Dashing legionnaire Rick O'Connell stumbles upon the hidden ruins of Hamunaptra while in the midst of a battle to claim the area in 1920s Egypt. It has been over three thousand years since former High Priest Imhotep suffered a fate worse than death as a punishment for a forbidden love—along with a curse that guarantees eternal doom upon the world if he is ever awoken.

It's two hours of fun & adventure!

Its awesome and brings you back to the time when movies had no political agendas and quotas to hit. A simpler time.

@OddRob said:

Its awesome and brings you back to the time when movies had no political agendas and quotas to hit. A simpler time.

Come on now. First off, not all modern movies have a "political agenda" . Secondly, some old movies did indeed have a "political agenda" . They just were a bit more suave in executing them. They didn't blatantly bonk you over the head with it as though you were a dullard with a double digit I.Q.

@movie_nazi said:

@OddRob said:

Its awesome and brings you back to the time when movies had no political agendas and quotas to hit. A simpler time.

Come on now. First off, not all modern movies have a "political agenda" . Secondly, some old movies did indeed have a "political agenda" . They just were a bit more suave in executing them. They didn't blatantly bonk you over the head with it as though you were a dullard with a double digit I.Q.

You cant compare films from the 90s to films now. Its a whole other animal. Its a shame really. And yes some old films that have political agendas but no where to the point that we have it now. Once you start turning roles based on real life people into different races and sexes cause of 'representation' is when you lose the plot IMO.

@OddRob said:

@movie_nazi said:

@OddRob said:

Its awesome and brings you back to the time when movies had no political agendas and quotas to hit. A simpler time.

Come on now. First off, not all modern movies have a "political agenda" . Secondly, some old movies did indeed have a "political agenda" . They just were a bit more suave in executing them. They didn't blatantly bonk you over the head with it as though you were a dullard with a double digit I.Q.

You cant compare films from the 90s to films now. Its a whole other animal. Its a shame really. And yes some old films that have political agendas but no where to the point that we have it now. Once you start turning roles based on real life people into different races and sexes cause of 'representation' is when you lose the plot IMO.

Just a few from old Hollywood:

Genghis Khan played by John Wayne

Cleopatra played by Claudette Colbert, Liz Taylor, & Vivian Leigh

Pancho Villa played by Wallace Beery

Benito Juárez Played by Paul Muni

Sitting Bull played by J. Carrol Naish

Crazy Horse played by Victor Mature

King Mongkut of Siam played by Yul Brynner

Geronimo played by Chuck Connors

Muhammad Ahmad played by Laurence Olivier

@bratface said:

@OddRob said:

@movie_nazi said:

@OddRob said:

Its awesome and brings you back to the time when movies had no political agendas and quotas to hit. A simpler time.

Come on now. First off, not all modern movies have a "political agenda" . Secondly, some old movies did indeed have a "political agenda" . They just were a bit more suave in executing them. They didn't blatantly bonk you over the head with it as though you were a dullard with a double digit I.Q.

You cant compare films from the 90s to films now. Its a whole other animal. Its a shame really. And yes some old films that have political agendas but no where to the point that we have it now. Once you start turning roles based on real life people into different races and sexes cause of 'representation' is when you lose the plot IMO.

Just a few from old Hollywood:

Genghis Khan played by John Wayne

Cleopatra played by Claudette Colbert, Liz Taylor, & Vivian Leigh

Pancho Villa played by Wallace Beery

Benito Juárez Played by Paul Muni

Sitting Bull played by J. Carrol Naish

Crazy Horse played by Victor Mature

King Mongkut of Siam played by Yul Brynner

Geronimo played by Chuck Connors

Muhammad Ahmad played by Laurence Olivier

Yep, and I dont agree with any of them. I mean I understand why Hollywood does it. No one is going to come see your film if you hire a unknown that accurately shows what the person actually looked like. But I cant stand hypocrites that say its fine to switch race/sex for no reason other than to hit a quota or please a mob. Reminds me of the live action Ghost in the Shell film. I understand why they picked ScarJo for the role, not to mention she had a white Shell in the film. But people lost it that she wasnt Asian. Even if she looked white in the original Anime film, more Asian in the series. I dont know why its so hard to stick to the source material...

@OddRob said:

@bratface said:

@OddRob said:

@movie_nazi said:

@OddRob said:

Its awesome and brings you back to the time when movies had no political agendas and quotas to hit. A simpler time.

Come on now. First off, not all modern movies have a "political agenda" . Secondly, some old movies did indeed have a "political agenda" . They just were a bit more suave in executing them. They didn't blatantly bonk you over the head with it as though you were a dullard with a double digit I.Q.

You cant compare films from the 90s to films now. Its a whole other animal. Its a shame really. And yes some old films that have political agendas but no where to the point that we have it now. Once you start turning roles based on real life people into different races and sexes cause of 'representation' is when you lose the plot IMO.

Just a few from old Hollywood:

Genghis Khan played by John Wayne

Cleopatra played by Claudette Colbert, Liz Taylor, & Vivian Leigh

Pancho Villa played by Wallace Beery

Benito Juárez Played by Paul Muni

Sitting Bull played by J. Carrol Naish

Crazy Horse played by Victor Mature

King Mongkut of Siam played by Yul Brynner

Geronimo played by Chuck Connors

Muhammad Ahmad played by Laurence Olivier

Yep, and I dont agree with any of them. I mean I understand why Hollywood does it. No one is going to come see your film if you hire a unknown that accurately shows what the person actually looked like. But I cant stand hypocrites that say its fine to switch race/sex for no reason other than to hit a quota or please a mob. Reminds me of the live action Ghost in the Shell film. I understand why they picked ScarJo for the role, not to mention she had a white Shell in the film. But people lost it that she wasnt Asian. Even if she looked white in the original Anime film, more Asian in the series. I dont know why its so hard to stick to the source material...

The point that seems to be routinely overlooked is that the fact you couldn't get a 'known' actor of east Asian appearance (millions in the US) to play an Asian cyborg is the most political thing in movies. Decades upon decades of social and political factors meaning white people have to apply coloured makeup to play any non-white roles because of a systemic push by adominant group in society to happily misrepresent the makeup of society and keep the industry a"whites only party". Unless we come out with the hogwash that non-white people in the US have no interest in acting?

Take this very film for example. I've not see in, but it seems an extraordinarily white european cast for a film set in Egypt. The leading lady is born in Venezuala and, given her character name, appears to be playing an Egyptian. So this film is actually a prime example of what was so badly wrong with Hollywood throughout the 20th century.

To bemoan a situation where we have to endure an acknowledgement that not all humans beings (and therefore characters) are white and that non-white people can actually act seems strange.

That the very people who complain loudest about this are the ones who were silent for decades of white people playing non-white characters frankly says far more about the person complaining than it does about society or the film business. If you read this and can point to a post where you've complained about a white person playing a non-white character then this doesn't apply to you.

@Fergoose said:

@OddRob said:

@bratface said:

@OddRob said:

@movie_nazi said:

@OddRob said:

Its awesome and brings you back to the time when movies had no political agendas and quotas to hit. A simpler time.

Come on now. First off, not all modern movies have a "political agenda" . Secondly, some old movies did indeed have a "political agenda" . They just were a bit more suave in executing them. They didn't blatantly bonk you over the head with it as though you were a dullard with a double digit I.Q.

You cant compare films from the 90s to films now. Its a whole other animal. Its a shame really. And yes some old films that have political agendas but no where to the point that we have it now. Once you start turning roles based on real life people into different races and sexes cause of 'representation' is when you lose the plot IMO.

Just a few from old Hollywood:

Genghis Khan played by John Wayne

Cleopatra played by Claudette Colbert, Liz Taylor, & Vivian Leigh

Pancho Villa played by Wallace Beery

Benito Juárez Played by Paul Muni

Sitting Bull played by J. Carrol Naish

Crazy Horse played by Victor Mature

King Mongkut of Siam played by Yul Brynner

Geronimo played by Chuck Connors

Muhammad Ahmad played by Laurence Olivier

Yep, and I dont agree with any of them. I mean I understand why Hollywood does it. No one is going to come see your film if you hire a unknown that accurately shows what the person actually looked like. But I cant stand hypocrites that say its fine to switch race/sex for no reason other than to hit a quota or please a mob. Reminds me of the live action Ghost in the Shell film. I understand why they picked ScarJo for the role, not to mention she had a white Shell in the film. But people lost it that she wasnt Asian. Even if she looked white in the original Anime film, more Asian in the series. I dont know why its so hard to stick to the source material...

The point that seems to be routinely overlooked is that the fact you couldn't get a 'known' actor of east Asian appearance (millions in the US) to play an Asian cyborg is the most political thing in movies. Decades upon decades of social and political factors meaning white people have to apply coloured makeup to play any non-white roles because of a systemic push by adominant group in society to happily misrepresent the makeup of society and keep the industry a"whites only party". Unless we come out with the hogwash that non-white people in the US have no interest in acting?

Take this very film for example. I've not see in, but it seems an extraordinarily white european cast for a film set in Egypt. The leading lady is born in Venezuala and, given her character name, appears to be playing an Egyptian. So this film is actually a prime example of what was so badly wrong with Hollywood throughout the 20th century.

To bemoan a situation where we have to endure an acknowledgement that not all humans beings (and therefore characters) are white and that non-white people can actually act seems strange.

That the very people who complain loudest about this are the ones who were silent for decades of white people playing non-white characters frankly says far more about the person complaining than it does about society or the film business. If you read this and can point to a post where you've complained about a white person playing a non-white character then this doesn't apply to you.

There are no well known Asian actors as big as ScarJo was back then and still arent honestly. I believe ScarJo was the biggest paid female actor in Hollywood at the time. And the leading lady is Weisz not the actress that plays Anck-su-namun in this film. In Doctor Strange they changed the Ancient One to a white female from a Tibetan man. And its not for 'inclusion' its cause Disney didnt want to piss off their China overlords and lose millions. Again, hypocrites. Hollywood preaches inclusion and diversity but when it comes down to the money thats all they care about. They cut of gay references for other countries all the time. They minimize colored peoples roles in films and on posters. Jesus, Disney thanked a region in China that actually has death camps in it...death camps like Nazis...wtf!? Im all for inclusion but not at the cost of the art. If a story calls for a black lead, awesome. If its open to all races than the best actor for the role should get it. Not the one that has the darkest skin. Something thats hard to accept apparently.

@OddRob said:

@Fergoose said:

@OddRob said:

@bratface said:

@OddRob said:

@movie_nazi said:

@OddRob said:

Its awesome and brings you back to the time when movies had no political agendas and quotas to hit. A simpler time.

Come on now. First off, not all modern movies have a "political agenda" . Secondly, some old movies did indeed have a "political agenda" . They just were a bit more suave in executing them. They didn't blatantly bonk you over the head with it as though you were a dullard with a double digit I.Q.

You cant compare films from the 90s to films now. Its a whole other animal. Its a shame really. And yes some old films that have political agendas but no where to the point that we have it now. Once you start turning roles based on real life people into different races and sexes cause of 'representation' is when you lose the plot IMO.

Just a few from old Hollywood:

Genghis Khan played by John Wayne

Cleopatra played by Claudette Colbert, Liz Taylor, & Vivian Leigh

Pancho Villa played by Wallace Beery

Benito Juárez Played by Paul Muni

Sitting Bull played by J. Carrol Naish

Crazy Horse played by Victor Mature

King Mongkut of Siam played by Yul Brynner

Geronimo played by Chuck Connors

Muhammad Ahmad played by Laurence Olivier

Yep, and I dont agree with any of them. I mean I understand why Hollywood does it. No one is going to come see your film if you hire a unknown that accurately shows what the person actually looked like. But I cant stand hypocrites that say its fine to switch race/sex for no reason other than to hit a quota or please a mob. Reminds me of the live action Ghost in the Shell film. I understand why they picked ScarJo for the role, not to mention she had a white Shell in the film. But people lost it that she wasnt Asian. Even if she looked white in the original Anime film, more Asian in the series. I dont know why its so hard to stick to the source material...

The point that seems to be routinely overlooked is that the fact you couldn't get a 'known' actor of east Asian appearance (millions in the US) to play an Asian cyborg is the most political thing in movies. Decades upon decades of social and political factors meaning white people have to apply coloured makeup to play any non-white roles because of a systemic push by adominant group in society to happily misrepresent the makeup of society and keep the industry a"whites only party". Unless we come out with the hogwash that non-white people in the US have no interest in acting?

Take this very film for example. I've not see in, but it seems an extraordinarily white european cast for a film set in Egypt. The leading lady is born in Venezuala and, given her character name, appears to be playing an Egyptian. So this film is actually a prime example of what was so badly wrong with Hollywood throughout the 20th century.

To bemoan a situation where we have to endure an acknowledgement that not all humans beings (and therefore characters) are white and that non-white people can actually act seems strange.

That the very people who complain loudest about this are the ones who were silent for decades of white people playing non-white characters frankly says far more about the person complaining than it does about society or the film business. If you read this and can point to a post where you've complained about a white person playing a non-white character then this doesn't apply to you.

There are no well known Asian actors as big as ScarJo was back then and still arent honestly. I believe ScarJo was the biggest paid female actor in Hollywood at the time. And the leading lady is Weisz not the actress that plays Anck-su-namun in this film. In Doctor Strange they changed the Ancient One to a white female from a Tibetan man. And its not for 'inclusion' its cause Disney didnt want to piss off their China overlords and lose millions. Again, hypocrites. Hollywood preaches inclusion and diversity but when it comes down to the money thats all they care about. They cut of gay references for other countries all the time. They minimize colored peoples roles in films and on posters. Jesus, Disney thanked a region in China that actually has death camps in it...death camps like Nazis...wtf!? Im all for inclusion but not at the cost of the art. If a story calls for a black lead, awesome. If its open to all races than the best actor for the role should get it. Not the one that has the darkest skin. Something thats hard to accept apparently.

Money is the driving factor for sure. We can't really expect Hollywood behemoths to ignore the bottom line, can we? But here comes the question that I do not have the answer to: Are these changes for Hollywood inclusion actually paying off? I'd say probably not. I'm a bit bias because I'm of the opinion that you should try to stick to the source material as closely as possible. I think it is a type of reverence we owe to the original writers. I also think you are just pissing off your base such as your comic book nerds and Star Wars nerds as an example. These are the people that will go to the see the movie 5 or 6 times and buy all the merch. You really think changing the race or gender of a character is going to bring in new fans to a franchise? That is the real question, isn't it. Or is it just going to piss off your base where they only go see the movie once, if at all and don't buy any merch.

Money is the driving factor for sure. We can't really expect Hollywood behemoths to ignore the bottom line, can we? But here comes the question that I do not have the answer to: Are these changes for Hollywood inclusion actually paying off? I'd say probably not. I'm a bit bias because I'm of the opinion that you should try to stick to the source material as closely as possible. I think it is a type of reverence we owe to the original writers. I also think you are just pissing off your base such as your comic book nerds and Star Wars nerds as an example. These are the people that will go to the see the movie 5 or 6 times and buy all the merch. You really think changing the race or gender of a character is going to bring in new fans to a franchise? That is the real question, isn't it. Or is it just going to piss off your base where they only go see the movie once, if at all and don't buy any merch.

100% agree with you. You can also add Lord of the Rings on Amazon to that list. They pissed off a very intellectual fandom with the shit they are trying to pull. All of their videos are ratioed to hell and back. Its really not that hard, stick to the source as close as possible, respect the original writers/creators work, and dont throw modern day propaganda/politics in the production if it dosent call for it. But it seems thar Hollywood just cant help themselves. They never miss and opportunity to take advantage of the NPC sheep.

There are two seperate issues that should be kept separate at all times in my opinion. Messing with existing franchises and wilfully misrepresenting society by telling only whitewashed stories (e.g. colonial era tales that completely ignore the systemic racism of the time) or refusing to even try and use actors with appropriate age or ethnicity (as is the case with this film having a Venezualen as an Egyptian).

Taking the population of the USA as being 60% white (excluding Hispanic) then any movie exec who thinks alienating 40% of the population (by telling stories with only white characters or casting only white performers regardless of the ethnicity of the role) is good business sense needs an urgent appointment with an accountant. I'd question that anything close 40% of on screen roles in Hollywood films go to non-white (excluding Hispanic). Therefore, Hollywood is still arguably peddling the same politics and propaganda of a disproportionately white 'industry' as it has done since its inception, just to a lesser extent.

Or is anyone seriously suggesting that politics has only recently become an aspect in screenwriting and scripts? Many viewers and creators have been uneasy at the prospect of someone with different skin tone appearing on screen. Just as now they seem uneasy about any woman north of 40 years appearing on screen (i.e. about half the female population). Pandering to prejudice is 100% political just like pushing diversity is. Two sides of the same coin. To acknowledge and complain about only one side is morally questionable.

@Fergoose said:

There are two seperate issues that should be kept separate at all times in my opinion. Messing with existing franchises and wilfully misrepresenting society by telling only whitewashed stories (e.g. colonial era tales that completely ignore the systemic racism of the time) or refusing to even try and use actors with appropriate age or ethnicity (as is the case with this film having a Venezualen as an Egyptian).

Taking the population of the USA as being 60% white (excluding Hispanic) then any movie exec who thinks alienating 40% of the population (by telling stories with only white characters or casting only white performers regardless of the ethnicity of the role) is good business sense needs an urgent appointment with an accountant. I'd question that anything close 40% of on screen roles in Hollywood films go to non-white (excluding Hispanic). Therefore, Hollywood is still arguably peddling the same politics and propaganda of a disproportionately white 'industry' as it has done since its inception, just to a lesser extent.

Or is anyone seriously suggesting that politics has only recently become an aspect in screenwriting and scripts? Many viewers and creators have been uneasy at the prospect of someone with different skin tone appearing on screen. Just as now they seem uneasy about any woman north of 40 years appearing on screen (i.e. about half the female population). Pandering to prejudice is 100% political just like pushing diversity is. Two sides of the same coin. To acknowledge and complain about only one side is morally questionable.

No, I agree with you that Hollywood did indeed whitewash its casting. I remember seeing Rock Hudson as a Native American in Winchester '73 and thinking how ridiculous it was. I do believe you should use matching ethnicities not just because morally it is the right thing to do to offer people of certain persuasions roles but because it looks goddamn stupid to have a white person in a role that is clearly a person of color. And although it is indeed a separate issue, I think having black elves in Lord of the Rings if the source material did not specify there being black elves is also goddamn stupid.

@movie_nazi said:

@Fergoose said:

There are two seperate issues that should be kept separate at all times in my opinion. Messing with existing franchises and wilfully misrepresenting society by telling only whitewashed stories (e.g. colonial era tales that completely ignore the systemic racism of the time) or refusing to even try and use actors with appropriate age or ethnicity (as is the case with this film having a Venezualen as an Egyptian).

Taking the population of the USA as being 60% white (excluding Hispanic) then any movie exec who thinks alienating 40% of the population (by telling stories with only white characters or casting only white performers regardless of the ethnicity of the role) is good business sense needs an urgent appointment with an accountant. I'd question that anything close 40% of on screen roles in Hollywood films go to non-white (excluding Hispanic). Therefore, Hollywood is still arguably peddling the same politics and propaganda of a disproportionately white 'industry' as it has done since its inception, just to a lesser extent.

Or is anyone seriously suggesting that politics has only recently become an aspect in screenwriting and scripts? Many viewers and creators have been uneasy at the prospect of someone with different skin tone appearing on screen. Just as now they seem uneasy about any woman north of 40 years appearing on screen (i.e. about half the female population). Pandering to prejudice is 100% political just like pushing diversity is. Two sides of the same coin. To acknowledge and complain about only one side is morally questionable.

No, I agree with you that Hollywood did indeed whitewash its casting. I remember seeing Rock Hudson as a Native American in Winchester '73 and thinking how ridiculous it was. I do believe you should use matching ethnicities not just because morally it is the right thing to do to offer people of certain persuasions roles but because it looks goddamn stupid to have a white person in a role that is clearly a person of color. And although it is indeed a separate issue, I think having black elves in Lord of the Rings if the source material did not specify there being black elves is also goddamn stupid.

Lets not forget black dwarfs...that live under ground...under...ground. Lets let that sink in.

@OddRob said:

@movie_nazi said:

@Fergoose said:

There are two seperate issues that should be kept separate at all times in my opinion. Messing with existing franchises and wilfully misrepresenting society by telling only whitewashed stories (e.g. colonial era tales that completely ignore the systemic racism of the time) or refusing to even try and use actors with appropriate age or ethnicity (as is the case with this film having a Venezualen as an Egyptian).

Taking the population of the USA as being 60% white (excluding Hispanic) then any movie exec who thinks alienating 40% of the population (by telling stories with only white characters or casting only white performers regardless of the ethnicity of the role) is good business sense needs an urgent appointment with an accountant. I'd question that anything close 40% of on screen roles in Hollywood films go to non-white (excluding Hispanic). Therefore, Hollywood is still arguably peddling the same politics and propaganda of a disproportionately white 'industry' as it has done since its inception, just to a lesser extent.

Or is anyone seriously suggesting that politics has only recently become an aspect in screenwriting and scripts? Many viewers and creators have been uneasy at the prospect of someone with different skin tone appearing on screen. Just as now they seem uneasy about any woman north of 40 years appearing on screen (i.e. about half the female population). Pandering to prejudice is 100% political just like pushing diversity is. Two sides of the same coin. To acknowledge and complain about only one side is morally questionable.

No, I agree with you that Hollywood did indeed whitewash its casting. I remember seeing Rock Hudson as a Native American in Winchester '73 and thinking how ridiculous it was. I do believe you should use matching ethnicities not just because morally it is the right thing to do to offer people of certain persuasions roles but because it looks goddamn stupid to have a white person in a role that is clearly a person of color. And although it is indeed a separate issue, I think having black elves in Lord of the Rings if the source material did not specify there being black elves is also goddamn stupid.

Lets not forget black dwarfs...that live under ground...under...ground. Lets let that sink in.

Oh geez. I would consider myself a fan of LOTR. I have watched the extended cuts several times and I have read the main trilogy of books. But I haven't even been even the slightly bit curious to check out the show. Is it even out yet? But the main reason is because of this. It just looks so out of place that it just completely turns me off.

Oh geez. I would consider myself a fan of LOTR. I have watched the extended cuts several times and I have read the main trilogy of books. But I haven't even been even the slightly bit curious to check out the show. Is it even out yet? But the main reason is because of this. It just looks so out of place that it just completely turns me off.

Not yet, but its not looking good. Amazon has been deleting comments and thumbs down left and right. The fans arent happy about the direction they are going in. And that dosent even include the diversity hires.