Another 'Mummy Returns' Review

[ Reply ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Austin Powers from vdialup234.mpls.uswest.net on May 04, 2001 at 18:25:58:

First off, let me tell you that I'll try not to give too much of the movie away.

Second, let me say that I haven't posted anything new here for a couple of weeks now. The main reason is because I just didn't have anything worthwhile to pass on. But I also refrained from posting because I'm a little disappointed in the direction that the forum seems to be going in. During the past month we've seen a band of "comedians" virtually take over the forum with off-OFF-topic messages and outrageous demands. The flood gates were apparently opened with the blatantly made-up 'Indiana Jack' posts, whose sole purpose was to upset forum regulars. Some of us regulars retreated to the IndyGear chatroom, which seemed like a success, until it too was overrun by the few, the proud, the impostors. I found myself in a room with a "Patterson" with an x-rated keyboard and a "Micah" who was bragging about how "f*ing drunk" he was. Needless to say, they ruined the chatroom for us and judging by their ongoing posts they may soon chase the true fans away from the forum as well.

Now for the movie.

I just got back from the matinee and I gotta tell ya I was somewhat pleasantly surprised. After reading articles that tore into this film, giving it 1½ out of 4 stars, I went to the theater not expecting a whole lot. Granted, much of what the reviewers said WAS true, but not to the extent they described. The story is weaker than the first movie's, there are a lot more explosions and special effects, but you have to remember this is supposed to be a fun movie. It wasn't made in hopes of winning an Oscar. You're not going to see emotionally stirring acting performances that would please the Academy. This is an old-fashioned shoot 'em up that not only has to live up to itself, but all the other swashbuckling movies of the past. This is a fun movie, there's no doubt about that. You won't find yourself nodding off or becoming bored. The action starts early and doesn't let up until the credits roll.

There were a few things that bugged me though. If you watch the first 'Mummy' you'll see that the film takes place in 1926. Yet the sequel takes place in 1933 with a Rick and Evie who've since married and spawned a son who is at least 10. But I didn't care. I kept an open mind.

Inevitably in a sequel, the "trademarks" from the original film will try to be duplicated. But 'The Mummy Returns' doesn't just try to duplicate them, they present them as carbon copies. The falling bookcases, the way Evie unleashes the "evil" without thinking first, the leap-frogging mummies, the wall of sand that swallows the plane, the ever elusive "stork" heiroglyph, and so on and so on. Between all these "reincarnated" scenes there isn't a whole lot that's new, except maybe the 15 lbs. that O'Connell's apparently put on since the first adventure. Another thing that's new is Evie's appearance. I guess they were trying to suggest that she's no longer the frail librarian, but instead they succeeded in making her look like what a fellow fan described as a prostitute. She looked like a million damn dollars in the first film, but in some of the sequel's scenes they even managed to make her homely.

O'Connell's brand of two-fisted action and never-say-die attitude return. But sadly he's no longer human. He now catches knives in mid-air and survives brutal beatings that would make Superman cringe. His weapon of choice has become a shotgun, rather than the two .45s he used to carry under his arms. He has all the answers and luck, you no longer think he's a regular guy.

There ARE plot holes that even I can't overlook. But they're no worse than Indy's "magic bag strap". After the first 20 minutes of the film you'll find yourself asking, "I wonder where the Medjai are vacationing." This time around Imhoptep and others are resurrected easier than flipping on a light switch. And feats that were impossible in the original film without a certain "key" are acted out easier than pie.

One thing that worried me after seeing commercials on TV was the excessive amount of CGI that the sequel apparently used. But for the most part, it doesn't make the movie as cartoony as I thought it would. Most of the computerized characters look believeable, but there are two sequences that made me shake my head. The sequel's aircraft-swallowing wall of mass belongs on a Saturday morning television set rather than a motion picture movie screen. And the BLATANT Playstationesque appearance of a certain character is RIDICULOUS. Luckily you've relatively enjoyed most of the film up until this point, so you don't feel totally jipped.

All in all, if you liked 'The Mummy' A LOT, you'll like this movie too. But if you thought the first film was cheesy, don't bother laying down the scratch to see the sequel. It'll taint your view of the original even more and make you fear the end of the adventure genre is imminent. 'The Mummy Returns' is a fun, action-packed movie that doesn't let you relax until the ride home. But don't expect it to surpass or even live up to 'The Mummy' OR Indiana Jones. If 'The Mummy' was Indy's cousin, then 'The Mummy Returns' is like Indy's second-cousin's adopted kid.

I don't agree with the snobby reviewers' rating of 1½ out of 4 stars. So here's where I feel the sequel stands:

'Raiders of the Lost Ark'
4/4 stars

'The Mummy'
3¼/4 stars

'The Mummy Returns'
2½/4 stars

Until the next time,
Austin Powers


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:  


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]