I would go into further detail, but that would require me thinking about the film and that is something I want to forget."The Rock" was only in it for 5 minutes I think. During the end they use computer graphics instead of the real person. We all laughed at how bad the computer graphics were. I guess since the movie is banking on the popularity of "The Rock" they wanted to make his CGI just as fake as the WWF itself!
I can't believe that they're making a movie called "Scorpion King" based soley on "The Rock"'s character. What wrestling star would name himself after a Nicolas Cage/Sean Connery movie anyway?
------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Info Site
As far as the rest of the movie went, I kept thinking of other movies each time I saw an effect:
Wall of water: The Ten Commandments
Creatures scampering along walls: Alien III
Evil monkey creatures (Fetishes): The Wizard of Oz
Scorpion King: Sinbad
Endless army of drones (Anubis Warriors): Star Wars EP1
(et. al.)
It was almost as if they were paying tribute to all of the great movie effects of the past. I will say that many, if not all of then were done much better than the original. Even Lucas' "masterpiece" of EP1 pailed by comparison... and that was done only a couple of years ago.
Overall, I'd have to say that if you want to enjoy this movie you must go into it with the "willing suspension of disbelief"... Eye candy. Even then some of the scenes are just too far "out there". It's just too hard to believe that a mere mortal can jump 20 feet off the top of a moving drawbridge and make it to the other side in a single leap... even for a movie. As a matter of fact, I had to keep saying that to myself: "It's a movie. They are allowed to do things like that."
I did enjoy this one but I repeat. This one is eye candy.
I give this one **1/2... but if you love movies with gratuitous explosions and special effects then I'd give it ***.
When you saw the little pigmy things in the forest near the end of the movie, did anyone think of "Gremlins"?
One review I read before seeing the movie mentioned that there were elements of these movies in there. If I hadn't read that review, I would probably have still thought of E.T. during the hot-air balloon scenes, but probably would not have thought of "Gremlins" during the forest fight scene near the end of the movie.
Randy, you're right about the "suspension of disbelief". In one scene, someone jumped from a second-story window and was unhurt. Nobody ever seems to get broken bones jumping from second story windows or roofs in movies.
Anyhow, as far as movies go, this one BLOWS. I feel it will be successful enough to claim the $100mil mark w/in the 2nd week, but 3rd week should see a FAST dropoff. There will be no long standing second wind for this one as there was for the first... IMO...
Damn if I'd see it twice... and damn if I'd tell people to go see it...
Joe: You're right.. it would have looked like an oscar winner beside Freddy.. what a waste of film... Canadians should be insulted that Tom Green represents them... ..
------------------
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!
Well, we are, I guess, though I can't say as he's very popular here, in fact I've never seen any of his stuff (filed away in the "If we don't pay attention, he'll go away" file.)
More alarming is the contribution he and his supposed new wife Drew Barrymore would make to the gene pool if they had kids. There'd
be some BRAINPOWER for you. What kind of math is involved Evans? If you bred two "half-wits", would that give us a "quarter-wit"???? I weep for the future!
And besides, we've shipped Mr. Green off to the 'States with all our other famous folk. Though I have a feeling his star is fading fast.......
Just think of the field day that the South Park movie could have had with this with their "Blame Canada" stuff.
To keep from wandering off topic too much, more about "The Mummy Returns":
I was really surprised when I heard that it beat the record set by Star Wars Episode I and find it difficult to believe. People were camping out to get tickets to SW E1 and crowd sizes were huge. The Mummy Returns did generate large crowds but nothing compared to what Episode I generated in my area. I think ticket prices being higher is what makes movies keep breaking records. If records were based on how many tickets were sold, they'd be more accurate. The Mummy Returns seemed to generate much larger crowds for the 9:00ish showings in my area, but I'd be willing to bet that the crowds will quickly diminish to the point that next weekend, things will be back to normal unless another huge movie comes out. SW E1 drew large crowds for several weeks.
About the breeding of "half-wits", there is a lot involved. It depends on which genes the child gets. It is possible to get an intelligent person out of half-wits, but it isn't as likely as with two intelligent parents.
I kept from making negative comments before the movie opened, but now that it has made it's money I must now state that "The Mummy Returns" was CRAP! I would go into further detail, but that would require me thinking about the film and that is something I want to forget.
Elaborate on what you didn't like about it, Brad. It may be an interesting discussion. I know it had a lot of unbelievable, silly things, but to me, that's what made it enjoyable. A lot of the things put into the movie that were supposed to be suspenseful or scary probably came across as funny to many people.
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!
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.
I hope some of the movie producers and visual effects people out there are reading these reactions to just how fake some of the CGI stuff looks in movies. If The Rock's CGI character looks as fake as people say he does in "The Mummy Returns," I'm going to be laughing.
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.
It seems to me that this was a way to "cheap-out" on the effeects a bit.
When I said, earlier, that I liked the effects I was talking mostly about the "subject" of the scene (eg: The Rock's character being made to look like a Sinbad movie.) On further viewings I did notice the finer details more.
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.
As for "Toy Story" and the like being re-rendered for home video, that's been done because they were re-composing the entire movie for a different aspect ratio. "A Bug's Life" was 2.39:1 scope for the theatrical release, but for VHS, the movie was re-done as a 1.33:1 image. And the newly released "Toy Story" DVDs have both been redone from their original 1.85:1 aspect ratio to 16:9 (1.78:1). In both cases, I would assume that they only render at NTSC resolution rather than full film resolution, since that's all they need.
A lot of CGI stuff in the early 1990's was rendered at 4K. But some of those movies, like "Terminator 2" and "In the Line of Fire" had 70mm release prints in addition to their 35mm counterparts. Perhaps this could be an additional reason why Hollywood won't strike any 70mm prints of their films. A 4K rendering is going to be at the lowest passable quality limits for 70mm. That kind of frame needs something like 6K or 8K renderings. IMAX frames commonly get 16,000 line CGI renderings.
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.
'The Mummy' and 'The Mummy Returns' are the very best films of their kind.
Ciao guys
Demetris Thoupis
"OH NO NOT THIS GUY AGAIN"
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 
I guess I'm going to have to see the whole Mummy Returns movie...maybe tonight.
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.
anyway...a good film. Even if they went overboard with the CGI.
As far as the hero part. We have men and women dying every year at sea, I don't know if you noticed but at the beginning of the film they showed a plaque with hundreds of peoples names that have died at sea over the years. The fishing industry is a very scary and dangerous occupation and the men and women that go out there every day in 100 degree weather on the middle of the ocean in my opinion are heroes. I'm not saying the movie was a picture perfect view of the people in gloucester but it wasn't bad. Bars and funny accents are the thing here
Take in mind it was a true story (to an extent, they don't know exactly what happened when the ship went down) and true stories aren't always known to be the most entertaining.
***Back to the topic, as for the Mummy Returns... I finally saw the rest of it and I liked it. It seemed to be a little detatched because of the animation, I liked the beginning better.
I did laugh at the mutated CGI version of The Rock/Scorpion King. Now that is some really bad CGI. I saw lots of other bad CGI in the movie as well. I thought the Mummy's wall of water in the canyon was not convincing at all --and the effect of his face appearing in the water wall (obviously a callback to the original movie) didn't work.
Overall, I thought the movie was pretty disappointing. There was little to no character development in the screenplay. The Mummy was not nearly the menacing or mysterious villian he was in the previous film. The ressurection of his dead love seemed like a footnote compared to it being a driving goal in the previous film. Overall, the whole thing kind of had a sort of "so what" quality to each story development. The only baddies I thought had any kind of menace at all in this film were the silly little dart blowing pygmie characters --and that all had a curiously rehased feel like it was taking something from the velociraptor scenes in "Jurassic Park" and the "Lost World."
Lighten up guys!
Another night at the Coburg drive-in here in Melbourne (albeit a slightly cold one).
I hadn't seen 'The Mummy' at all so I wasn't sure what to expect. I have taken the film out on video however and will watch it in the next few days.
Now down to the film. The first thing that struck me was that the film filled the entire screen so I assume it must have been shot in Cinemascope. The battle scenes looked great in the widescreen format and I was quite impressed with these effects. The fire and water effects were less convincing but I was not overly perturbed by this. Sound was great.
The creatures that attacked the parties in the forest were certainly very gremlin like. The effects were obviously quite artificial but again I did not find that to be a great problem. I found the bit where these creatures jump up and down on the head of the guy in the swamp/quicksand to be quite amusing. It is easy to miss but quite funny.
Others seem to have taken this film too seriously. I took it for what it was meant to be - fun. The effects fell down in places, some scenes were a little lengthy but all in all I enjoyed this film very much and would highly recommend it who just wants to be entertained for a couple of hours and is not seriously expecting a cinematic masterpiece. It is simply not meant to be that kind of film.
I think that the film is a good adventure and looks good in the widescreen format.
4 stars out of 5 - Go see it but don't take it too seriously. Just enjoy.
Mean while I'm off to watch it's prequel!
cheers Peter
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion