KOTCS vs. The Mummy, National Treasure and Lara Croft films?

Raiders90

Well-known member
How do feel KOTCS measures up to its contemporary competiion, mainly being the Brandon Fraiser Mummy films, the Lara Croft movies, and the National Treasure films?
 

kongisking

Active member
Better than all of 'em, and the reason for that? Two words.

I hope you know what those two words are... ;)
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Although they don't hold a candle to the original Indy trilogy, I enjoy watching the mummy and national treasure more than KOTCS.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
kongisking said:
Better than all of 'em...

Not even on a good day.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a more engaging movie than National Treasure: Book of Secrets, the first Tomb Raider movie, and The Mummy Returns. That's it. End of sentence. Full stop.
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a more engaging movie than National Treasure: Book of Secrets, the first Tomb Raider movie, and The Mummy Returns. That's it. End of sentence. Full stop.

The only thing I remember about Lara Croft: Cradle of Life, was that she punched a shark. That's it. The "macguffin" was a big fat nothing.

Then there's The Mummy 3...
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Forbidden Eye said:
The only thing I remember about Lara Croft: Cradle of Life, was that she punched a shark. That's it.

Yes, you mentioned that last year when you invalidated any future criticism with this bit of musing:

Forbidden Eye said:
Not sure if this pic is part of your argument, but I never really got why Jolie is considered that sexy.

Fair play to you if doesn't cause your dark knight to rise, but that line for Ford's patented prostate exam is getting rather long. Point being Ms. Jolie's milkshake doesn't need to bring all the boys to the yard to be a better attraction than an old slab of leather.



Forbidden Eye said:
The "macguffin" was a big fat nothing.

Maybe. But you would have to fall into that camp that thinks The Macguffin must be important to the story rather a device that sets things in motion. And aside from a title change, Dr. Jones could have carried a severed burro head throughout the movie and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

The burro... she tells me to.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
To give one film an edge over another the attractions can be a simple as eye candy.

The Mummy series gave us a massed army of Anubian warriors, and even Mummy 3 had snow, mountains and Yeti:

2533774659_85e8e67225_b.jpg


National Treasure gave us a great subterranean journey:

NationalTreasureFilmSet.jpg


Indy's long lost daughter flips her old dad the bird:

tomb_raider___angelina_jolie_middle_finger_.jpg
 

roundshort

Active member
I have to agree, while none can even touch the original Indy's. they are all WAY better than KOTCS in every aspect. The first two Mummy movies are just fun and easy to watch.

National Treasure is fun, but not as over the top. Laura Croft well, I think the above post says it all. I did not like the tomb raider movie it is still miles ahead of KOTCS.
 

Gabeed

New member
Yup, I'd rather watch the first National Treasure or the first Mummy movie over KOTCS any day. Especially the first Mummy movie--I think it's rather underrated and is a legitimately good flick. I hesitate when it comes to Tomb Raider, though. No matter Jolie's attractiveness, Lara Croft is an intensely unlikable character, and although the first movie is kind've neat as you can see James Bond and Ser Jorah Mormont before they became a bigger deal, there's too much crappy CGI and eye-rollingly bad slow motion shots.

The Mummy sequels are awful as well. In the second one you can just tell Rachel Weisz just wants to get out and make something less insipid--small surprise we don't see her in the third one.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Gabeed said:
No matter Jolie's attractiveness, Lara Croft is an intensely unlikable character,
Agreed. Personally, I would prefer watching Indiana Jones getting his toenails clipped in a nursing home rather than anything with Lara Croft. (That said, I'd prefer the pain of watching a "Tomb Raider" movie over a superhero one.)

As films overall, the first "National Treasure" and the first "The Mummy" are better than Indy 4 but I'd still rather watch its opening 45 mins. more than either of them in their entirety.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
As films overall, the first "National Treasure" and the first "The Mummy" are better than Indy 4 but I'd still rather watch its opening 45 mins. more than either of them in their entirety.

If 45 minutes is up until the flight of the refrigerator, then I would agree. But since watching them I haven't had the desire to see any of them again.

None of the aforementioned in this thread are great movies by any stretch of the imagination!
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
KOTCS < The Mummy, National Treasure (those movies, while not great, are at least mostly competent and mildly to fairly entertaining)

KOTCS=Tomb Raider (both suck in roughly equal measure, which is a lot)

KOTCS > The Mummy 2&3, National Treasure 2, Tomb Raider 2 (it's at least marginally better than those crappy, CRAPPY sequels)
 

Spurlock

New member
Mummy is fairly camping with a more fantastical story. Not for me. Lara Croft just doesn't make a lot of sense, maybe bad editing of something, but they just weren't good.

When comparing the National Treasures, I honestly thing Kingdom is just a bit better. I really liked the NTs, they were modern adventures, but all Indiana Jones films are the same as they tap into the same root of intrigue, a John Williams soundtrack, and Harrison on his worst day is still better than Cage.
 
Top