comment #1

corey3rd says ...

Because Somers "Jungle Book" is such an amazing film....Jerry Weintraub ought to just fly over the Congo throwing bills out the window

comment #2

Rich S. says ...

No film has ever done justice to Burroughs' original first novel. The Disney version probably came closest. I'm afraid this isn't going to cut it. ("starring Kevin O'Connor as the wacky jungle guide!")

comment #3

Catman says ...

I guess this means Hugh Jackman (He already swings both ways, I understand.) since Bredan Fraser has already done his Tarzan gig.

comment #4

Edward says ...

Please, God...NOOOOOO!

comment #5

LYT says ...

Can't be worse than the Casper Van Dien version from the '90s, which I think was the last live-action theatrical incarnation.

"No film has ever done justice to Burroughs' original first novel."

True, but GREYSTOKE gave it a good try. And gave the world Christopher Lambert.

comment #6

BurmaShave says ...

Catman, on what basis are we saying Jackman swings both ways? Because he can sing and does Broadway musicals? Get the fuck out of here. Don Draper called, he wants his era back.

comment #7

BurmaShave says ...

Catman, on what basis are we saying Jackman swings both ways? Because he can sing and does Broadway musicals? Get the fuck out of here. Don Draper called, he wants his era back.

comment #8

BurmaShave says ...

Sorry on the double. Fucking typekey.

comment #9

MovieBob says ...

Sommers has made three essentially great films in his career: Jungle Book, Mummy 1 and Deep Rising. Any one of them could be used to teach an entire film class on how to properly make pulpy B-movie material into high-end blockbusters. He's the right choice.

comment #10

PerfectTommy says ...

Do you think they could get Bo Derek back? Maybe as Tarzan's mother this time.

comment #11

televisiontears says ...

Seriously, they should have pursued David Gordon Green for this. He's in the blockbuster mindset right now, and this would have been the perfect chance for him to showcase his Malick obsession (against a sweetly saturated jungle backdrop), and simultaneously refine his action chops - I imagine a first act origin story largely devoid of dialogue. He would tear that up, and I would pay to see the results. Sommers, not so much.

comment #12

Wiggumx says ...

MovieBob:

Deep Rising made $11.2 million when it was released, domestic. And Jungle Book made made $43 million, domestic. So, while you may be able to call Jungle Book a modest success, it and Deep Rising are hardly the "high-end blockbusters" that you claim a whole film class can be taught about.

And Sommers is a hack. Van Helsing is one of the worst attempted tent-poles of the last ten years.

comment #13

Matthew Lucas says ...

Oh dear god...talk about apples and oranges.

comment #14

MovieBob says ...

Wiggumx
"So, while you may be able to call Jungle Book a modest success, it and Deep Rising are hardly the "high-end blockbusters" that you claim a whole film class can be taught about."

"blockbuster" in the vauge genre sense, not necessarily in the earning sense.

Mummy 2 and Van Helsing aren't good, but at least they aren't offensively-awful like "Transformers." Sommer's heart is in the right place, working with a producer who'll say "no" once in awhile is all he needs.

comment #15

BurmaShave says ...

TRANSFORMERS is ten times better than VAN HELSING or MUMMY RETURNS. It's almost a not half bad movie. I agree with everything about DEEP RISING and MUMMY though. Stephen Sommers has made a few three star movies, and I don't see why he doesn't have another in him.

comment #16

corey3rd says ...

Michael Schroeder developed the Jungle Book project including the script. he had gone over to India and had found the proper locations. Disney bought up the project in pre-production and brought in Sommers, The director decided there was really no reason to shoot it in India and thus he made the film in South Carolina.

having sat through enough lectures by no-talent hacks, it's not that far fetched to see Sommers recount his feeble cinematic adventures.

comment #17

Howlingman says ...

I have a big soft spot for DEEP RISING; just a good, fun monster movie. Unfortunately it's all been downhill from there.

comment #18

Richardson says ...

"Mummy 2 and Van Helsing aren't good, but at least they aren't offensively-awful like "Transformers.""

That's the first time 'Van Helsing' and 'not offensively awful' have ever been used in the same sentence.

comment #19

JaySmack says ...

ANY time somebody uses the phrse "Transformers is BETTER than," in a sentance they automatically invalidate themselves.
I'm typing this reply from the floor as I roll around laughing at the notion somebody actually had the stones to ascribe quality to ANYTHING uber-hack and mega suck-ass Michael Bay has done.
Bay couldn't make a good film if Orson Welles rose from his gave and gave him a personal ten year film school course.

Transformrers is the worst pile of directionless, derivative, horseh*t to be produced since Ishtar. It makes Mummy 2 look like The Dark Knight by comparison.

I like much of what Sommers has done (Van Helsing started okay, but didn't suck ass like Transformers) and hope he reigns in his campy impulses. If people want to deride Sommers --fine. but let's keep the cmoparisons within the realm of sanity.
Transformers is the bottom of a turd-laden, arsenic-laced, puke-walled barrel. You can ONLY go up from there! Nuff said.

comment #20

Howlingman says ...

^^ Don't mince words, JaySmack; tell us what you really think.

comment #21

Richardson says ...

The thing is, 'Van Helsing' is worse than 'Transformers', in the sense that it is just as bad as 'Transformers' in every measurable way save one -- it has significantly worse special effects. 'Transformers', flawed in every other way imaginable, has photo-realistic effects of cars turning into giant robots, and 'Van Helsing' couldn't even get photo-realistic effects of men turning into wolves.

"Transformrers is the worst pile of directionless, derivative, horseh*t to be produced since Ishtar."

'Transformers' isn't the worst thing Michael Bay directed, and it's certainly not the worst thing Don Murphy produced. Hell, it's not even the worst movie Don Murphy produced in 2007.

comment #22

Breedlove says ...

Anybody other than me remember maybe, I don't know, 5 years ago, maybe even less, when the Coens were supposedly working on some sort of Tarzan movie? I definitely remember reading that.

Maybe they can cast Shia for his vine-swinging...

comment #23

tfresca says ...

I'm a big fan of Mummy 1 and 2. I understand how critics could slam it but I had a lot of fun at both movies. That being said it's amazing how everyone smelled something rotten with the last one even though everyone but Sommers and Rachel were back. As far Tarzan I think the whole idea is passe and I don't see anyone giving a damn.

comment #24

Rich S. says ...

Van Helsing had Kate Beckinsale in a vintage Hammer Studios corset and Transformers had Megan Fox working on a car in a tank top.

I honestly don't know how you guys can choose.

comment #25

storymark says ...

I didn't like Transformers, and I would still place it leagues above Van Helsing.

Mummy 2? Harder to say.

comment #26

BurmaShave says ...

Having just watched and enjoyed BAD BOYS for the mindless entertainment that it is, can this "Michael Bay is the worst director alive" nonsense please stop? He's Tony Scott Jr. with no personality, but the man can direct action and gets out of the way of supremely eccentric performances normally not seen in action films. He makes crocks of shit I enjoy watching.

This was pointed out awhile ago on CHUD or AICN, but read a call sheet for a day's work on a Bay picture and tell me an idiot could do it.

comment #27

DavidF says ...

I think this is gonna kick ass.

If they're smart they'll lock in Bret Ratner and McG for the sequels RIGHT NOW.

comment #28

Richardson says ...

Burma - I'm also willing to say that 'The Rock' belongs on the shortlist (possibly topping the shortlist) of best action movies of the '90's.

Which is to say that, off-hand, thinking for a minute, I can't think of a better one. There probably are a few. But not many.

"He's Tony Scott Jr. with no personality"

I'm not sure Tony Scott had any personality to start with.