I personally thought Mummy Returns was crap. True, I enjoyed some of it, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was better than the first. The CGI was what really killed it for me. Especially the Rock at the end. That was just bad. And their was just too much action going on. Like I've said time and again, I'm a die hard action freak. But there comes a point and Mummy Returns grossly exceeded it.

As I said before, there were some scenes I liked. Mainly scenes involving the O'Connell kid with the Black Man. I just really thought the screen time they had was funny for some strange reason. I also liked the cat fights between Nefertiti (Evie) and Anck-Su-Namun. But the thing with the jet powered balloon was stupid (and did they ever mention where the guy got the gas from to make it fly again?), and the showdown among Rick, Im-Ho-Tep, and the Scorpion King bored me because by that point I was desenitized by all the action leading to the finale.

But I will admit I thought it was cool that this movie should beat out a record previously held by Phantom Menace. Especially since there was little hype for this thing in comparsion to Episode 1. And to think of the futility of all those Star Wars fans waiting outside the theatres for a month. It just makes me laugh and laugh.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

By the way, the note in the film cans said "The Rock says to turn it up." How lame is that? I ended up having to play this movie about 3db lower than everything else and it still assaults the ears.

Brad, I don't know if you remember, but you actually got up and left during the movie and eventually meandered back in. I bet watching the platters spin was more entertaining. I never really gave it a thought about having too much action, but that is a really good point. I also was bored during the last digital battle at the end. There was absolutely no emotional involvement in the movie as far as the characters were concerned, meaning you really didn't care about them like you would in a real Indy Jones movie or something good. There was also no intelligence in the script to get the brain cells moving. This movie just asks that you sit, watch (with mouth agape, drool optional) and admire the fact that The Rock is in a movie.

Wow.

The Rock. Amazing. We have been blessed to have him on such a large screen.

Does anyone actually care about The Rock? Really!

 |  IP: Logged

From the posts here alone, this looks like a film the viewer will either like or hate with no in between "it was okay" kind of reaction. I hope I am able to enjoy it, but I do have concerns about the cutesy kid and the obviously crude, lower cost CGI renderings.

With CGI stuff, the movie studios really need to revisit their standards on what is acceptable. Back in the early 1990s when CGI was in its infancy, most 35mm renderings were done at 4000 lines of resolution. Now just about all CGI work in movies is done at only 2000 lines. Why? Cost cutting. The studios put everything out to bid and award visual effects sequence job contracts to those studios who claim the lowest cost and quickest turnaround time. Speed and low cost equals low quality 2000 line renderings. That crap is not acceptablbe quality for any kind of 35mm still work. 4K is the bare minimum. Don't these filmmakers realize just how cartoony their CGI graphics will look on future higher-def video formats? They could at least be rendering at levels closer to what 35mm film has the capacity to hold.

I also don't understand all this 2K low-ball rendering use since computer systems are so much more powerful now. Rendering software is more adept and tuned to large scale symmetric multiprocesssing and distributed rendering. Seven years ago, it might take a rendering farm weeks to do a CGI sequence in a radiosity rendering. Now the same move takes under 1 day.

Movies like Toy Story definitely seem to be rendered at 4k if not higher. From what I hear, though, they re-rendered it at a much lower resolution for video. Why they would do this instead of just transferring the print is beyond me.

quote:

---

Movies like Toy Story definitely seem to be rendered at 4k if not higher. From what I hear, though, they re-rendered it at a much lower resolution for video. Why they would do this instead of just transferring the print is beyond me.

---

The only time I ever found any information regarding the resolution of one of Pixar's films was a short mention (which isn't there anymore) on their website which stated "A Bug's Life" was rendered at 2048x768. That's odd since, assuming the pixels were square, it would mean an aspect ratio of 2.67:1! I'm pretty sure I remember that correctly, so I suppose they were using non-square pixels.

Speaking more generally, from what I understand, almost all animation/FX shots are done at 2K resolution these days. The only time I've ever heard of anything being done at 4K is for the film "Wonder Boys" (scroll to the last few paragraphs on that link). Unless you see a news article or something that says otherwise, I believe it is safe to assume that all CG work is at the de-facto standard of 2K resolution.

OK, so about 'The Mummy Returns'...I LOVE this movie! It shocks me that others cannot find joy in it; I am currently going nuts over this. I like everything about it - the cast is first-rate (great characters!), the script is self-knowing and very funny (the film, like its predecessor, has a sense of humour that I find infectious), the score by Alan Silvestri is exactly what it needs to be (all the music cues are spot-on both in terms of timing and content), the sound is great (especially in DTS), the art department and costume/hair department had a field day and the anamorphic cinematography is beautiful! The CGI was very impressive as well - I noticed that this was a major problem for many people and perhaps I'm less picky when it comes to CGI but for me it was stunning, given the context of the film. I was immersed in the story, so I guess I bought it!

Scene after scene, I was impressed with the amazing choreography, editing and camerawork. The timing and rhythm are amazing throughout. Each cut, each camera angle, each movement was precise and perfect, delivering an adrelaline rush and a very wide smile to this viewer. The execution - the direction - is so vital to any film. The very same scene sinks or swims depending on the right direction. Cut here, not here. Place the camera here - not here - and use a lens of this focal length. Dolly in now. Combining these elements in a combination that *clicks*, where the rhythm is just right, will clarify a scene, making it very powerful and exciting. The same scene in which these elements don't come together will be lifeless and dull. To wit: compare the large-scale battle scenes in 'The Mummy Returns' with those of 'Gladiator'. Simply put, one of them immerses the viewer and excites them, the other confuses and disorients.

Why does this film and its predecessor take my fancy so much? Is it my fascination with Egypt? Do I enjoy adventure movies and feel that there hasn't been one quite like it for years? Is it the sheer exhuberance, unstoppable energy and charm of it all? It's hard to say...but it all comes togther for me flawlessly.

Ciao guys
Demetris Thoupis

reference on resolution figure:

"Creating Lifelike Characters in Pixar Movies", Porter, Tom and Galyn Susman, Communications of the ACM, January 2000, Vol. 43, No. 1, p. 26.

Evidentally, resolution for rendering can be remarkably low for film presentation and still look good. The grainy nature of film probably helps to hide the pixels.

A Bug's Life was 2048x872.

Reference: http://www.mydvdlist.com/dvd/dvdlist/197.html

Toy Story 2 was 1536x925

Reference:
http://www.millimeter.com/HTM/Articles/2000/May/ECinema.htm

I would be curious to know the resolution used for the CG effects in "The Mummy Returns".

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site

Don't pick on The Perfect Storm...remember what that was about??? Look where I'm from

2. The Egyptain prince (the bald one) is hanging over the abyss to hell at the end with his right hand, then in the next cut he is holding onto the cliff edge with his other hand.

3. In the London bus chase, there are Pedestrian Crossings visable on the roads...erm wot decade was this supposed to be set in.