Okay, I'm probably one of the last people around here you would expect to defend this director, but I feel he gets an unfair amount of bashing in this area.

True, his movies aren't high art, but I doubt that's what he sets out to make. While Deep Rising wasn't that great, I found The Jungle Book and both Mummy Movies highly entertaining. While the FX might not have been perfect, they were okay for what he was making, and the acting was pretty solid IMO. Not great, just solid. (Better than what we get in the SW prequels, that for certain.)

That said, I know Van Helsing will most likely be on par with his other movies, which means most people around here will find it a horrid a piece of crap. I remember when Mummy Returns came out it was bashed to no end on this board, yet somehow it brok $200 million domestically. I also find that many people feel the need to enumerate his shortcomings in other movies when his most current one is released; a lot of people around here are already bashing Van Helsing and saying "looks as crappy as his other movies."
The way I look at it, his movies need to be looked upon the same way you would view an episode of Hercules or Xena. They're fluff entertainment with some tongue in cheek moments. I looked upon The Mummy movies as a mixture of Indiana Jones and Evil Dead, and with that frame of mind found them highly entertaining.

The only thing I don't like about Van Helsing is that they refer to people calling them on the Vampire Hunter D rip off as "geek stuff."

I'm too lazy right now to go into why I think Sommers sucks but I'd just like to say that there is most definitely a clear distinction between good "popcorn" movies and bad ones. People seem to forget this at times. Sommers makes the kind of films that are most disappointing of all: movies that aren't flat-out bloody bad but have enough potential that their eventual mediocrity make them that much more disappointing in the end than those that never had a chance to begin with.

The Mummy Returns.

As much as people wouldn't want to admit to it, I think they enjoyed The Mummy, it was a roller coaster ride.

But then Sommers stepped up and delivered crap on a plate in The Mummy Returns. In the grand tradition of what have you done for me lately, all we have from Mr. Sommers is crap....and a truely large turd it was.

Myself, I think the guy makes some really entertaining movies (save for TMR, which was bad), I just watched Deep Rising again last night and boy did I have a good time.

The only Sommers film I enjoyed absolutely was The Mummy. I went to see the Mummy Returns and was simply disappointed by the lack of effort. That's what pisses me off, the lack of effort.

Here's three reasons why I have no intention of seeing Van Helsing:

1) The brainless, by-the-book, obligatory love story with Kate Beckinsale
2) Richard Roxboro as Dracula. WTF!? Could they have possibly chosen a less frightening actor to play the villian? They might as well have cast Paul Reubens or Carrot Top.
3) Bad, vector-like visual effects.

I really liked the mummy, but mummy returns stunk. It was just all cgi all the time. I considered the first mummy kind of like 'Indiana Jones light', a fun adventure movie.

I got nothing against the man. I see his "art" as popcorn (or beer) movies that are entertaining yet you forget about them a week later, just like a cool roller-coaster ride.

I'm all for "Polish black and white art films with a crying clown and lesbians arm wrestling while a midget cooks an egg" kinda movies but sometimes it's just fun to switch your brain to "off" and enjoy the ride, which Sommers does well.

Darkfriend:my sentiments exactly. If I got something like TMR from Ridley Scott, I would be peeved. From Sommers, it's okay.

Well there you go, you've answered your own question.

I liked "The Mummy," but it's looking more and more like Sommers got lucky with that one. Everything else he has made has been bloated junk with an over-reliance on CGI.

"Van Helsing," sadly, looks to be even worse. From the ridiculously anachronistic Batman-like gadgets (isn't is convenient that Van Helsing always has exactly the right gizmo for the job on his utility belt?) to cartoonish computer-generated effects, this movie looks more and more like a must-avoid the more I see of it.

That's because it's a mainstream run of the mill hefty budget film - that plus throw in the FX junkies and there you go.

I myself can't stand his movies but I do think he has the potential to be pretty good. Stop dumbing down the acting and get a decent plot going and it might help for starters.

Okey dokey....who talks like that? "Roller Coaster Ride?" You sound like a walking talking commercial working for the studio.

In my opinion, Mummy and Mummy Returns were both boring, and the CGI was horrible. I'm gonna skip Van Helsing because it looks like more of the same.

I know of at least one person on this board who likes The Mummy Returns.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...=Mummy+Returns

Count me as one of those people who liked The Mummy for what it was - a good popcorn film. The Mummy Returns was a bad popcorn film that I had the misfortune of paying for and so I will be vary of Van Helsing - plus the trailer doesn't bode well. It might go on to make $200M but that doesn't mean its good.

well, put me down as a person who liked elements of "the Mummy Returns". the first "Mummy" was MUCH better, of course..

I couldn't agree more. I am especially sick of the phrases, which seem to be the catch phrases here at DVD talk of "I enjoyed it for what it was, just a dumb popcorn flick", I mean almost everyone here uses this phrase to death on more & more movies. I can only speak for myself, but if I'm spending $10 of my hard earned money, I need more than just a "dumb popcorn movie" & my idea of a "good dumb popcorn movie" is different then monst. The Mummy, is a wretched cliched crapfest. Kill Bill is a "good popcorn movie", it doesn't make you think, it's not believable, the plot is extemely simple, but he writing is smart & the directing is phenomenal & all done with a failry modest budget.

Thus my problem & vast hatred for Steven Sommers. $100 million budgeted movies directed with absolutely NO imagination or originality whatsover, but b/c they have tons of special effects with minimal character develepmont, people eat his stuff up. I actually don't hate Deep Rising, & think that is his one movie that is truly enjoyable b/c of the "it is what it is factor". Despite my love of Rachel Weiz, The Mummy is filled with empty characters that I could care less what happens to them with action that I found to be quite boring with little build up & poor execution.

From everything I've read & what behind the scenes stuff I've seen about Van Helsing, the man has absolutely know clue how to direct & create a movie dealing with this genre. With 90% of the special effects being CGI, & the dreadful casting of certain characters, the movie looks to be his worste yet.

I too employed the "Roller Coaster ride" metaphor and that's exactly what it is; you have fun and then forget about it... I don't think clemente is working for the studio... I didn't see any "AWESOME" or "SPECTACULAR" words in his post

Now I'll go back to watching my "Honduras documentary about crickets dying of famine and moving to Alaska" movie. Because I am intelligent and I'll be able to talk to chicks about this movie and maybe get in their intellectual pants by mentionning this movie

Ahh **** it, I'll just watch Die Hard...

I agree. The Mummy Returns takes much more crap than it should.

So, I guess Lucas-bashing is okay, but not Sommers-bashing. Becuase Sommers is better than Lucas, right?

I like both The Mummy and Deep Rising, especially the Mummy, which I consider his best movie.

I wasn't talking about Sommers, I was talking about the acting in their movies.

FWIW, I liked Mummy Returns better than the first one.

I just hate the guy! Now...I like a good popcorn flick...for example...a good Popcorn director is Michael Bay...the guys knows how to blow shit up real well...I mean...Bad Boys 2 is just the perfect popcorn flick...big...loud...funny...and fun...same goes for Armageddon...now I'll let him slide for Pearl Harbor...everyone makes mistakes...but Stephen Sommers now...his movies lack everything...their just not entertaining and their just BAD movies...

I've enjoyed both Mummy movies and so far from the trailers, Van Helsing looks spectacular. Stephen Sommers is good at what he does, which is making fun adventure films that anyone can enjoy, and the box office success demonstrates that. Why all the hate? Probably for the same reasons people dislike Michael Bay, the only difference being Bay's movies have more realistic and 'hard' action while Sommers goes the cartoony PG-13 route. More then a few people here simply don't seem to like the big budget mainstream action movie. I'm sure you'll hear more harsh words as the reviews come in and Van Helsing hits theaters.

I'm not a fan of either of the mummy movies and I thought the scorpion king was just stupid. I just couldn't get into the material I guess. But, I'm lookin forward to Van Helsing. It looks like it'll be great

I saw The Mummy and really enjoyed it. I just saw The Mummy Returns recently on TV and while it's not as good as The Mummy, it's still fairly entertaining.

Word. Fun movie to me, but then again I like checking my brain at the door for stupid action flicks.

You can figure out if someone is a true action/adventure film enthusiast or just a poseur using the buzz words by asking them if they can tell the difference between The Mummy and The Mummy Returns.

If they think both are the same, then they just don't have the eye for action movies. The Mummy is one of the best action/adventure films of the late 90s.

- Great pacing
- Beautiful imagery
- Clever story
- Fine balance of comedy, horror and action that beautifully appeals to everyone in the audience without pissing any segment off (tho the Benny character occasionally comes close)
- Wonderful chemistry among the cast
- Most importantly, action that is EXCITING and fast, yet always clear. No bullshit Michael Bay epileptic editing but every bit as energetic. That is no small accomplishment.

Whereas The Mummy Returns was pretty much an overblown failure with horrendous effects and too much kiddie pandering. The action scenes were good but, and I can't believe I'm saying this, there were actually almost too many of them. The pacing was shot to hell. Or maybe it's just because I found a lot of the non-action scenes impossibly stupid and irritating.

Just MHO.