Have an Account? E-Mail Address Passcode
| Register Now
Movie Poster
View Photo Gallery

Remove ads with our VIP Service
The Mummy
Stumbling upon an ancient tomb, treasure hunters unwittingly set loose a 3,000-year-old legacy of terror, which is embodied in the vengeful reincarnation of an Egyptian priest who had been sentenced...  View more >

Starring Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah...  View more >

Add Movie to Favorites

Seen It?

How would you rate this movie?
[--- See Now! ---] [--- Good ---] [--- Wait for Rental ---] [--- Stay Away! ---]

Reviews Summary


Please Note: Reader Reviews are submitted by the readers of The BigScreen Cinema Guide and represent their own personal opinions regarding this movie, and do not represent the views of The BigScreen Cinema Guide, or any of its associated entities.

[--- Stay Away! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
Such a disappointing movie this is. In a nutshell:

It's a comedy that isn't funny....
Its Indiana Jones without much adventure....
Its a love story that really isn't....
Its a horror movie that isn't scary....

After over an hour into the movie and <u>still no mummy</u>,
I felt like Jeff Goldblum on Jurassic Park where he taps on the camera and says "You do plan to have Mummies in this Mummy movie, don't you? Lucky for me, an artificial-looking computer-generated mummy shows up about 1 hr 15 minutes into the movie. Slightly scary but not really. But, as a surprise to me, the mummy begins to "regenerate". So he only stays scary looking for a few minutes (whew, thought it was going to get scary for a minute). From then on he looks like an ordinary person. (imagine Dracula without cape, fangs and dressed in white, won't you? Doesn't bring up horrifying thoughts, does it?)

The special effects? Seen it before. Not really anything special. If you've seen "Return of the Living Dead", "Twister", "American Werewolf in Paris", "fill in your disappointing f/x movie here", (I kid you not!) then you've seen it before.

Seeing this slow-moving, dialog-packed, wooden-acted movie is about as disappointed I've been in a while. I swear I enjoyed Twister better. If you take "Independence Day" or "Daylight" and dumbed it down several notches, well, I think you get the point.

** out of *****.

[--- Stay Away! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
This movie was a big disappointment. I guess i was expecting 'Raiders of the lost Ark' and instead got some silly mish mash of an attempt at being humorous. The acting was terrible, the action was stupid and i found the 2hrs i had to sit through this as a big waste of my time. A side from Brendan Fraser, i had never heard nor seen any of the actors in this film and i hope i never see any of them again. Go see the original movie made in 1932 and starring Boris Karloff for a better time at the movies then this 1999 version. n. I can't even recommend this for a rental so just stay away.Phil

Jan 25, 2000
First of all...I liked it. When you think of this movie, you will probably be thinking that it will be totally scary. Well think again...this is just a more serious "Abbot & Costello Meets the Mummy" movie or simply just a rip-off of "Indiana Jones". Now that doesn't mean I am down on the film, I enjoyed it. I thought the special effects were pretty good, the acting above par and it was kind of cool to see Brendan Fraser in a slightly more serious role than some of his recent films. I always enjoy seeing people break into tombs of the pharaohs and thinking that they are going to get away with all the treasures...seriously...have we ever seen someone get away with it. My point exactly. So with this in mind, we see a group of people breaking into the lost pharaoh tombs and then we see 2 hours of them trying to get away from the demons they unleashed. My faults with the movie...okay the deadly locusts appear, then the sky darkens, and zombies begin to roam the Earth...but it is up to Fraser, Weisz, and an old pharaoh guard descendant to save the world. Wait a minute, where was NATO? Where was the U.S. Air Force? Now I realize that we could not get U.S. ground troops into the area all that quickly, but surely we could have supplied Fraser with a better weapon than a shot gun. Okay, now many of you are immediately going to say, "but this took place in the 30s" and NATO or the U.S. Air Force wasn't around then....my reply to that is "so!" I still think someone in the world could have helped them out....that's my point. I think everyone will enjoy this film and it is especially fitting that it came out just before Mothers Day. Bottom line....it's a good film, just don't get to "wrapped" up with details.

[--- Good ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
I thought this was a fun, action-packed movie. It simply never stopped moving. If you try to compare it to the original Mummy, it would be like apples to oranges. It's nowhere close to the original. It was not an Indiana Jones movie but it tried really hard to be. If you're NOT looking for gratuitous violence or sex, you will like this movie. It had plenty of violence, but you didn't have to see the gore. It was suspensful and mysterious, and I loved how several of the characters actually spoke in Egyptian. I think that gave the movie an exotic touch. Some parts were a little cliche but I was able to get past them. This movie was well worth the full price of admission.

[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
This movie is more of an action/adventure than a horror movie. Brandan Fraser & Rachel Weisz team up to find the lost city of Hamunaptra. While there they accidently bring the mummy of Imhotep back to life. The special effects were well done and cool to watch. One problem some people seem to have with the is the broad, at times, almost slapstick humor in the movie. I personally liked this. I think one of the reasons they took this approach is this is a PG-13 movie and they wanted a lighter edge to balance out the movie. I liked it others may not. I do think this movie is one that should be seen in the theaters, because some movies are just better when viewed in the theater rather than on tape.

[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
My husband and I went on Saturday. The movie was what I expected - fun, edge-of-seat excitement! Not really scary like the old time movie, unless you are 8 years old or less. There were a few places that made you jump! The bugs are great! But the special effects are the best part of the movie. Don't expect great dialog - this is just for fun! My husband would rather see a thinker-type of movie. This doesn't take any brains to enjoy. Have fun, sit back, and let your popcorn jump out of your hands!

[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
There was more than one time while watching The Mummy that I thought I was 11 years old, sitting in a theatre watching Raiders of the Lost Ark. Wonderful FX are blended with witty dialogue in a super action extravaganza. The key is that The Mummy doesnít take itself too seriously, but does take itself seriously enough. Itís the perfect balance of tone for a throwback to the old serials, complete with creaking doors, cryptic languages, and things jumping out at you upon turning each corner. Thereís no deep underlying substance, but there doesnít have to be in a fun (almost) summer film like The Mummy. Munch your popcorn and have a blast!

10-point scale rating: 8

[--- Wait for Rental ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
There a few reasons to go see The Mummy. One is that it had a huge opening weekend and is likely to become one of those "hit" movies that becomes commonly talked about so you certainly wouldn't want to feel left out. I mean come on, if someone down the road starts describing "those cool ILM beetles that eat flesh" then you'll feel totally out of the loop. ILM, as in Industrial Light and Magic, the George Lucas special effects house that had it's hand in creating this, the first in what becomes the season of big-time special effects movies. The Mummy certainly isn't lacking in the stunning visuals department but don't expect any great story line or witty characters. This is such a Hollywood movie that I expected to see a gaffe in which a studio exec would be standing in a scene salivating. You've got your shiny hero with the 'save the day' lines, the damsel in distress, and of course, the bad guy. Let's talk about him. The Mummy. Was anybody afraid of this cheezy, morphing, Billy Zane (Titanic) look-alike? Not me. Maybe I was just tired and not actually bored but I never felt worried or shocked over anything happening. I just can't get too horrified over a bad guy that can whisk himself off the screen in a sweep of sand whenever he wants. The look of the film is very cool, and I always have liked desert shoots in any movie. The scenes are speedy enough to keep the action rolling but I never really care what the action was because it all felt like I've seen it over and over.

Brenden Frasier was as good as he could be in this. For once he's chosen a couple of sensible roles having been in Blast From the Past recently but he'll never shake that Encino Man or Tarzan goof off image to me. He's not an A-lister an neither is this movie yet hordes of people will go because it's got a great title and massive marketing plan to beat the Star Wars rush. Save your money and go see The Phantom Menace twice the first week it's out. The Mummy will come out on video with like 200 copies per store and you'll watch it while doing something else because it requires no attention span.

GRADE: C

[--- Good ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
A movie without a genre. Not a true action movie, not a horror movie. It tries to be an action/comedy, but misses more often than it hits. The effects make it worthy of a big screen viewing.

[--- Stay Away! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
I went to see this movie, expecting it to be kinda brainless and kinda lame. I didn't expect it would be THIS brainless and THIS lame.

This movie tried to be comedy, horror, and action-adventure all at once. What, I'm supposed to laugh, cry, and be scared at the same time? Sorry, I spent most of the time staring in disbelief and checking my watch. Brendan Fraser seems to have delusions about being Harrison Ford. He's not. Fraser is much too goofy to play a serious action hero. He's much better at playing a parody of an action hero, as in "George of the Jungle". "The Mummy" moves in that direction occasionally, but then quickly turns back into taking itself seriously, and this is a movie that's too dumb to take itself seriously.

The special effects are really not all that impressive. It's nothing you didn't see five years ago. The characters are shameless cardboard cutouts, and you can pick out who's going to die the minute they step in front of the camera. The story tries to resurrect the "Indiana Jones" formula, but "The Mummy" contains none of the charm of Spielberg's films, and every plot point is telegraphed well ahead of time.

I'm all for a good action movie with cool effects. Hey, I loved "The Matrix". This movie is just too confused for my tastes, though. "The Mummy" tries to combine three movie genres into one film. As it stands, it's a mess. Despite the lofty intentions, "The Mummy" is a bomb.

[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
The Mummy (1999)

This is not your grandfather's "The Mummy."

Not to be misunderstood, Boris Karloff as the ancient priest Imhotep was quite menacing - face crinkled in leathery evil, stare capable of sending chills clear from the early 1930's.

But this is the turn of another century, and modern audiences would yawn at all but two minutes of the original "Mummy." The new incarnation is a supercharged 127 -minute melee, most of it successful in mixing a decent plot with flatly amazing special effects. The best element, though, is the fun.

You want to hear about the monster, don't you? It's a hybrid of booger-men from various mythologies: it's a good thing, I think, that there's originality here. The producers would not have won had they gone with a Karloff-esque copy. Anyhow, this Imhotep is a viscid corpse, suddenly animated through the most unfortunate of coincidences. It's a manifestation out of Anne Rice, not only stable but agile, nimble despite parts of its anatomy skeletal or missing. Its heritage is traceable to the vampire, as it somehow drains the vital liquids from its victims, enabling itself to regenerate. Once it is whole (and the men who opened the forbidden book are grotesque husks), Imhotep is supposedly invincible, inflicting upon the modern world (the mid-1920's) the plagues of ancient Egypt.

The forces charged with stopping him include the mercenary Rick O'Connell (Brendan Frasur), who a few years previously was accosted by the evil forces lurking about Imhotep's desert tomb. His help is enlisted by the pretty English Egyptologist Evie (Rachel Weisz), and her sometimes sober brother Jonathan (John Hannah). Their caravan just happens to converge with another Egyptologist (the wonderful Jonathan Hyde) leading a band of greedy cowboys. Their guide is the despicable Beni (Kevin J. O'Connor) who, along with O'Connor, happens to know the location of the legendary City of the Dead. After these expeditions simultaneously uncover different parts of the pernicious burial chambers, the mummy is awakened, members of the parties are hunted like bugs - and at times by bugs - and the "beginning of the end" commences, the horizon blackened by locusts and other harbingers of doom.

Possibly the most watchable moments involve close combat between the heroes and legions of re-animated mummies, the bodyguards of the condemned assassin Imhotep. These shuddering soldiers appear as rapidly as the bony marauders from "Jason and the Argonauts," attacking O'Connell and losing their heads to his swift broadsword. It's over-the-top and delicious footage, causing more chuckling than gasping. We're also treated to the super-hero-like antics of fleet, shield- and spear-wielding mummies. At once scary, gross and humorous, these scenes are a typical use of state-of-the-art technology. They're cool, and they do the job of helping to tell an incredible story.

There are other complications of plot, of course. A secret society, descendants of the guardians of the murdered pharaoh, is endeavoring to scare away the tomb raiders. Before the mummy and his bedraggled ghouls, these black-clad preservers of order serve as the main baddies; their role changes soon, as their tattooed leader sports a heavy machine gun to fight on O'Connell's side. Legions of supernatural scarabs, by the way, contribute mayhem whenever they can, skittering around and de-fleshing whatever's in their way.

The imagery in the film is also cool. Early on, O'Connell is cornered by enemy soldiers on horseback. Suddenly the attackers retreat, and the sands around O'Connell stir violently, leaving the impression of a horrible face, mouth gaping in agony. Later we see the face in the awesome wall of a sandstorm, as well as on the slack-jawed mummy himself.

Brendan Frasur is passable as an action hero. Of course the premise is very different here than in "George of the Jungle." What's in large part responsible for Frasur's success is the surplus of action scenes. The guy is still very muscular from the George role, and seems practiced in running and handling firearms, many times blasting pistols in both hands. At a couple of points Frasur is even allowed to deliver self-reflexive humor, commenting, "That happens a lot around here," when a sudden breeze foreshadows the presence of evil. Frasur does not have the comic timing of Harrison Ford, and does not convince us in O'Connell's stubborn refusal to deliver more than his mercenary services are paid for.

The brother and sister team gets the job done. John Hannah plays a good drunk, his Jonathan a wily rascal who seems cowardly but is ultimately dependable. Rachel Weisz as Evelyn is good-looking in an unusual way, and gains our sympathy especially after the reanimated priest kidnaps her in order to raise from the dead his love from long ago.

Character roles are well-cast. Kevin J. O'Connor as Beni is terrifically snake-like, betraying his friends at the least monetary provocation, and even working for the mummy, which holds out gold jewelry in the exposed cartilage of its hand. The venerable Bernard Cox, veteran of countless film and television forays, plays a Royal Air Force officer looking for the danger he never quite found in war. Arnold Vosloo, the South African actor who portrays Imhotep, is appropriately menacing, the ethnicity of his visage indistinguishable, like Anthony Quinn's.

One reason I hope the film engenders sequels is that the ones that followed the original "The Mummy" were so full of campy fun. I'll be honest: I wouldn't want to watch films like this every week, but on a spring evening, after a long day's work in the office or in the sun, there's nothing like the formulaic spectacle of a sharp "B" film.

"The Mummy" is rated PG-13 for excessive violence and partial nudity. It's the stuff of nightmares for any viewers with vivid imaginations, a likable throwback in a genre I'm glad has been brought back to life!

[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
This movie was spectacular. It had action and scariness and everything you'd want in an action movie. I like that egyptian stuff, so I'm a little one sided. But you would not regret seeing this ASAP. I want to see it again. I wouldn't bring any young kids to it though. When the mummy is walking around, it's a little gruesome. My girlfriend said it gave her a bad dream. But she's a scardy cat. Go see it! it's great

Rating- A very-almost-a-plus-A

[--- Stay Away! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
This is one of the worst movies I have seen in quite a long time, and I go to the movies a lot. I've heard people say to go to this movie to see the great special effects. Well, to me, the special effects were far less than spectacular. They were merely ok. And that is about the only ok aspect of the movie. The script was lame, the acting was terrible (especially the female lead, whoever she was), and it was way too long. The movie tries to be funny, but it isn't. Wait, I take that back, the movie is actually so bad it is kind of funny. It's one of those movies that you go to just to laugh at how bad it is. That is about what I found myself doing in the theater, laughing at all the lame lines and "action" sequences, and I use the term "action" loosely. Well, that's about it, I would not recommend this movie to anyone, unless it is some form of punishment.

My rating: * out of *****

[--- Stay Away! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
My girlfriend and I could wait to see this movie and decided to see it as part of our anniversary night. .....what an incredible disappointment!!!

Coming off of seeing The Matrix only a few weeks earlier we were set to be blown away by what was hyped to be another visual masterpiece. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

What began as an initially interesting story line quickly devolved into the typical slapstick "summer blockbuster" flotsam that the studios have plagued us with for many years. The acting was sub-par, the special effects may have been considered special five years ago, and the plot was weaker than wet tissue paper.

There were so few redeeming qualities to this movie and the few that did arise were quickly ruined by the multitude of errors and storyline shortcomings.

All in all, I would have to say that this is one of the worst movies tht I have paid full price to see. The PG-13 rating is justified because once you get beyond that age, hopefully your sensibilities will have matured enough to follow the advice of others and see a different movie

[--- Wait for Rental ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
What can I say about the Mummy.....One thing that I can say is that it is more funny than scary. The audience sees different things that may remind them of a Scooby Doo episode, Snoopy as the Red Baron, and a little bit of Inspector Gadget. ON the plus side, this movie has wondeful graphics that alsmost make up for the fact that some of the dialogue is simply absurd. This movie follows every cliche about adventure movies. To know what I mean, go and see it..and if you don't want to do that, email me, and I'll be glad to tell you all about it.

Although I haven't seen the original "Mummy," I have heard that this one comes no where close to the same. UNfortunatly, there seems to be a sequel in the process. THe only thing saving this movie from a "Stay Away" rating from me is that it actually made me laugh (not the dialogue itself, but just the images that it presented,) and it had cool special effects.

Brendan Fraser played the rough and tough "guy who was in prison, and almost like Indiana Jones, but not quite" character very well. It's something different thatn Encino Man or George of the Jungle, which is nice. He, I would have to say, had the best perfomance in the movie.

Overall, My rating is:

*1/2 out of ****

Email: Luna808@hotmail.com

[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
this is a great movie. there really isn't any gore in it, which is good. it is an extremly well done film that isn't quite scary, but enough to freak u out. all in all this movie is well worth however much u have to pay. it is GREAT!!

[--- Stay Away! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
see this movie and then see Star Wars right after... you appreciate the Phantom Menace more.

[--- Good ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
I wasn't sure about this movie from seeing the trailer. I'm not normally attracted to films that can be classified as "Horror" films. I was "grateful" to find that "The Mummy" is not what I would call a horror flik.

I thought the film was well put together with just the right mix of suspense, action, light comedy, and characters. "The Mummy" does not contain a lot of gore. True, some of the creatures may make the more squeamish cover their eyes at times, but not too often.

"The Mummy" is well written, has great effects, and a good cast. Due to some very good landscape shots and sound effects, I would recommend seeing it in a theater.

[--- Stay Away! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
My husband and I were both disappointed by this movie. It was advertised as a horror flick, and the first five minutes or so look like a horror movie. Then it degenerates into lame comedy--a la "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy." Every so often, there's another snippet of horror again--as if to tease us with how good the movie could have been, if only the screenwriter, director and producer had been able to make up their minds about what kind of movie they were creating.

The wavering between horror and schlock comedy results in a film that's neither scary nor funny...just BAD. Sorry, guys, but you can't have it both ways. Either take the Mummy seriously or play him for laughs, but don't go back &amp; forth between the two.

You know the movie's bad when you start counting all the plot holes, continuity errors, lapses in logic, etc., just to keep yourself from bolting from the theater.

I did learn one important lesson. Now that I've seen "George of the Jungle" AND "The Mummy," I realize that any film with Brendan Fraser is a guaranteed bomb!

[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
I thought this was an awesome movie. I loved it. It was really action paced. I thought the Mummy was scary. I've never see the real one, so I can't compare it. It was an awesome movie that everyone should see. My friend and I were thrilled. I also thought that the director picked good actors, because the parts were great. In this movie, they tried to mix comedy and action, and they go well together. Another reason someone might like this movie is Brendan Fraser. He is sooo hot, and funny! He plays his part well, and adds just the right amount of humor to make this a great movie. See it now!!! Don't wait!!!

[--- Wait for Rental ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
Perhaps it's merely coincidence that what I took to be a Warner Brothers Looney Tunes short preceded the showing of "The Mummy" at the theater I visited. At first I thought it was a cartoon as it featured Bugs Bunny, Taz, Porky Pig and other characters in mischieviously imaginative episodic situations. Then I saw, unfortunately, what was unmasked to be for what it was: only a tease to buy Warner Bros. computer games.

Too bad that's the taste that "The Mummy" left in my mouth. Oh well, this is the era where movies are now considered "product" only and story is sacrificed for whiz-bang technological wizardry. I freely admit I'm expressing the same old saw that other critics are mentioning with respect to this film as well as its kindred cousin, "Star Wars I, the Phantom Menace." But they're right. The only difference between "The Mummy" and "Phantom Menace" is that there aren't as many product tie-ins on the store shelves. But the look and feel of the movie is very similar. The audience and its money is served up to the movie marketplace, rather than the audience being served by a story worthy of the ticket price.

Okay, so "The Mummy" dazzles visually, imaginatively and mischieviously. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is typically bold and adventurous as befits the composer's talents and track record for great film music. The photography and special digital effects are astounding as befits the current obsession Hollywood has with always pushing the technological envelope under the mistaken belief that eye-popping "eye candy" is all the movie-going public wants to see.

What a banal attitude the film industry has of us these days. How crass and commercial. But, movie theaters these days have become summertime amusement parks, not showcases for film as "art." So be it.

"The Mummy" represents mummified story-telling at its worst. There is no intellectual or emotional engagement here; no character development; no plot of any kind whatsoever. Just cartoon cutout characters and ostentatious special effects to keep the audience titillated, whether it be by speeding carpets of flesh-eating scarab beetles (what are they <i>on</i> anyway?) or by menacing visions in erupting walls of sand.

And a mummy that roars like a T-Rex? Come on. Whatever happened to subtlety?

But of course, Looney Tunes cartoons were never known for subtlety. Too bad "The Mummy" did not devolve completely into a lampoon of itself, although it tries to at times. Then at least something other than a "ho-hum" feeling would have been left at at the end. Instead, one may get the feeling that something slipped through the fingers like grains of sand, like for instance the money one pays to see this noisy and unaffecting bore of a movie.

[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
I thought this was a great movie in the style of Indiana Jones. I usually have a hard time choosing movies that my 13 year old son can watch. This is a great movie for adults and kids. Lighthearted adventure, romance, and comedy, not overly graphic violence or sexual content. I've acutally seen it twice and wouldn't mind seeing it again, and I can rarely say that about any movie! An added bonus, Brendan Fraiser is a babe, and he makes a great hero! The perfect "next generation" Indy!

[--- Stay Away! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
This movie really stunk your not missing anything.I don't even want to give astar to this one. STAY AWAY!

[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
I thought this movie was great. I originally didn't care to see this movie. Then a friend of mine went to see it and he said it was Indiana Jones Meets Army of Darkness. That was a very good way to state this movie. (Army of Darkness is a cult classic sort. Action/comedy sort.) Anyways, I found this movie very entertaining. Was I expecting a horror movie? no. Was I expecting something serious? Not really. I thought Brandon Fraiser did a great job. He played his part very well. His charcter was supposed to be tough, but when trouble came, he ran. More accurate portrayl of most people then most other movies where the actor/actress will stand up to anything. He actually seemed realistic.

I thought the mummy itself was nothing special. All been done before, but then again, so has pretty much everything. I thought the movie was done well. It was action packed, but wasn't completely serious which I liked. I wasn't expecting some huge extravaganza, but it seems the same people that didn't like this movie, or going gaga over the new Austin Powers. I guess potty jokes are more entertaining then a movie with some redeaming value. Oh well, go figure.

Jan 25, 2000
I was a little leery of this one after seeing all of the negative reviews on this page, but decided to give it a go anyway after I tried to get in to see Star Wars: The Phantom Menace at three different theaters.

Because of all the negative reviews, my expectations were pretty low. I mean, Brendan Fraser?!? The Encino Man himself? How could this movie possibly be any good?

Well, to my surprise, I enjoyed the film completely. This is a remake of the classic 1932 film by the same name starring Boris Karloff.

What's really to say about this film. It's about ancient Egyptian cities, dead people, curses, etc...

All in all, good fun.

Copyright 1999 - Ron Higgins
No unauthorized publication or distribution without the consent of Ron Higgins.

[--- Good ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
This movie doesn't take itself very seriously and neither should you. There isn't much that's original, but the film just has fun with a big-budget version of a formula that's been around since Flash Gordon Saturday afternoons. It's not a horror flick--much less an adult horror film. It's aimed at the 12-year-old crowd, and it's sort of an "I-dare-you-to-see-it--because-I-wasn't-scared-when-that-skeleton-popped-out" adventure.

There's no explicit gore at all, but a lot more campy humor than, for example, the Indiana Jones movies. And quite a bit of musty gross stuff for the kids. Most of the violence that would be too intense for the younger crowd is just hinted at--a silhouette of a man shrivelling into a skeleton, a carpet of flesh-eating beetles covering a fallen worker, etc. There's also there pharaoh's mistress in an outfit that's a little too racy for some tastes, but she's a bad girl in a bit part, and that says it all.

I was surprised that some people have criticized the acting. I thought there was great chemistry between the leads, and I'd love to see them work together again. The supporting cast varies from good to excellent, with John Hannah a standout as the heroine's dilettante brother.

The special effects are big-budget and very well done, but I guess technically they don't break any new ground. Are they too much? Well, isn't that why you go to a film like this?

It's not a timeless classic--and it's never ever pretentious--but if you want good escapist entertainment for the family (kids over, say, 9 or 10), catch this film and have fun!

[--- Good ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
The Mummy **1/2 GOOD

About 4 months before the film was out, my Art teacher had his brother, (Kevin J. O' Connor, who plays Beni) come and tell us all about the film. This got me hooked on the film, and I was dying to see it when it came out.

May 7th comes along , and we go into the crowded theater with our popcorn. After the film was over, I wasn't very dissapointed. The reviewers said the film was exciting, but was too much of a jumble of films. Taking this into account, I actually agreed with the critic. I'd go see this one in the big screen. The special effects are pretty good, and the beautiful scenary fits in. The acting isn't superb, nor horrible. I didn't really like the idea of having Brendan Fraser as our Indiana Jones type hero. Yes, he has to be young and somewhat handsome, but taking him out of his normal comedian role. Those adults who are reading may find this problem a comparassion with Danny Kaye in the 50's film, Hans Christian Andersan. His role was a dramatic one, but used his skills as a comedian to please children in the film. This fit perfectly, but the Mummy is much different. Still, Fraser's performance is OK. Just the same, if you want a good "Lawrence of Arabia" style, fast paced, action extravaganza, the Mummy is your film.

Emilio Tostado

[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jan 25, 2000
A very scary movie. Although it's rated PG13, I would definitely give it an "R" since small children should NOT see this. Very good, great special effects. But the scenes of beetles crawling in various unseemly places scared me, and would scare others too, I think. I thought it was great, but I would not see it again. The scariest movie I've seen this year, and scarier than a lot of blood/guts/gore movies. So parents be warned. Definitely go yourself, but leave the kiddies at home!

May 4, 2001
This was a good entertaining family type movie. A lot of action, special effects
are great, and it was a good movie. No sex, bad language, blood and guts. Clean action for all the family to enjoy.
May 4, 2001
I was luke-warm on the first "Mummy", but I really enjoyed this one. Definitely less campy than the first.
May 5, 2001
Indiana Jones type movie.....full of excitement and fun. Better then the original Mummy made in 1999........

A plus is the scenary......breathtaking.
[--- See Now! ---]by  
May 5, 2001
I went to go see this on Saturday. I thought that it was going to be another boring sequel, but thatís not the truth. Itís extremely funny, and exciting.

There are a few parts were you think to yourself ďyeah thatís believableĒ, but that only happened to me two times. The action sequences are really cool, so are the special effects. This is one that I definitely recommend.
[--- Good ---]by  
May 5, 2001
Although I truly liked this movie, I liked the original better. I also thought it looked like an Indiana Jones type movie.

Definitally a movie to be seen on the big screen! Go see this movie. You won't be disappointed.
[--- See Now! ---]by  
May 6, 2001
The mummy returns is a great sequel. It surpasses the orignal made in 1999. The movie brings back the all-star cast from the original and adding to its line up is the WWF star: the Rock. The sequel has a lot more action than the first one. It also fills your plate with comedy, suspense, romance, and many others. The special effects have matured greatly since the original.

The movie picks up ten years after the orginal. Evelyn (Weisz)and Rick (Fraser) are now married with an eight year old son, Alex. The awesome couple and son are back on a dig in Egypt after Evelyn has a weird dream that she just can't shake. Following along the same type of plot line as the original. Imotemp "the mummy" is being awakening for the sequel, joining him is his love interest, Auk-sun-amun.

Well I won't give away the plot line but I saw it two times opening weekend and the long lines were worth it. The movie just got better the second time around. See this movie right away, however get tickets early or else you will be left out in the sand.
May 6, 2001
As the first movie of the summer blockbuster season, and as the sequel to the surprise hit of 1999, expectations are high for "The Mummy Returns."

While probably not a candidate for best picture honors next March, this second round does a very credible job of holding up to the original and entertaining the audience as well. Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz are married now, and I think there is even more energy between them than when they first met. Returning characters Im-Ho-Tep (the original Mummy), Anck-Su-Namun (his body-painted girlfriend), Ardeth Bay (desert good-guy), and Evie's brother Jonathan complete the sequel transition in a smooth fashion. New to the scene is the son of the happy couple (the main one, not the Mummy & girlfriend), who gets himself involved in the other couple's (the Mummy & girlfriend) ploy to take over the world.

The first film succeeded because it wasn't afraid to poke fun at the action-adventure genre while still supplying the action and special effects that we all crave. The combination kept the viewer entertained.

I'm here to tell you that the original formula is in place again, and this time, they've decided to poke fun at the original as well. All the comedy doesn't drown out the action, which is a good thing, since I'm not a big fan of Brendan Fraser comedies.

One downside was the lower quality special effects than what I was expecting. Perhaps films such as The Phantom Menace have heightened my expectations of computer generated effects, but I found myself noticing that certain backdrops and characters were generated, momentarily de-focusing my attention from the story. This is a minor quibble, and probably has more to do with the fact that I may have been over-scrutinizing the effects from a technical perspective instead of sitting back and enjoying the film. I'll find out when I see it again...

Overall, a very enjoyable film, and well worth the cost of admission. Find a theater with digital sound and a good picture and settle down with your popcorn and soda for a little over two hours of great entertainment!
May 6, 2001
Good movie overall. Very entertaining, though the plot could have been a little stronger. I didn't see the first Mummy, so I was lost at some points in the movie, but I still enjoyed it overall.
May 7, 2001
Tremendously exciting movie with all the over the top action, thrills, humour and characters that made the first one so successful.

This is a true popcorn escapism style movie. One, like the Indiana Jones series, that youíll want to see again and again.

Although it is largely special effects driven isnít that what we want from action films these days? Donít we complain if the special effects are cheap and badly done? Or if an action film has a lack of them?

For me this is the best movie of the year for all around entertainment value and one that I would recommend to anyone who wants to get away from boring old reality for a couple of hours and go on a cinematic, action driven, special effects piloted, rocket to the outer reaches of your imagination.

9/10 fdperth@wiredcity.com.au (If you have any comments, be they good, bad or just constructive, feel free to contact me)
May 8, 2001
This is worth seeing at the theatre. I would not purchase it, though. The special effects are first rate. The visuals otherwise are too. A thumb almost all the way up. As expected.
[--- See Now! ---]by  
May 15, 2001
A very enjoyable movie. Lots of action that is well balanced with humor. I plan on seeing it several more times before I buy it as soon as it comes out on DVD.
May 16, 2001
More fun in "The Mummy Returns," this time the Mummy returns and once again wreck havok on Brandom Frazer and crew.

The film is fun to watch due to the special effects, there is romance and heroism in the movie. More monsters and more bugs (and I like the bugs). I can't say whatever or not the film is better than the orginal, but I'll say that both films are good.

"The Mummy Returns" helps kick off the summer movie season, but see it now before "Tomb Raider" hits theaters.
[--- See Now! ---]by  
May 18, 2001
It's rare that the sequel to a movie is better than the original.. But this one took the cake!! NOT saying the original movie wasn't good, because it MOST definitely was..

The Mummy Returns has the most excellent special effects that I have ever seen!! You won't be disappointed by going to see it.. And placing the WWF Wrestler "THE ROCK" in the movie added that special touch.. I hope that there's a part 3!!!
[--- See Now! ---]by  
May 19, 2001
The Mummy Returns is a total nonstop action movie. It will kept you on the edge of your seat seat. The thrills and special effects of this movie in my opinion make it the best movie since Independence day.

There really isn't much plot, but you really don't realise it during the movie. My summary of the movie is a must see thriller that you will not want to miss, it is just one of those movies that is really intense in a theater!
[--- Wait for Rental ---]by  
May 19, 2001
Predictable. Take The Mummy 1999 and add a child. The Mummy Returns is a special effect movie with a rehashed plotline.

All of the hype regarding the appearance of "The Rock" is greatly exaggerated for the 10 minutes of screen time that he has. The concept of the Scorpion King is a good one, but doesn't warrant a prequel of its own.
[--- Good ---]by  
May 24, 2001
The first one was better. I think they got a little carried away with it.

You have to see the first one to understand alot of the humour. The end kind of screwed it up.
[--- Wait for Rental ---]by  
May 28, 2001
Well... I *LOVED* the original mummy since it had that "Indiana Jones" feel to it but was a completely new story idea. The sequal was a disappointment because it didn't and it wasn't.

The Mummy Returns could have been a good movie in my opinion, if it had started over from scratch and invented a new plot for the Scorpion King. Instead, it used all the same characters from The Mummy (including Imhotep! wasn't he... um... dead?), no matter how badly they fit in the story. I was disappointed.

One of the main reasons I wanted to see it was because of all the hype I heard about the Rock, but I reached for some popcorn and almost missed him. Granted, not everyone is as big a WWF fan as me, but I was looking forward to seeing him act in a real role... he didn't. He had one battle scene early in the movie and one spoken line... in ancient egyptian.

The acting and special effects were great... Brendan Fraiser is great as always, and there were a few parts where I jumped, but I just don't think it was worth seven bucks. *shrug*
[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jun 16, 2001
I really liked the first movie, it was good. I saw the previews for this and I thought this was going to be even better, but alot of the times a sequal is usually the same, worse or sometimes a little better.

Oh man when I saw this movie it's like The Mummy times ten. The first one was cool for the special effects, well this one had alot more which were all really cool and realistic. This is a movie you have to watch on the bigscreen to get the full effect because it also has good sound.

Hurry and see it!!!!!!!
[--- See Now! ---]by  
Jun 16, 2001
See this movie if you liked the first one and like indiana jones type action. It had a prety good story but some side plots were weak.

Make sure you see the first one first!
[--- Good ---]by  
Jun 24, 2001
Good entertainment.Lots of action and adventure. If you liked the first Mummy you should definitely enjoy this one too.
[--- See Now! ---]by  
Aug 29, 2001
Better than the first far as the undead warriors and scenery. Could have done without the Rock. Story line was more involved and kept you on your toes. Ending is kinda disapointing, but thats me.

All in all go see it very very good movie.
May 21, 2003
A very fun movie, with perfect blend of suspense, action, humor, and special effects to make it very enjoyable!
Oct 19, 2003
"The Mummy" is an remake of the 1932 movie, believe me I had seen the 1932 version on Turner Classic Movies. This here may be better because of the special effects and the romance between Brendon Fraser and Rachel Weisz. This is basically a Saturday afternoon matinee written all over the movie. I love the transfomation of the villain. I love the man-eating bugs. they're a gas.

Looking for more opinions?

Check out our Featured Movie Reviews for The Mummy.




New Movies - Box Office - Favorite Movies - All Movies
Coming Soon - Search



Home - About Us - Ad Info - Feedback
Journal/Blog - The Marquee - Movie Links - News and Events - Now Showing - Reader Reviews
Customize - VIP Service

The BigScreen Cinema Guide is a service of SVJ Designs LLC. All graphics, layout, and structure of this service (unless otherwise specified) are Copyright © 1995-2017, SVJ Designs. The BigScreen Cinema Guide is a trademark of SVJ Designs. All rights reserved.

'ACADEMY AWARDS®' and 'OSCAR®' are the registered trademarks and service marks of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Find Us on Facebook