Gimly

Jun 21, 2017

6.0

Suffers a little from the belief commonly held by sequels that "Bigger is better". Does expand the mythology (arguably not a positive), but more importantly is still a good time, thanks primarily to the relationship between the Brendan Fraser and Rachael Weisz characters. _Final rating:★★★ - I personally recommend you give it a go._

Wuchak

Dec 7, 2019

4.0

***Bigger is NOT always better; here it’s overKILL*** I'm a fan of the first movie from 1999 and was naturally looking forward to this 2001 sequel. I originally saw it at the theater with two friends; after about 10-15 minutes we were all bored by the bombardment of action and F/X. We just laid back in our seats in tedium for the remaining couple hours. It's a curious thing that too much action and F/X in a film can be boring. It may not seem logical but it's true; and "The Mummy Returns" is Exhibit A. I usually give certain movies second and third chances in the hope that my first impression may have been in error, which I’ve done with this one over the years. Unfortunately I keep finding myself relatively detached from the story even though there are all kinds of exciting things going on; or, at least, things that SHOULD HAVE been exciting. "The Mummy Returns" has a lot going for it: A great cast, locations, costumes, cinematography, F/X, etc. (although some of the CGI is woefully cartoony, like the Scorpion King at the close). It has great Indiana Jones appeal. Unfortunately it all adds up to a forgettable piece of cinematic dung. What went wrong? Simply put, no substance. "The Mummy Returns" abandons the characters while the plot is utilized as a clothesline for action and F/X sequences. The flick curiously has so many ingredients right, but it somehow utterly fails to absorb the viewer. It is unadulterated cinematic JUNK. It should be utilized in filmmaking classes as the quintessential example of style over substance or overKILL: having all the right elements, including budget, and yet stupefyingly fumbling the ball. The film runs 2 hours, 10 minutes (overlong), and was shot in England, Morocco, Jordan and Egypt. GRADE: C-

John Chard

Jan 7, 2020

7.0

Yeah, right, and no harm ever came from reading a book. You remember how that one went? After the financial success of "The Mummy" two years earlier, the sequel was inevitable. The big players from the first film are back, Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah, Arnold Vosloo and Oded Fehr. Stephen Sommers once again directs (and writes), Patricia Velasquez comes in to be a main player after her cameo in the first film, and young Freddie Boath plays the son of Rick and Evelyn who are now married. This time the cameo goes to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson who plays The Scorpion King and who is replaced by a very bad CGI version of himself at film's finale. When the second sequel, "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" (2008), was released, Brendan Fraser went on record as saying that for "The Mummy Returns" they basically remade the film they had already made in 1999! This is absolutely true, some new characters and an expansion on the O'Connell romance have been put in to beef it up, while some Zombie Pygmies are around to add extra monster factor, but yes! It's a re-tread only with more money spent, more effects (and better effects apart from Scorpion King) and more noise. This actually is OK for those who enjoyed the first film immensely, because "Returns" is every bit as enjoyable as family blockbuster entertainment. The Worldwide box offices rang to the tune of over $330 million in profit. That's a lot of happy families you would think!. So yes, it's a bit of a cheat, but much like the film before it, it gets away with it because the makers do everything they can to entertain the action/adventure loving crowd. With legions of Anubis warriors, those awesome Pygmies and the all round funny by-play between a cast comfortable with the material (again), "The Mummy Returns" delivers exactly what can reasonably be expected of it. 7/10

CinemaSerf

Sep 2, 2023

7.0

This is, actually, every bit as good as it's daddy - but why, oh why, do we always to have to introduce children into the mix? In this case Fredddie Boath joins the gang of intrepid adventurers trying to save the world from the scourge of a recently re-reincarnated mummy (a re-born, born again sort of thing!). He finds the Bracelet of Anubis, gets kidnapped and off we go on a fun race against time across the desert encountering all sorts of dangers and evil critters along the way. This one also introduces us to the "Scorpion King" (least said, I think) and Sommers, again, keeps this all moving along apace. It is just entertainment and if you look for nothing more then - of it's genre, it isn't disappointing.

r96sk

Feb 17, 2025

7.0

'The Mummy Returns' feels to me to be a downgrade on the original, though I still gained the desired entertainment from it. There is an absolute barrage of special effects used in this though, I said in my previous review about it aging badly - it's worse here. I still wouldn't say that the below par effects affected my enjoyment terribly much, like last time, but due to the (what felt like) increase of its usage it definitely becomes a bit of an eyesore this time out. The Scorpion King towards the conclusion looks particularly poor, I gotta say. Cast-wise, I could copy and paste what I said about the 1999 flick. Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz are good together, I like the addition of their son (played well by Freddie Boath) into the mix. Also in my review of 'The Mummy', I noted that I wanted more of Oded Fehr, well I got that wish delivered here. Quite interesting to see Dwayne Johnson appear as The Scorpion King, a character (and therefore franchise; five of them!) that I never knew existed until very recently. Given Johnson's upward acting trajectory since these films, I assume he didn't appear in all of those other spin-offs; I'll soon find out, intrigued to watch 'em either way.