The Mummy Returns.

Review #2126: The Mummy Returns.

Cast: 

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn O'Connell / Nefertiri), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Patricia Velásquez (Meela Nais / Anck-su-namun), Freddie Boath (Alex O'Connell), Dwayne Johnson (Mathayus of Akkad / The Scorpion King), Alun Armstrong (Baltus Hafez), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Lock-Nah), and Shaun Parkes (Izzy Buttons) Written and Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and #1748 - The Mummy [1999])

Review: 

I did enjoy the 1999 Mummy film, albeit as a neat little romp. It did not exactly improve on previous films under that same title that had been released in 1932 or 1959, but as an action/effects feature with that general dose of horror, well, it worked out well. Sommers apparently was hesitant about doing a sequel, even if it was basically inevitable with the resulting success of that first film, which he had a hand in writing. In fact, he had described the original script of said film as "a bit reckless" before eventually getting to an "okay" result. Aside from an enlarged budget (which stems from a few raises to actors), not much has changed here, since over half-a-dozen actors from the first return here to go with a script done by Sommers. The film was a general success with audiences on the level of the original. The Scorpion King (2002), a spinoff film featuring, well, Dwayne Johnson reprising his role as the character of the same name, came out the year after this film and inspired its own run of films. Sommers did exactly one further horror-ish film with Van Helsing in 2004, which went pretty much where you would expect. A third Mummy film would come in 2008 with The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, which retained Fraser and Hannah only in cast while Sommers served only as a producer.

Well, sometimes you just can't win them all. 129 minutes somehow seems pretty disposable for a film that is just a bit short in comparison to the first film when it comes to holding itself together for overall cohesion. It is a bit too familiar to go with being bereft of effective pacing. Granted, Fraser and Weisz do still have a good deal of charm together, and in general one will be just fine with watching the film when it comes to looking for just spectacle (okay, maybe some of those effects don't help). They seem to enjoy the strangeness that comes with being in a sequel with less to do in quick charm, which is more than one can say for most middling sequels. At least the kid actor that comes for the film makes for a few chuckles, but if I am drawing straws by saying this for a film released in the new millennium, what is it saying about the parts as a whole? One sees folks like Hannah seem to be having some sort of fun being around here again (relief or otherwise), but the stakes don't seem as presentable here. One senses their attention start to drift even before a dirigible makes an appearance and boy do I wish I felt some sort of presence of terror in seeing the return of said mummy from before (complete with creating big water). It trots out pygmy mummies and past lives to go with utilizing wrestler-turned-actor Johnson mostly for spectacle sequences in the start and end (one to explain just what he has to do with anything and the other for effects that look as rushed as one could expect). Even the one sequence of a character getting killed seems destined to be undone for the climax, and, well, it is funny being right for the dumbest and shallow of things. As a whole, it just isn't as freshly interesting as its predecessor, managing to be as average as one painfully can see in countless other features that is merely just okay rather than fully satisfying in fun. It is a mild disappointment that pleases a few requirements but doesn't make for a great sequel in enough categories to recommend it more than once. The fluff just isn't enough here to be as good fluff as before.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next: Re-Animator.

The Mummy (1999)

Review #1748: The Mummy.

Cast:

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn Carnahan), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Kevin J. O'Connor (Beni Gabor), Jonathan Hyde (Dr. Allen Chamberlain), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Erick Avari (Dr. Terence Bey), Stephen Dunham (Isaac Henderson), Corey Johnson (David Daniels), Tuc Watkins (Bernard Burns), and Omid Djalili (Warden Gad Hassan) Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)

Review: 

Yes, I know, technically this isn't an "all the way horror movie". But it is a remake of the classic 1932 film of the same name as some sort of epic romantic adventure with help by Industrial Light and Magic. If you remember, the original movie involved Boris Karloff playing the title character, one that involved a mummy (Imhotep) raised from the dead that proceeded to live among folks for a decade before wanting to bring back his long-dead princess with a person that happens to be half-Egyptian and looks like said princess. Well, aside from the Book of the Dead helping in a resurrection, the movie isn't quite a straight-laced remake. Of course, this wasn't the first time this had happened, since Hammer Film Productions had done their own version that began in 1959 (although it was based on the sequels more so than the original, and this was followed by a number of sequels). It should be noted that the film that came from Universal Studios in 1999 was a culmination of a decade of attempts from producers James Jacks and Sean Daniel to make a modern Mummy movie that went through several directors and writers in consideration that revolved from George A. Romero to Clive Barker to Joe Dante; it should be noted that until 1996, Universal was aiming for a cheaply budgeted movie, and they were really aiming for an unstoppable villain at the level of The Terminator (incidentally, the movie was made for $62 million. So yes, one is probably wondering a bit about Sommers. Born in Indiana but raised in Minnesota, he was a graduate of the USC School of Cinematic Arts before he went to direct his first film in Catch Me If You Can (1989), which attracted a little notice despite minimal release; he directed two features for Walt Disney Pictures involving literary figures (Huckleberry Finn, Jungle Book), and it was during the end of shooting Deep Rising (1998) that he found interest in the ongoing attempts to bring The Mummy onto the screen. So, yes, I suppose one can be glad that Sommers (a fan of the original film that had aimed to do a remake for years) wanted to make a fair adventure with tinges of horror, at least for a title character that goes around wanting flesh to regenerate before creating sand storms. Sommers would be credited for the screenplay while also doing work on the story with Lloyd Fonvielle and Kevin Jarre. 

So, now we have a mummy that was buried alive due to attempts with the Book of the Dead to bring back a lost love that has been watched over from the bodyguards of the pharaoh and its descendants for 3,000 years while a lost city holding wealth and the tomb is waiting to be found. Look, it all depends on how much one buys into its attempts at sweeping adventure that doesn't take itself too seriously while having a few CGI effects here and there. Honestly, I'm fine with it, albeit in the mindset that it is basically comfort food; it may be fluff, but it is decent fluff, one that has interest in making charm count more so than sitting back and looking at effects sequences for two hours. It may not be great scary fun, but being alright fun that is aware of its surroundings is decent enough for most folks, a blockbuster in the era that fits it, and at least one can recognize some fair effects and some ideas of spooky scenery; the scarabs are pretty chilling, and the title creature in its growing form is pretty creepy. Technically speaking, it compares favorably to the original 1932 film, and it likely stands up fair for the era it was made for; while I undoubtedly have more curiosity over the film that could have been with a different director, being a loose effective remake of the original 1932 film is still an effective film in the long run (two sequels would follow in 2001 and 2008 before Universal did a "reboot" in 2017). Of course, the highlight among the cast is Fraser. He manages to roll along with the quick pace and wavering attempts at humor with just enough timing and stature to make things count, playing with the material with a casual appreciative nature. Weisz fares fine, straddling the line in curiosity that at least has more to do than her counterpart in the original feature (which, incidentally, means Weisz and Fraser have a bit of chemistry together). Hannah (first known for his work in Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) among television work) fits exactly to what is needed in mild comic relief without dragging the film down (or being easy bait in line for being taken down), while O'Connor does okay in sniveling middleman material. Vosloo is curious as the adversary, one that has to try and seem interesting in creeping terror despite being surrounded by a bunch of makeup that doesn't give him that much to really do. Part of me wishes this would have done more when it comes to actual horror, because the potential is there is you think about it. As a whole, it manages to push most of the right buttons in doing stirring entertainment in the guise of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), but then again most blockbusters probably honed a trick or two from that film, so being a step or two below something like that isn't a bad thing. It is a romp, and a romp is fine if one is in the mood for it. I wavered between just how "good" it was, but I guess calling it a good kind of average film (in either genre) is appropriate. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Final Destination (2000).