[Macfreak7]

you guys gotta watch this one. very well made, 'cept for a couple of flaws- firstly, it was TOO long. secondly the 'love story' included was unnecessary and WAY stupid. it could've been a shorter movie if they cut down the crappy love story.

[caifara]

I haven't seen it yet (the movie has not yet arrived in Belgium), and I was going to see it but yesterday I read a review that says it isn't a war story with a love story on the background but a love story with on the background a war story. Typical disney, too high titanic factor! They also wrote that you have to wait for an hour or so to see some action.
So now I dunno anymore...
-c

[Cipher13]

Hm. We were gonna see it. Then I thought, "nah, its just gonna be some stupid romance thing..."

Well, glad I didn't. Return Of The Mummy is awesome!


------------------

AIM: Cipher1387
ICQ: 48111606
mail: [email protected]

[OllO]

Originally posted by caifara:
I haven't seen it yet (the movie has not yet arrived in Belgium), and I was going to see it but yesterday I read a review that says it isn't a war story with a love story on the background but a love story with on the background a war story. Typical disney, too high titanic factor! They also wrote that you have to wait for an hour or so to see some action.
So now I dunno anymore...
-c

Disney cut out all that would be offensive to the Japanese (like the actual attack and anything else that portrayed the Japanese negatively) for the Japanese release of the movie and turned it into a love story set in the South Pacific.

[vega24]

I HATE political correctness.

[PeteL999]

the mummy return was awful. Movies are too expensive to see these days. I don't know how it is down under cipher but 9 bucks for what could be a bad movie isn't a great investment

[Maul's cauterized torso]

Well, The Mummy Returns was Much better than the first one, which sucks bad. Granted it's no Fight Club, but for an action movie I think the character development and storyline was nice and beleivable.

What made it good (and what made the first one absolute **** ) was the jokes. The first one was a joke a minute, but I NEVER laughed. The second one had only a handful of jokes, but even though I never laughed at least I wasn't totally annoyed the whole time.

Movie's only flaw?: After killing her husband, after killing herself, after travelling through time and suffering unspeakable nightmares, the egyptian queen runs away instead of helping her lover (the bad guy) why? Because she's afraid of falling rocks? Gimme a break; that is SO unbeleivable and dumb.
Anyway, good movie, though.

------------------

[jholmes]

I thought they did a good job of evenhandedly presenting the Japanese side without going too PC. Japan had what they thought of as legitimate reasons to go to war. They showed that.

The love story thing helps make it a date movie but the deal is the actual fight. Jerry Bruckheimer has always blown stuff up well - here he puts it to really good use. When the Arizona goes it feels HUGE. If they'd have taken the story from Tora Tora Tora and used his special effects it would have been a great film.

They could have replaced the love story with the missed opportunities that the US had to know what was coming. Gordon Prang's excellent book At Dawn We Slept has enough true intrigue and plotlines from what really happened to make the mushy stuff unnecessary.

[This message has been edited by jholmes (edited 05-27-2001).]

[etphonehome]

I think that adding a fictional love story to a real-life tragedy is not a good thing to do. People should not go to a movie about Pearl Harbor to be entertained. The movie should remind people of the atrocities of war, rather than trying to distract from that with a love story.

I understand that movies need to make money, but I think it's disrespectful to those who fought in the war to focus on a fictional love story rather than the actual fighting that occurred.

[SillyMonk]

Originally posted by etphonehome:
I think that adding a fictional love story to a real-life tragedy is not a good thing to do. People should not go to a movie about Pearl Harbor to be entertained. The movie should remind people of the atrocities of war, rather than trying to distract from that with a love story.

I understand that movies need to make money, but I think it's disrespectful to those who fought in the war to focus on a fictional love story rather than the actual fighting that occurred.

At first thought I agreed, it does seem to be the wrong priority for the movie. But then I thought: movies are about entertainment. There is an old expression in Hollywood about trying to educate the viewers, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union."

If people want to know about Pearl Harbor they should be reading books! Long live print!

[pathogen]

Except for the special effects (which borrowed too much from Saving Private Ryan and Robotech dogfights) this movie was sh**.

The jingoism and patriotic banter was insipid and scary. It was highly arrogant and manipulative, ethnocentric and self-congratulatory. This movie is a lumbering beast of "America Rules!" insensitivity.

I wish it hadn't been based on history, because as fiction it would be more accountable.

[tie]

Originally posted by pathogen:
The jingoism and patriotic banter was insipid and scary. It was highly arrogant and manipulative, ethnocentric and self-congratulatory. This movie is a lumbering beast of "America Rules!" insensitivity.

I haven't seen the movie -- but isn't that historically accurate?

[jholmes]

From what I have read of the times - and it's one of my interests - I think they were pretty close on the overall tone Perhaps a little too subtle.the enemy was always "the Japanese" and not the "#%$*& Japs" that seem to sprinkle through the war time literature and accounts.

Pathogen - from what I could tell the story of the attack and the American response were fairly accurate. The US didn't ask for the war but didn't go out of her way to avoid it either. Your cynicism in seeing jingoism and patriotism is I believe, tainted by the last 50 years. The US was caught pants down and had no choice but to rally together. Men really did leave jobs and go off to war. They volunteered to fight for, and die for, their country. That much was not fiction

[graphixmaker]

While the Japanese did feel they had the reason to go to war I think it is stupid of Disney to cut out all those scenes. They bombed us. If they want to see the movie they should have to see it. It's just like when the German townspeople were taken to an actual death camp after it had been liberated and saw what their country had done to people. They were horrified. The Japanese shouldn't get a cleaned up Pearl Harbor so we don't hurt their feelings.

Jim

[Edit: I gotta learn how to spell ]

[This message has been edited by graphixmaker (edited 05-27-2001).]

[Stogieman]

Movie's only flaw?: After killing her husband, after killing herself, after travelling through time and suffering unspeakable nightmares, the egyptian queen runs away instead of helping her lover (the bad guy) why? Because she's afraid of falling rocks? Gimme a break; that is SO unbeleivable and dumb.
Anyway, good movie, though.

Come on Maul, are you sure that scene was the movie's only flaw? What about the stupid scene when they're flying in a canyon on a big blimp trying to escape from the Mummy's huge tidal wave? Rocket boosters on a blimp...riiiiight. And just how the hell did they survive after being hit out by that huge 100ft wave? Better yet... how the hell was the pilot able to repair and refuel the blimp in the middle of freakin nowhere?
The movie is filled with crap like that. So you see, being afraid of failing rocks was probably one of the more believable scenes in the movie. I still enjoyed the picture though. My friends and I had a blast riping in the movie like Crow or Tom Servo would on an episode of MST3K.

[This message has been edited by Stogieman (edited 05-27-2001).]

[pathogen]

I love action movies. But I don't think much of Bruckheimer except he's good at taking my money and making anything seem glamorous.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/...388465,00.html