Movie News

MUMMY 2 stuff, director Stephen Sommers talks a bit about his ambitious sequel

Published at: March 31, 2000, 10:21 p.m. CST

Animation By CARTUNA THE GREAT

Hey folks, Harry here with an update to the Moriarty review of the "MUMMY 2" script he read. Now, the reason I have that in quotations, is I have recently been in contact with screenwriter/director of THE MUMMY as well as the forthcoming MUMMY 2, Stephen Sommers.

It seems that the version of THE MUMMY 2 draft that the evil one got his loathsome hands upon was the:

"Right-out-of-the-printer, warts-and-all, working pitch of the MUMMY sequel."

You see, according to Stephen, he sucks at the verbal pitch meeting, so he took 4 weeks to jam out what he calls his written pitch. It seems that his producers (Jim Jacks and Sean Daniels) and he have been trying to work out schedule issues, but it just sort of came together very quickly. From this initial flux of ideas they got the 'go-ahead' and then sat down to pound out his first full draft.

"The draft that resulted had less to do with screenwriting than it did in providing a road map for production estimators, location scouts, visual effects producers and art directors. That particular draft, which is what Moriarty got a hold of, was never even widely distributed within Universal. And for good reason: it’s not the script we’re shooting."

So.... When Moriarty says:

"The primary thing missing from any single page of this script is charm. There's not one thing a character does or says that endears them to the reader in even the slightest way. This is a perfunctory exercise in how to overthink a sequel. Instead of trying to focus on that sense of B-movie fun that made the first film such a modest pleasure," --- Moriarty

Stephen Sommers responds with:

"I can at least assure you will be in the same full-blooded adventure vein as the first one, and -- I guarantee you – bigger and better . I’m excited by, and draw inspiration from, the fact that literally the same team of people will be working together again… Jim Jacks, Sean Daniel, and my friends at Universal, who have been more supportive of me than any studio in my experience; production designer Allan Cameron, film editor Bob Ducsay; cinematographer Adrian Biddle as well as 99% of the rest of the crew, not to mention Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah, Arnold Vosloo (can’t have a MUMMY film with a Mummy), Oded Fehr… as well as some new cast members I’m really excited about. It’s no secret that Dwayne Johnson (WWF’s “The Rock”) will appear in a crucial new role that, at the very least, has my buddies at ILM salivating. It’s a very rare thing that the entire original production and acting team from a successful film comes to the table for a sequel. And it’s a very good thing."

So, if there is one aspect of Moriarty's piece that wasn't quite fleshed out as it should have was the stress on the fact that this was an early draft. Stephen wants me to assure you good folks, that he's working his ass off on the script to make sure that it exceeds the first film. Which would be good for me, since I'm not the biggest fan of the first film. I have been warming a bit to it on DVD, but personally... I wanted more horror from it, and less goofiness, but then I should've expected the goofy side... coming from the director of DEEP RISING, which was a far more clear case of having a tongue firmly placed in one's cheek... and I really dug that misunderstood film. You know, I was out back, in the AICN Ampitheatre watching Korda & Menzies & Berger & Powell's THE THIEF OF BAGDAD... and though it had the vastly superior score of Miklos Rozsa... I found that it had the same since of goofiness that THE MUMMY had... but THE MUMMY didn't quite have the sincerity of the quieter moments.

Besides, Sommers tells me that the pygmy skeletons that ILM is working on will be worth the price of admission all by themselves. From the sound of things... if he can just work on his characters a bit and nails the pacing, this sequel might be one helluva fun flick. Personally, I understand Sommers' desire to make Harryhausen flicks... He creates effects sequences that he then builds a story around. And with that approach, I would say his first MUMMY was closer to a THREE WORLDS OF GULLIVER than a GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD or JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS.... So I wish Stephen the best. He's making adventurous fantasy films, with Horror characters. I truly hope this second film bests the first one.

And one last thing... Is there any possible way that we could not have it titled MUMMY 2. I mean, how about THE MUMMY STRIKES or THE MUMMY'S CURSE or something else... I hate numbers. Be a bit more adventurous!

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 31, 2000, 10:42 p.m. CST

    maybe suck, maybe not

    by devil0509

    I'm not convinced yet that this movie is going to blow complete chunks. After all, the first was alot of campy fun with some cool special effects...not anything to leave the theater talking excitedly about, but something for a couple of hours of entertainment and laughs. Kind of like the anaconda roller coaster at King's Dominion in Virginia. Not the best thing ever, but lots of fun. There's plenty of room for a sequel in this material. If it's done right, it could be fun, well worth admission and two hours of time. Of course, it could also suck in a most serious way. C'est la vie.

  • March 31, 2000, 10:49 p.m. CST

    Mum's the word! Billy Mumy's mommy to star in MUMMY movie!

    by Bono

    Jesus...that exhausted me. Zzzzzzz...

  • March 31, 2000, 10:53 p.m. CST

    To Mr. Sommers

    by SCOTT1458

    As a fan of the old classic Universal monster flicks, and a fan of the Sinbad adventures, I must say that the ONLY way the first film worked for me was of the wit of the script and Fraiser. It's not the level of effects, or the technical aspects of them...it's as Ray H said himself, the charcter that is implied through the effects (even CG skeletons). And I agree with Harry, I would like to see a little more horror thrown in. People until the end of civilization will watch and buy The Mummy with Borris Karloff and The 7th Voyage of Sinbad. There's a reason for that.

  • March 31, 2000, 11:29 p.m. CST

    Deep Rising was nifty

    by user id indeed!

    The ending was maddeningly delicious....I cringed at the thought of Dwayne Johnson-scuse me,THE ROCK-in show business,especially the sequel to The Mummy,but if Adam Sandler can be in a Tarantino WWII drama,why not?I hope there are some of those keen little bugs that crawl into your brain...bwa ha ha!This has been a Giant Octopus Moment with User ID Indeed!Can you just,like,GET asthma?

  • March 31, 2000, 11:34 p.m. CST

    Oh,and the new Harry head is brainalicious

    by user id indeed!

    Although there should have been flesh eating scarabs in there at some point...OH,I see now that Cartuna now goes by Cartuna the GREAT!Don't let the gifs go to your head,monkey boy!!This has been a Yackedy Shmackedy.

  • March 31, 2000, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Whoopee!

    by rjtapper

    Yay! I'm so glad Mummy 2 is coming, cuz, you know, that first one was so good, yeah, uh-huh.

  • April 1, 2000, 1:34 a.m. CST

    Mummy Schmummy!

    by Where's Poochie?

  • April 1, 2000, 2:26 a.m. CST

    To Mr. Sommers

    by darius25

    Listen, don't listen to these guys here. Deep Rising was good, The Mummy was Great. Personally, I don't give a damn about the horror as long as there is adventure in the series. From what I am hearing if The Mummy 2 is set aroung a Museum and there is a cute kid then this movie will not be as good as the first one. The first one was good because it had an epic(a cheesy epic but an epic) like quality to it. Everything was done on a grand scale. The outdoor locations were excellent. You succeeded in making a great movie in the tradition of the Indy movies. Please don't let your fans down. Please have lots of outdoor locations in exotic paces - camp, or not, but please make it like the Indy series (just like the first one).

  • April 1, 2000, 2:40 a.m. CST

    doesn't matter what you call the sequel...

    by Zachsmind

    Doesn't matter what you call the damn thing. Put words like "mummy" or "vampire" or "werewolf" in the title and people will line up to watch cars rust for two hours. Call it "MUMMIES" and include Signorney Weaver with an industrial size flame thrower. Have thousands of Mummies running all over the countryside groaning and moaning and Weaver has to save Winona Ryder from Certain Death repeatedly. Oh wait. It's been done? So? Made money didn't it? Do it again. There's nothing new under the sun. I'm gonna go out back and shoot myself in the foot.

  • April 1, 2000, 3:02 a.m. CST

    I liked the Mummy...it was an Indiana Jones style adventure

    by alpha

    I think a lot of people were mildly disappointed it wasn't a horror film but if you think about it in our modern world with six year olds blowing each other away does a guy shuffling around in rags still work as a horror film. I think it could work if everything clicked just right....if not it would of been truly awful. Universal decided to approve the new version and go for the action adventure audience and given the returns it was a good move. I hope that the sequel is as much fun.

  • April 1, 2000, 4:16 a.m. CST

    Cartuna, ease down lad

    by Owatonna

    Keep going at this rate and you'll burn out pretty soon. Producing ever-stranger Harry heads at an ever-increasing rate will build up the pressure on your mind until you just snap completely and wind up slumped in a corner, gibbering. Take it a little easy. You owe it to yourself.

  • April 1, 2000, 6:44 a.m. CST

    The Mummy was fun!

    by mephisto666

    It wasn't meant to be a proper horror film, okay? It was an adventure film in an Indiana Jones stylee. It was all there in the script- I hate bugs/I hate snakes, see? Maybe it will be crap, especially with The Rock and a kid in it. On the other hand, maybe The Rock will be absorbed early on by the Mummy, and the kid will be eaten by scarabs before he has a chance to be the smug irritating little shit most children in films are. Oh, and maybe Cartuna (the Great)should listen to Owatonna. Take a pill, lest fame go to your head..hahaha? (sorry...)

  • April 1, 2000, 7:04 a.m. CST

    The Mummy was Brilliant but The Mummy 2, lacks imagination.

    by Roborob

    I loved The Mummy, it was the best film of the genre that has been produced since Indiana Jones. I must admit I have been suffering from a lack of Indy for some time, I did not have it on video, see it in the cinema or watch it on TV and so The mummy filled the spot at least till the Indy Trilogy was released on Video this year. The Mummy is better than just Indiana Jone suppliment, It rocks on it's own. I think that like the Matrix it was the FIRST film to use the most modern technology in that type of film. Before the matrix was Johny Nemonic (or whatever) and a few other films that had a similar story but lacked the effects to pull it off. The Mummy profited from the fact that no movies of a similar story has come out in recent years. Other films will come using the same level of technology (i.e. Tomb Raider.) They may be better or worse but they cannot be first. In other matters I agree that The Mummy 2 should be given a better title more in keeping with the Miummy films of old.

  • April 1, 2000, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Okay, easy on the "Mummy"/"Indy Jones" comparisons folks!

    by Dave_F

    I enjoyed "The Mummy", but it isn't even in the same class as "Raiders of the Lost Ark", the latter quite possibly being the greatest action film of all time. As Harry noted, "The Mummy" isn't even quite in the same class as the Sinbad flicks or "Jason & the Argonauts". Personally, I compare it to the fun 60's F/X flick, "Jack the Giant Killer", which was clearly geared for a younger set. ******* Scott1458, it's bizarre that you should cite Fraser as one of the few *good* things about "The Mummy" - for me, he nearly killed it, with his poor man's attempt at the "charming scoundrel" riff. And there's something about his face...ostensibly handsome...but look at it for a few seconds and it's like this lumpy, worn saddlebag. Hideous. I will agree with you that the script was kinda fun, but without a doubt, what made the film work was the sheer avalanche of cool F/X. Oh, and I thought the fella who played the actual Mummy was a rockin' good villain, far more charismatic than Fraser. He reminded me of the mighty Sokurah in "7th Voyage of Sinbad". As for the sequel...sounds grim if they cast The Rock as anything more than 3rd Burly Evil Henchman From The Right.

  • April 1, 2000, 8:33 a.m. CST

    "Deep Rising"

    by smilin'jackruby

    "Deep Rising" is one of my favorite movies as anyone who bothers to read my ridiculous talkbacks knows. I have the poster framed on my wall and have a battered copy on VHS that is to be replaced with DVD shortly. I liked "The Mummy," but "Deep Rising" will always have a special place in my heart because it's the B-movie to end all B-movies and the lines rolling out Kevin J O'Connor's mouth are damn hilarious. Treat Williams should be in every big budget B-movie.

  • April 1, 2000, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Comorant

    by SCOTT1458

    Yeah, I know there aren't to many Fraiser fans around. But to me, he just doesn't take himself seriously, and it shows and is an asset in a movie as this. The actor who was the Mummy (thought it was Billy Zane at first) was perfect, although I would have liked to see him in the bandages just a minute or so... On another note, just bought Universal's classic MUMMY on DVD with Karlof, and to be honest it's probally the weakest of the orignal flicks. The Invisible Man beats it hands down, but it IS Karlof.

  • April 1, 2000, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Deep Rising

    by Glengarry

    I agree with Jack, Deep Rising Rocks. GG

  • April 1, 2000, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Why the hell are they making a sequel to this thing?!?

    by outkast_99

    Is the original "Mummy" really worth the satisfaction of having a sequel?! The original "Mummy" was an utter piece of trash. Bad acting (someone needs to put a gun to Fraser's head), goofy ass plot, and plot holes the size of craters shadowed by OUTSTANDING special effects. The original movie was one of the hardest films I've ever had to get through, and I won't even waste my time checking out the sequel. Because we ALL know Sequels suck compared to their originals. (Excuse Godfather, and Star Wars series). Even though the most electrifying man in sports entertainment is in "Mummy 2", Fraser and the rest of the cast can turn this movie sideways and.....well you know the rest.

  • April 1, 2000, 11:53 a.m. CST

    WHY,WHY,WHY?

    by Tornado_Jackson

    For what? The first one had no premise it was just a lame conglomerate of ripped-off ideas from Evil Dead and Indiana Jones. If that film was at least dumb entertainment I might at least be willing to give the sequel a chance. But, the truth is the first one wasn't entertaining or fun to watch at all. Just dull. The sequel has nothing new to add on to the premise so for what purpose does it have to be made? Brendan Frasier is expressionless, he is more of a zombie than the mummy. At least the mummuy was active Frasier just meanders his way from scene to scene without ant prescence what so ever. Another reason this shouldn't be made the script SUCKS!!! From what I read its about a franchise of "MUMMY" resort casinos(this is not sarcasm) out in eygpt that awakens the Scorpion King and its up to Frasier and his wife to come to the rescue! YIPEEEE!!!

  • April 1, 2000, 12:44 p.m. CST

    "Deep Rising" and "Mummy"? Hoofah!

    by guyuuk!

    "Mummy 2"? Why not? Add another turd to the toilet.

  • April 1, 2000, 1:02 p.m. CST

    No more gore

    by Tigress

    The reason the Mummy did so well at the box office is because kids and families went to see it. If the sequel is more of a horror film, more violent, parents won't take the kids and the movie will fail at the box office. It was the humor, the chemistry between the actors, the epic quality, and the adventure that made this film work. If Stephen Sommers keeps those four elements, he will have another hit on his hands. But if he listens to the teenagers and over-grown boys here who want more blood and gore (including Harry), than Mummy 2 will be a disappointment. Most people want to be entertained at the movies (i.e. they want to laugh, travel to exotic locations, or be touched/charmed by the characters). A small minority of film goers want to be shocked, scared or grossed out with their humor, and for those people there are Quentin Tarantino movies like "Pulp Fiction". Keep the Mummy 2 PG or PG-13.

  • April 1, 2000, 1:23 p.m. CST

    The Rock says:

    by vedder

    I am the scorpion king I can do anything.. No wait that's Jim morrison doing the lizard king schtick...oh well If you smellllll what the scorp is cookin...

  • April 1, 2000, 2:07 p.m. CST

    but Harry, Mummy's Curse is already taken...

    by Ilvenshang

    That's the title for the last of the Lon Chaney Jr. Mummy flicks - the one set in Cajun land (a hoot and a half,btw, wish Sommers would remake that). Oh, well, what else did I expect from the kind of dolt who thinks Black Lagoon deserves to be taken seriously....

  • April 1, 2000, 2:37 p.m. CST

    IF YA SMELLLLLLLLLALALALALALALA......WHAT THE ROCK....IS COOKIN'

    by cinematt

    Hot Damn! Alright! Finally, THE ROCK is in a sequel WORTH seeing! As both a die hard WWF fan and movie buff, I can honestly say from the bottom of my heart that I am totally geeked out for this movie to be made, almost as geeked out as I am for Titan A.E. which comes out this summer( note to Disney Corporation: TITAN A.E. is the way to make an animated film today, so take your Lion King and your Tarzan and shove 'em up your roody poo candy asses!) Will Dwayne Johnson, a.k.a. The Rock, kick major ass in the Mummy sequel? Yes. Will it do boffo box office? Yes. Will it continue to prove that the WWF and all things associated with it simply out do and out perform all the rest of the so-called "entertainment industry"? Yes. Can everybody who's not down with the Rock burning it up big time in the Mummy 2 SUCK IT? Yes. And by the way, to the newest self-appointed watchdog pointing a finger at the WWF and claiming IT is the source of all that is evil and obscene in entertainment today, I say: GET A LIFE, YOU PRUDISH, NO SENSE OF HUMOR HAVING, SPHINCTERS AS TIGHT AS A SNARE DRUM ASSWIPES! If you want to do something good for the youth of America, why not lobby for health care? Fight illiteracy? Promote health and fitness? Of course not, those are too tough of problems to tackle, right? Instead, let's just make the WWF the scapegoat for all your imagined ills of the world. That's nice and easy, isn't it you puritanical bastards? And Steve Allen, you pudgy, dough-boy looking "I couldn't get arrested in Hollywood, I was that untalented, so now I'll just guttersnipe from the sidelines!" four eyed pencil neck wuss, you want to clean up TV? STAY THE HELL OFF OF IT THEN! SIX YEAR OLDS WILL SUFFER MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE FROM LOOKING AT YOU THEN FROM A YEAR OF TV RATED FOR MATURE AUDIENCES!!! Wrestlemania 2000 happens this weekend, all you jabronis, and The Rock is about to become the greatest WWF champion of all time! Then it's off to make the Mummy sequel and put on a hell of a show! IF YA SMELLLLLLLLLLALALALALALALA.... WHAT THE ROCK..... IS COOKIN'!

  • April 1, 2000, 3:09 p.m. CST

    ManOWar

    by Sorcerer

    Why not just rent "Stealing Beauty"? Rachel gets pretty close to full frontal there. Granted, it's a dull, pretentious film with a horrid Liv Tyler performance (I'm beginning to see why people are worried about her prominence in LOTR), but well, there ya are. And it's a beautiful day. There's more important things than money, ya know- hang on a sec.

  • April 1, 2000, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Awesome Animations

    by Carly

    These animations are freaking awesome. Those pliers were going towards HARRY's nose and I'm like "What's gonna happen?" and then I'm like "Ican't believe Harry's brain can fit through his nose" and then I'm like "I take that back". JK :)

  • April 1, 2000, 10:14 p.m. CST

    THE MUMMY was great!

    by Sith Lord Jesus

    Horror film my ASS, I went in there expecting "Indiana Jones vs the Zombie Mummies" and that's exactly what I got! A good old fashioned adventure flick with lot's of exotic locales, a dashing hero and a cool villan. As long as Sommers keeps these ingredients the second one should be a success as well. Forget the horror/gore thing, that's not what this is about. One thing I do very much agree with Harry on, though--don't call it "THE MUMMY 2," that's lame. Go for the cheese, dude--"RETURN OF THE MUMMY" or something like that. Oh, and one last thing: the soundtrack was exquisite! I'm listening to it right now, in fact. I remember thinking as the end credits rolled, "I HAVE to have that!" Kudo's to Jerry Goldsmith.

  • April 2, 2000, 1:49 a.m. CST

    A worthless sequel to a worthless movie

    by LesterB

    But I'll probably see it anyway just to see how the Rock's first real movie role goes. I guarantee you, this movie will make more money than the original just by virtue of having millions of wrestling fans (WCW and ECW included) rush out and slap down their ten bucks so they can either mock or praise the Great One. And by the way, it doesn't matter what the movie's called (no pun intended, wrestling fans) because we all know what it really is: pure popcorn. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems like the Hollywood Money Machine's really been in gear recently. It seems like the average WWF plotline has more depth than the average flick out of Hollywood these days. Let's have more "American Beauty"s and NO MORE LETHAL WEAPON MOVIES! They should have stopped at two.

  • April 2, 2000, 3:46 a.m. CST

    Bride of the Mummy

    by Jabba Papa

    ... is of course the BEST title, IMHO ... ;-)

  • April 2, 2000, 4:25 a.m. CST

    Cinematt, you're way off-base about Steve Allen!

    by Cereal Killer

    I can't say I agree with Allen's stance about censoring Hollywood and blaming movies and TV for all of socieities ills but that kind of attitude is to be expected from someone of his generation. Hell, we've all noticed that our parents and grandparents become less tolerant of the younger generations as they age. But to call Steve Allen a no-talent is way off the mark. Steve Allen is one of the most versatile talents Hollywood has ever seen. In addition to being the first host of the Tonight Show he has written over 3000 songs and 30+ bestselling mystery novels and has carved out a fine career as a motivational speaker. If you're gonna label him as a no-talent then you might as well call Orson Wells, Frank Sinatra and Katherine Hepburn no-talents also. Think what you will of Allen's misplaced diatribes against Hollywood but the man has talent in spades.

  • April 2, 2000, 9:28 a.m. CST

    You're right, Cereal Killer, maybe I did misspeak about Steve Al

    by cinematt

    Steve Allen is a four eyed, dough boy looking pencil neck wuss who's written some songs and movies who WILL STILL INSTILL PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE IN SIX YEAR OLDS WHO ARE FORCED TO LOOK AT HIS FESTERING, SHRIVELED MUMMY-LOOKING FACE! Thanks for correcting me, Cereal Killer! Have a nice day! :-)

  • April 2, 2000, 9:30 a.m. CST

    ooops, my bad in my previous post, I meant books, not movies! :-

    by cinematt

  • April 2, 2000, 11:04 a.m. CST

    How in blazes did Steve Allen enter into this?

    by Sorcerer

    I must say it is disappointing for such a talented guy to join the ranks of the Puritans. Instead of constructively participating in making good television, he takes the destructive "boycott all material not fit for a two-year-old" approach. Sad, really.

  • April 2, 2000, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Mummy Fx

    by Horus

    I thought the first Mummy was great.A bit tooo jokey in the wrong places perhaps.but still hugely entertaining.What i really hated though were the Cgi fx.It suffered exactly the same way as Phantom menace from overusing cgi in a flash *in ya face* manner , that looked horribly fake.Traditionel makeups would have been a lot more convincing for the half rotted away face stuff{think Darkman} and the full lengh mummy looked shit.He looked like *super Mummy* , with all that muscle build up.They motioned captured Arnold Vosloo , but got him to move in a way he never does again for the rest of the film...whats the point in that?Hell raisers flayed to the bones, Frank suit/makeup worked a lot better and allowed the actor to give a performance under it.Even the priest mummies at the end of The Mummy looked good compared to the digital shit.Im not anti cgi , its marvelous when it all works , but they seem to be using it for the sake of it , with no attempt at being subtle and turning everything into *The mask*

  • April 2, 2000, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Just a ouple of things...

    by mephisto666

  • April 2, 2000, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Just a couple of things...

    by mephisto666

    Whoops, what happened there? Anyway, the special effects were good. Brendan Fraser could perhaps have been a bit better, but he didn't have a whole lot to work with. Arnold Vosloo was extremely cool as the Mummy, and I did think the animated mummy moved like him. The other special effects were very good (I loved the whole sand wall thing...bastard!)and overall it had a lot of B-movie charm. The score was excellent, it really suited the film. I think there are probably many worse films with sequels, and I'd rather have a sequel than a remake (Planet of the Apes? Can we say BLASPHEMY?!!)Roll on Imhotep's Revenge!

  • April 2, 2000, 4:36 p.m. CST

    make it Mummy Number Two. nt

    by drasaid

  • April 3, 2000, 12:05 a.m. CST

    the mummy 2 will have an audience

    by mmm_free_wig

    with the exception of a few people in this talkback, all the rest of you are non sensical baboons. The first Mummy was very entertaining.. mabyee your freaked out lame assed Pulp Fiction, turtle neck wearing view of the world is just skewed to your sense of warped reality. I, and I think as a whole the audience reaction to the mummy was very good, on my four journeys to see the Mummy in the theatre, and crowd laughed at every piece that was set up, and was thoroughly entertained. You can take your shit like Reseviour Dogs and anything else that has an invisible crack pot philosophy, and stay at home in your basement while the rest of us, the majoity of us (although not by the number of you basement freaks that come out on this site) will pay to see, and enjoy the Mummy 2, not for its solid acting or tightness of script and plot, but for its solid action and tightness of effects.

  • April 3, 2000, 1:35 a.m. CST

    Gawd, I hate movie snobs....

    by FlickChick

    You know who I'm talking about...Those people who are so busy looking for mistakes, in film so they can look like a true film expert, they don't bother to just sit and enjoy the film for what it is...So it was campy, well, guess what...it was supposed to be!!! So it was a rip-off of Indy films, it was supposed to be!! And truly if you weren't so busy ripping the film apart instead of just watching it, you'd probably *gasp* enjoy it...Mummy 2 may be good or may not be good...We really can't predict until we actually see the film. These are probably the same people who loved, The English Patient, and Shakespeare in Love...(two mediocre films, masquerading as high art). Hi-five to those people who mentioned Deep Rising...Now, that would be a cool sequel, I'd love to see what beasties, were living on that island...

  • April 3, 2000, 1:40 a.m. CST

    Imhotep...Imhotep...Imhotep...Imhotep...

    by FlickChick

    Remember that scene when the lead ing lady's brother saw those zombie people coming towards him, so he just acted like one of them?? Wasn't that funny?? That scene had me cracking up.

  • ...and it exemplified the general good-natured cartooniness of it all. So many parents allow even really young kids to watch stuff like "Die Hard" and the "Aliens" movies, I just think it's good that a family-friendly actioneer like "The Mummy" found the success it did. Yeah, it was gross at times, but not gratuitously so. "Imhotep...Imhotep..." Cracked me up. I'd always wondered about such tactics when watching "Dawn of the Dead", and now I know...it works! Zombies can be fooled!

  • April 3, 2000, 3:22 a.m. CST

    what the hell? leave the guy alone till it's done.

    by Cthulu

    If you were to open the oven on your gramma's Thanksgiving turkey after she just put it in, you'd be running from the kitchen screaming, "It's all pink and shit, we're gonna die of food poisoning!" Fuck you. Let the turkey sit in the oven for whatever algorithmic pounds-to-minutes cooking time it's supposed to take for the bird to cook! THEN TASTE IT! Meantime leave this poor bastard Stephen Somers alone to work his craft.

  • April 3, 2000, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Stephen Sommers is Cool

    by Orpheus

    Though it is somewhat depressing he actually cares what people like Moriaty, and perhaps even the people on this talkback, have to say ... Anyway, the Mummy was very entertaining. I enjoyed the director's commentary on the DVD very much. The DVD just flat out rocked. He has a great visual style, and the dialogue was surprisingly witty. I'm sure the sequel will be fine. Now I've gotta go rent Deep Rising ... do they have it on DVD?

  • April 3, 2000, 12:31 p.m. CST

    No! No! No! It's "Senmut...Senmut... Senmut..."

    by seelamia

    The Mummy was a lot of fun... but maybe Mummy 2 can get it right. I have to lodge a formal complaint - they picked on the wrong Ancient Egyptian Architect. Senmut was a perfectly respectable A.E.A. Wife, kids, house in the suburbs, paid his profession dues and everything. It was the Ancient Egyptian Architect SENMUT who had the affair with the Pharoh(es) Hatshepsut, whose name was cursed and removed from monuments, whose mummy is missing, and and whose granite sarcoffogus was smashed to smithereens. Those zombies should be chanting, "Senmut... senmut... Senmut..."

  • April 3, 2000, 12:35 p.m. CST

    A little Bush... A little Gore...

    by Mr.Chunky Monkey

    ... that's what will keep me wanting more - and I'm sure that, at least, it'll be more exciting than this year's Presidential race. Bring it on, Somers!! Your movies kick ass, Rachel Weisz has a nice ass, and The Rock is a bad ass! Harry and his hausen are dead-on... campy fun, great effects, and popcorn delights are the way to go. 2001 is now too far away.

  • April 3, 2000, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Given the inept humor in the first one, why not call the sequel

    by Roguewriter

  • April 3, 2000, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Sad thing about Steve Allen is...

    by smilin'jackruby

    You ever catch clips from his show when he used to rigorously defend Lenny Bruce's comedy?

  • April 3, 2000, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Some proposed MUMMY titles:

    by Vegas

    Mummy Dearest...Throw Mummy from the Train...Don't Tell Mummy the Babysitter's Dead...DADDY

  • April 3, 2000, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Shit. Someone beat me to MUMMY DEAREST.

    by Vegas

    At least I'm not the only fan of cheesy pun titles.

  • April 3, 2000, 6:06 p.m. CST

    popcorn

    by phriedom

    I realize The Mummy is just a popcorn movie, and I thought it was entertaining. But, I still wish that even movies like this were driven by the story, instead of driven by special effects. I love special effects, but when the movie makers develop special effects first and then find a way to construct a pretense to tie the special effects togther the effects tend to obscure everything else. As has already been said, I thought there was too much CGI, where other techniques would have been less distracting. Just because you can animate mummies doesn't mean you should. That said, I think The Rock can pull off that role. It doesn't matter what you think.

  • April 3, 2000, 10:33 p.m. CST

    a great example of movie snobbery...

    by FlickChick

    Just scroll back and read Seelamia's post. Given that by very definition of a MOVIE, very few, if any, actual facts would be involved. Would somebody please tell me why that particular tidbit of information has any value, except to "toot his own horn about this poster's Mummy knowledge??"

  • April 3, 2000, 10:56 p.m. CST

    i am happy with a latter posts

    by mmm_free_wig

    Almost all of the lower half of talkback is positive to the mummy, and rightly so. Most of the top half are pretentiuos losers who wouldn't know entertainment if it repeatedly kick them in the nads. Go mummy. And yes, when John Hannah pretended to be a mummy, that was very funny. Oh yeah, that other poster forgot, "Stop or my Mummy will shoot!"

  • The initial burst of posts on any given topic are always going to include all the really negative reactions and flames. Later on, folks chill out a bit, discuss the topic in more depth, and joke around a little. Sometimes, that's the best time to jump into a Talkback. I'm still scared about The Rock's appearance though...

  • April 4, 2000, 9:46 a.m. CST

    "body bags 2? jesus, i've got more taste in my penis."

    by cornhole

    this is gonna be half the film bill and ted's excellent adventure II was. mark my cornhole.

  • April 4, 2000, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Mummy 2: Electric Boogaloo

    by saintsyn

    Sorry... I had to....

  • April 4, 2000, 2:06 p.m. CST

    That is odd, isn't it?

    by Sorcerer

    I too have noticed the change in attitudes between talkbacks. Does this mean the next time there's an article about George Lucas, he won't be compared to Napoleon?

  • April 4, 2000, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Deep Rising

    by SouthernSlam

    Harry, Thanks for saying something about Deep Rising. I also really "dug" this film. It's almost criminal how overlooked this film was. I try to loan my copy to anyone willing to watch it. Anyway, another display of good taste on your part. Thanks again.

  • April 4, 2000, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Uh, guys....about "Deep Rising"..........

    by Elgyn6655321

    Look folks, I sometimes really enjoy cheesy/overlooked movies. I own copies of "UHF", "Return To Oz", and "Ravenous", and I can even see where "Event Horizon" supporters are coming from. But "Deep Rising".....I`m sorry, it was BAD. Way predictable, some of the characters were okay but totally one-dimensional, even for this kind of movie. And the goofy sidekick character was way overwritten and overused. He gave me the same effect as Jar Jar Binks. And worst of all, the creature was fake-ass CGI crap.

  • April 5, 2000, 9:27 a.m. CST

    What's wrong with a few facts?

    by seelamia

    Senmut vs Imhotep... Like raisens, a few facts in a movie liven up all that dough! Facts are a nice - if unexpected - surprise. "Titanic" didn't float the ship at the end. "Amadeus" wasn't turned into "Bach to the Future." Even a popcorn movie (and this one was a lot of fun) could use facts sort of laying around, ready-to-fit. Reality can enrich fantasy.

  • April 12, 2000, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Sequel or equel?

    by tsunam

    Every Director have the intention to make his Sequels "BIGGER" and "BETTER". Why is that so?

  • April 29, 2000, 2:22 a.m. CST

    cheesy pun titles

    by melmuse

    ...and there's always the family classic "I Remember Mummy."

  • May 26, 2000, 5:12 p.m. CST

    The Mummy rocks!!!!

    by Egyptiancat2715

    I think that some people have bad taste when it comes to movies. Either that or they just want the same thing over and over again in all movies. I thought that The Mummy added variety! It was a great movie that thrilled and excited all my friends and family members. And when I mean excited I mean it! All my friends now have a crush on Imohtep and Fraser! Because of them, we saw The Mummy six times in the movie theaters! And all of my friends own the tape! We have a get together every month and we watch only that movie! It had nice visual effects and nice acting. Especially the actors! (Oh yeah!) You could have focused a little bit more on the effects of the skeleton of Imohtep. Some parts were kind of obvious to the point where you could tell that it was too fake. It was kinda cheesy on some of the jokes but that's ok because my parents got a kick out of it. It doesn't matter what the title is as long as it makes sense and it's not to corny. And don't worry about what other people said because I think that it was a cool movie and I can't wait to see the sequel. Especially my friends who want to see Imohtep again! Keep up the good work! :o)

  • April 2, 2001, 8:05 p.m. CST

    get a clue

    by Mount_Olympus

    The Mummy was such a piece of typical Hollywood shit..I can't believe anyone with even a hint of character would think this was a good movie.Brandon Frasier's accent was so bad it was embarrassing to listen to.And the rip off on Indiana Jones was typical of screenwriters who lack imagination..So we need a sequel? yeah right, we needed Sceam 3 too!!! This sequel is not a reason for creative minds to have an outlet, it is for stuffy nerds in suits pumping out a sequel to rob every MORON that pays to see it of his money so they can profit, and steal your money they shall, and deserve it, you do, if you pay to see it....lets all boycott it...