sad. Maybe you should think about marketing that talent.

quote:

---

I don't expect an original ending from Hollywood. But to an extent I still expect to see something I have not seen before, something I did not know was coming.

---

I refer you back to my original answer which is you're not gonna see it.

quote:

---

Which is why I prefer non-Hollywood movies. Most of them tend to at least try to change the formula. Most of them are not predictable from beginning to end.

---

Then what are you griping about a Hollywood movie for, when your response IS going to be predictable??

quote:

---

I don't mind digital effects. As long as the effects and the story complement one another.
Haven't seen many of those lately.

---

Yeah, Merchant-Ivory tends to under do it, in the digital domain.

quote:

---

Good suggestion. Thanks.

---

Good--take it.

I guess I could have just said it wasn't as good as the first one and left it at that. But I wanted to explain why I didn't like it. And I offered some constructive criticism on what I would do to improve it.

I guess Lucas has just spoiled me on sequels and action-adventure movies. I have seen what CAN be done and wonder why no one else makes the effort to do it.

On the resurrection motif: In the first one you may remember that Evie had to have confidence in herself in order to conduct the incantation. Also, her brother, who wasn't any help at all during most of the movie, provided a key translation, despite his own predicament. The second movie would have been better if the boy had to "get over" something to do the incantation.

Character development isn't rocket science. You don't have to be Merchant/Ivory or Shakespear. A couple of lines of dialog, a look or maybe a tear is all it takes in some cases -- and certainly all that you would want in an action-adventure. The exchange beween Im-Hotep and the evil princess *was* good. I wish there had been more of that kind of thing.

The bottom line is that I didn't really care about the characters as people in this movie. They weren't characters, but characitures.

Why the hell am I going on about this...? I don't know--it's something, for the time being. I think it's a cop out to say "No good movies are made anymore." I think they're made all the time, but everyone wants to be a critic. Well, what's more important? Making the movie, or criticizing it for being made? There are MUCH worse attempts out there than "The Mummy Returns". My general approach to movies it finding a reason to like it (which is hard, certainly), but finding a reason not to like anything is plenty easy. Taking joy in nothing? What's the fun in that? It's the guy who laughs at the nerdy kid when the kid trips over his own shoelaces.

Np:The Mummy Returns

As for the film, hmmm. Take brain out, then you'll enjoy it. Keep brain in, you may pick holes.

I think the problem for me was I kinda guessed what was coming next - repeatedly - and as for the jet balloon well. Perhaps we could have had transporter in there too, its just as believable :-)

sweet!

Beethoven's gone, but his music lives on. And Mozart don't go shoppin' no more.
You'll never meet Listz or Brahms again.
And Elgar doesn't answer the door.

Schubert and Chopin used to chuckle and laugh,
Whilst composing a long symphony--
But one hundred and fifty years later, there's very little of them left to see.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Brecher:
Well, saw it myself, flawed indeed but I found it entertaining if a little overkill in places. That BBFC cut, jeez, most obvious cut I have noticed in recent memory.

Dan (UK)

---

Though it wasn't actually a cut made BY the BBFC, of course.
Still, it wasn't as bad as the BBFC cuts made to Argento's Opera. Way to completely ruin the film...

NP Much Ado About Nothing (nice & sunny)

Concern about the violence and in particular the glamorisation of knives in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider has resulted in cuts to the film. In order to achieve a '12' rating the distributor has agreed to remove a number of elements which are unacceptable under the BBFC Guidelines for that category. The Guidelines in turn reflect the standards of acceptability set by the British public in the course of the major consultation exercise culminating in their publication in September 2000.

The film, which received a 'PG-13' rating in the United States, is the latest big Hollywood action film aimed at children but containing scenes which are too violent for younger viewers. Mission Impossible II and Charlie's Angels were similar recent examples of 'PG-13' films appealing to the young whose violent content was, nevertheless, unacceptable in the UK at '12'. In their case, the distributors opted for the more restricted category of '15' rather than the cuts necessary for '12'.

Robin Duval, Director of the BBFC said:

"The natural audience for Lara Croft is the 12 to 15 age group, but the Board's Classification Guidelines make it clear that at '12' the glamorisation of weapons such as knives and the graphic illustration of dangerous techniques such as head-butts and throat chops are unacceptable. The film company has responded positively to the BBFC's concerns with cuts to those elements and to other violent content at several points in the film.

"Lara Croft: Tomb Raider remains an exciting action-filled experience whose content should not now surprise audiences familiar with '12' rated material from the Bond films onwards. As with the Bond films, the combat, gunplay etc is mitigated by the absence of graphic or bloody detail and by the generally fantastical setting of the story. The Board's concern about knives, however, reflects the fact that they are much more readily accessible in the UK than the other more unfamiliar equipment characteristic of these films."<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, yup, there's a headbut missing from the climax of this too...