Why is Raiders of the Lost Arc rated so highly when clearly The Mummy is the superior film?

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Off Topic > Topic Details

kekm8 27 Aug @ 12:27pm

I'm going off the IMDb ratings, which can be extrapolated to general reception of the two movies.

I get that Raiders is an important film in that it was groundbreaking and essentially started the action-adventure genre. While noteworthy, that shouldn't factor into the rating. The Mummy (1999) is objectively the better movie. It perfects the formula laid out by Raiders.

Raiders has an 8.4 rating while The Mummy has a 7.1, which implies that The Mummy is average or even borderline bad if you look at other ~7 rated movies. But the Mummy does literally everything better. The only criticisms I can think of are that it is derivative of the genre (when really it is the peak of the genre) and that the cgi is pretty clunky. Other than it is an objective improvement in every way.

And yet, Raiders is taught in art schools as peak action cinema while The Mummy is scoffed at as mere popcorn drivel. Why are they afraid to admit that action-adventure peaked in 1999?

< >

Showing 1-14 of 14 comments

Thegamingnerd4525 27 Aug @ 12:28pm

Maybe because the old Indiana Jones movies are continuously heralded by people and they don't want to acknowledge the flaws, at least what I think

Last edited by Thegamingnerd4525; 27 Aug @ 12:29pm

steven1mac 27 Aug @ 12:35pm

The Mummy embraced the comedy aspect a little too much, while Raiders took itself more serious. Add the fact Raiders predated the Mummy by a decade or more, so it influenced the direction of adventure movies more.

Numlock687 27 Aug @ 12:40pm

I like both, as both are a good story with humor. Besides raiders was first.

xBCxRangers 27 Aug @ 12:50pm

I saw Raiders in the movies when it came out. Never saw the Mummy. But can say there's just something Spielberg brings to his movies that just captures people.

The musical scores, the excitement of the movie. The way the movies end.

The guy is just a genius.

Corvus XIII 27 Aug @ 1:16pm

Raiders of the Lost Ark was not taught in my school :/

It is the better film imho because Indy at that point was not 'the good guy' .
He was allowed to be a normal adventuring male person who liked to steal things and put it on display.
This gave a depth to the film that The Mummy didn't have.

I like The Mummy, to me it is a different kind of film, I would not try to compare them.
One is a Family Adventure film The Mummy and the other is An Adventure film Raiders.

AdahnGorion 27 Aug @ 1:19pm

Because of its propaganda value

L1qu1dator 27 Aug @ 4:39pm

7 isn't average... unless you start counting from 5.
Anyway yeah, Indiana Jones is over rated af.

Devsman 27 Aug @ 4:51pm

I definitely think Raiders is the better movie.

Not that I dislike the Mummy or anything.

vkobe 27 Aug @ 4:51pm

Originally posted by kekm8:
I'm going off the IMDb ratings, which can be extrapolated to general reception of the two movies.

I get that Raiders is an important film in that it was groundbreaking and essentially started the action-adventure genre. While noteworthy, that shouldn't factor into the rating. The Mummy (1999) is objectively the better movie. It perfects the formula laid out by Raiders.

Raiders has an 8.4 rating while The Mummy has a 7.1, which implies that The Mummy is average or even borderline bad if you look at other ~7 rated movies. But the Mummy does literally everything better. The only criticisms I can think of are that it is derivative of the genre (when really it is the peak of the genre) and that the cgi is pretty clunky. Other than it is an objective improvement in every way.

And yet, Raiders is taught in art schools as peak action cinema while The Mummy is scoffed at as mere popcorn drivel. Why are they afraid to admit that action-adventure peaked in 1999?

raider lost ark not cgi, but only good old school stunts

Devsman 27 Aug @ 4:55pm

Originally posted by L1qu1dator:
7 isn't average... unless you start counting from 5.

That's not how averages work. If you took the average of the daily high temperature, you wouldn't go adjust the data points so that they center around 60.

Likewise, you don't rate a film 5/10 because you decide that should be the average. No, you rate it 7/10 because it was generally enjoyable but not a particular standout, which is more or less what an average film looks like.

#10

76561199806619002 27 Aug @ 4:57pm

No such movie as raiders of the lost arc..

There is a movie called raiders of the lost ark though.

So i doubt you even seen the movie since you don't even know the title.

#11

HypersleepyNaputunia 27 Aug @ 5:38pm

Weak cgi brings it down

#12

Numlock687 27 Aug @ 5:44pm

Mummy is hilarious with good actors. Brendan Fraser is funny with a good staff and script.

#13

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... 27 Aug @ 6:44pm

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:
I saw Raiders in the movies when it came out. Never saw the Mummy. But can say there's just something Spielberg brings to his movies that just captures people.

The musical scores, the excitement of the movie. The way the movies end.

The guy is just a genius.

aww, man. you need to see at least the first Mummy. it's such a fun adventure movie with great casting.

#14

< >

Showing 1-14 of 14 comments

Per page: 1530 50

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Off Topic > Topic Details

Date Posted: 27 Aug @ 12:27pm

Posts: 14

Start a New Discussion