![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Posted by Patterson from spider-wm041.proxy.aol.com on May 09, 2001 at 13:02:17:
In Reply to: Gee...I wonder... posted by Georgiana Jones on May 08, 2001 at 20:43:27:
: I never saw ToD when it first came out in the theaters...but I wonder if people treated it as they are treating the Mummy Returns...I would think so...
: Just a thought...
: Georgiana!!!!!!
And ToD was a big disappointment then, too. Lets face it - RotLA was a tough act to follow. The Mummy, however, was no Raiders. It was a decent distraction while waiting for Indy IV, had a reasonably intact plot (except for the bumbling brother) and made you jump a few times like any good Universal monster movie should. I don't understand how they could mess up a sequel when the bar was never really very high in the first place, and the formula is pretty well nailed down. Ah, well - again, at least there was no mention of a virgin birth...
IMHO
Patterson