Home > Florida > Universal Studios Florida > Revenge of the Mummy > Review Comments

 Review of Revenge of the Mummy @ Universal Studios Florida
0 Rating Posted by: jaredliu on 4/13/2005 5:48:00 AM
Good themeing and atmoshpere, but overall its a huge let down. Nothing really innovative special-effects-wise. The fire effect is cool but nothing blows your mind, and it is kind of short. I heard something called physcological thrill and I couldnt tell what it is after riding it. You basically wont fear nothing because those Mummies cant even move!

Review Comments

BobFunland on 4/13/2005 11:06:20 AM said:
I can almost accept someone saying its short (though like I responded to another review, its already 4 minutes long!), but to say that the effects werent innovative is just absurd LOL
Docter on 4/13/2005 5:19:56 PM said:
This ride Revenge of the mummy is one of Universals best ride.Its better then any Disney ride in my opinion.
Hercules on 4/13/2005 5:36:54 PM said:
Ive only seen the preview thing on the website and I can tell that it looks amazing just from that. But hey, what your opinion about the ride is dude.
tacoking on 4/13/2005 7:08:38 PM said:
I am tired of answering with the same responses every review. So, I wont say anything after this.
Broduer477 on 4/15/2005 5:00:42 PM said:
this is like no ride i have ever been on with special effects and theming, and then a roller coaster, i dont no how u can say it lacks innovative special effects
jaredliu on 4/19/2005 9:39:06 PM said:
My experience was affected by the hype that it built. Also I found it similar to Indiana Jones ride at DL where Indy came out the first therefore it is not that one of the kind. 7 doesnt means its a bad ride; it atually means that its a good but means it could be better. As for special effects, I would say its more evolutionary than revolutionary. AA technology has improved a lot, the fire is neat, but all of them has been shown in other ride, if not as advanced as ROTM. But the originality came off a bit short by throwing SPEED to represent the revenge or the curse of the mummy. What is that mean? It simply doesnt make sense that a mummy tries to kill you by making your car go faster. It would be of a better story if the Mummy Warriors are more involved into the ride than giving you air time. Unfortunetly they are all stand still without any interaction with rider. But the overall result is mainly caused by my sky-high expectation since I am the fan of the movie.
Swimace on 4/19/2005 10:10:39 PM said:
Indiana Jones uses a completly different ride system than Revenge of the Mummy. The ride system used on Indiana Jones is patented by Disney, and the only ride in Florida that uses the same technology is Dinosaur at Animal Kingdom. Revenge of the Mummy uses roller coaster technology and is powerd by LIMs and gravity. Indiana Jones is driven from a track underneath the floor. The revolutionary aspect of Indiana Jones was the free movement of the cars which allowed them to rock back and forth whie still following a track. Revenge of the Mummys cars are fixed on a roller coaster track and do not have the same independant movement found on Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones, however, does not have the capability of speed and acceleration that ROTM has. Saying that ROTM is the same as Indiana Jones is like saying Test Track is the same as an Intamin Rocket Coaster just because they speed up without using gravity.
tacoking on 4/23/2005 3:58:42 PM said:
What do you people want the Mummy warriors to do? Freakin choke you to death?

We all expected a great ride, but it seems as if most of you were expecting stuff that would have been absurd to put on any ride at this time. The ride as it is cost Universal $40 million, and they built two of them - thats a lot of change to be dishing out in one year.

jaredliu on 4/23/2005 11:36:57 PM said:
I am sorry to hear that you are so angry about my post, and that just make me laugh. Take care
Danny on 4/24/2005 11:23:54 AM said:
Its not that bad of a review guys, except the part about the coaster portion being like a kiddie ride.
Swimace on 4/26/2005 7:21:52 AM said:
I didnt say it was a bad review, and Im not mad either. All I was explaining was the difference between Indiana Jones and ROTM.
tacoking on 4/26/2005 4:04:38 PM said:
Me? Angry? Yeah right. Takes a lot more than that from some moron to get me angry.
BobFunland on 4/26/2005 4:20:54 PM said:
Yea, I just got a big kick out of the "nothing really innovative" comment
Sephiroth7 on 4/28/2005 12:05:11 PM said:
Ok....again....a 7. Not a bad review. The only argument he really loses is that its short. EVERYONE thinks that, including my family. I thought it was a normal length and I was right. I wonder what gives people the feeling that its short, who knows. In any case....I would agree with MUCH of what he says. Umm...have any of you ever ridden Spiderman? Spiderman not only opened multiple years before the Mummy, it was more inventive, a better story, and much better theming. Sure, the pricetag of Spidy was skyhigh, but when Im riding a ride....Im not thinking about how much it cost to make. I want to be thrilled, simply put. Spiderman doesnt go nearly as fast as ROTM, but it sure makes you feel like youre going 100 mph. I just think its wrong to bash a guys review when he gives VALID reasons for his unliking. The Mummy is a very inventive ride, but it was being hyped like crazy. It offers some new twists, for sure. But for me it doesnt have the impact other "genre altering" rides have. Regardless, its better then Twister!
BobFunland on 4/28/2005 1:04:00 PM said:
Well, again, he said there wasnt anything innovative, which I disagree with but now that I have reread and see he attached "special effects" on, then I am a bit more "cool" with the review, mostly because I guess a lot of the innovations were on the coaster side (turntable, backwards mini-launch) and the mixing of coaster/dark ride, but I still think that the special effects were better than all of the other Universal rides, except maybe Spiderman. I mean, I didnt go click the bad button or anything, but I just disagree with some of the things he said
Sephiroth7 on 4/29/2005 4:42:03 PM said:
It wasnt being directed at you, but the overall attack on the guy hehe. "Not a 10, this guys insane!"
perculata on 5/16/2005 7:47:34 PM said:
Yea, hes exactly right. Nothing new, SPECIAL EFFECTS wise, was used on this ride. Stationary mummies when a ride like Dinosaur has a giant T-rex actually chasing you, is simply unacceptable. Then fire is a cheap trick to try and amaze people. I mean this rides special effects may be better than most Universal rides, but its still nothing amazing, just stationary mummies and a little bit of fire. Now the coaster part is really fun, but it left way too much to be desired as it is much too short.

And for those of you saying $40 million , $80 million for both, is a lot of money to spend. Its nothing when you take into account the fact that the competition right down the road regularly shells out $100 million+ for their e-ticket rides.
tacoking on 5/24/2005 3:20:23 PM said:
No, Disney does not regularly dish out $100 million for a new attraction. Regularly would be like every year or every other year for years on end - and thats not true. Mission Space and Expedition - thats 2 rides, and one wont be done for another 6-8 months. Maybe I am forgetting a ride or two? Who knows. I do know that $80 million is still a lot of money.
perculata on 5/24/2005 6:29:06 PM said:
I didnt say they make e-ticket rides regularly, I just said that when they do make e- ticket rides they tend to spend a very large amount of money on the ride. Lol, you should read the post more clearly before you jump on me. Universal may be happy with spending $40 million for an e-ticket but Disney hasnt spent that little on a major attraction in a while.
tacoking on 5/24/2005 9:18:17 PM said:
More money behind something does not mean a better ride.

Then, Disney dishes out $100 million for a "major" attraction every once in a while...like every 4 years or so - lets say. Universal gets, not quite as big attractions, but improvements of some kind every other year, or as we have been seeing lately - every year. I think I would take the yearly improvements, whether they are rides like Shrek 4D, the Mummy, or even small park upgrades.

perculata on 5/28/2005 2:08:19 PM said:
I wasnt saying more expensive is necessarily better... But someone made the comment that $40 million is adequate and they really shouldnt have had to spend any more to make the ride better. I was just saying that they definitely could have spent more money to make the ride better if they had chosen to. If Universals patrons are happy with cardboard, motionless mummies and cheap fire effects then why should they spend any more more money to make it a truly great attraction.
Post Review Comment
You must login or create an account to post a review comment.

Clicky Web Analytics