The Mummy (remake) RULED! Brendon Fraser kicks ass!

Posted by Indy Coil from pm6-34.northlink.com on November 19, 2000 at 14:00:53:

In Reply to: Uhh.... posted by Brett (Maverick) Lambert on November 19, 2000 at 04:33:38:

: Yes, it would probably suck to see Indy being totally changed in say 20-50 years. I sincerely doubt it would happen, but time will tell of course.

: As for your comparisons.... I loved M:I-2 (didn't care for the first one) but I'm overall quite unfamiliar with the original show aside from maybe 1 or 2 minutes of seeing it, but to me, it's perfectly ok to have the Hong Kong action movie intervention into this show. At least they were trying to do something different and exciting with the franchise rather then the crap MGM has been throwing at us with the most recent James Bond installment with the same thing over and over and over and over. It was just plain too tired and they never let their directors put in their own touches. That's why MGM would hate it if directors like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and even Quentin Tarantino got their hands on a chance to directing a Bond flick since they would want to mess with their formula and they don't want anything changed one bit. Now that is what I call a truly sorry situation.

: I loved the remake of "The Mummy" and I have seen the original (I did though check it out a week or so after seeing the remake) and to be honest, I didn't like it very much. It was only 90 minutes or something yet it was very boring. Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein, and The Invisible Man were infinitely better made films from the same era as the 30s original.

: I'm not familiar with "The Rescuer's Down Under" so I can't form an opinion for that one.

Follow Ups:

WARNING: By reading this you could be disenfranchised. MK 15:05:11 11/19/2000 (5)
- Ian Fleming when hearing of Connery doing the Bond role was appalled! He didn't fit with the image that Fleming had of his hero.(nm) Fedora 00:30:31 11/20/2000 (0)
- There aren't too many John Wayne types left... graml 17:18:16 11/19/2000 (0)
- Actually, about Bond.... Indy Coil 17:18:07 11/19/2000 (2)
  - My humble Bond theory: graml 17:20:14 11/19/2000 (1)
    - touche....(nm) Indy Coil 17:28:45 11/19/2000 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : Yes, it would probably suck to see Indy being totally changed in say 20-50 years.  I sincerely doubt it would happen, but time will tell of course.

: : As for your comparisons.... I loved M:I-2 (didn't care for the first one) but I'm overall quite unfamiliar with the original show aside from maybe 1 or 2 minutes of seeing it, but to me, it's perfectly ok to have the Hong Kong action movie intervention into this show.  At least they were trying to do something different and exciting with the franchise rather then the crap MGM has been throwing at us with the most recent James Bond installment with the same thing over and over and over and over.  It was just plain too tired and they never let their directors put in their own touches.  That's why MGM would hate it if directors like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and even Quentin Tarantino got their hands on a chance to directing a Bond flick since they would want to mess with their formula and they don't want anything changed one bit.  Now that is what I call a truly sorry situation.

: : I loved the remake of "The Mummy" and I have seen the original (I did though check it out a week or so after seeing the remake) and to be honest, I didn't like it very much.  It was only 90 minutes or something yet it was very boring.  Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein, and The Invisible Man were infinitely better made films from the same era as the 30s original.

: : I'm not familiar with "The Rescuer's Down Under" so I can't form an opinion for that one.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]