In ancient Egypt, to be readied for the afterlife, one was mummified, a process that involved the removal of the body's organs, including one's brain, a point that's graphically explained in Universal's release and remake of the classic film, "The Mummy." While highfalutin critics and "art house" aficionados will probably describe this film as having a similar, devastating cerebral effect on moviegoers, we think there's a better, alternative way of looking at the film.
If you can manage to turn off your brain before seeing this picture -- but after you've parked the car and got your change back from the ticket office -- you might just enjoy this mindless excursion into the first of what will probably be many dumb, but big budget extravaganzas wishing to wrap up audiences in their summer offerings.
There are plenty of bad elements abounding in this film, however, for those critics to have a field day raking it over the coals -- and pulling off its wrappings to better show its many flaws. We certainly won't argue with many of them -- as the acting is often quite bad, the writing and plotting cliched, and the film -- like last year's "Godzilla" that heavily relied on special effects to carry the story -- is neither scary nor adventurous enough to be very memorable.
Of course, not having a brain will also come in handy helping to ensure that you don't recall or notice the myriad similarities between this film and the Indiana Jones movies. In particular, it most closely resembles the first and best of that series, "Raiders of the Lost Ark," and generously raids its elements as greedily and blatantly as the explorers in this film do the ancient tombs.
In what essentially could be called "Raiders Lite," the film tries to emulate the adventurous, cliffhanger material found in that film (and the ones to which Lucas and Spielberg were clearly paying homage). As such and beyond the desert archaeological dig setting, there's also a budding romance between the tough, but ruggedly handsome adventurer and the pretty lady -- often with comic undertones.
Plenty of scenes set in the tombs, also are present where bad things await those who trespass and meddle where they shouldn't, and there's even a scene where a character looks down into a tomb he's about to enter and says, "Bugs. I hate bugs" (whereas Mr. Ford had a similar reaction to the slithering floor in "Raiders").
More akin to that film than its ghoulish predecessors of the same name -- most notably 1932's "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff as the title character or Hammer's 1959 remake starring Christopher Lee as the old guy in wraps -- this remake's many striking similarities to "Raiders" seriously undermine its efforts before it ever gets a chance to get going. Suffering from unflattering, but inevitable comparisons to Spielberg's classic, the film constantly feels like a "B" movie version of it.
Beyond not having that grade A, Spielberg touch or feel, the picture also suffers from the mummy being introduced rather late -- about midway -- through the proceedings, and that the film -- like many summer blockbuster wannabes -- relies too heavily on special effects to carry the ball.
No traditional mummy wrapped in old-fashioned bandages, this computer-generated fella gets the latest special effects makeover, but much like was the case with "Godzilla," that's not necessarily a good thing or much of an improvement. While I never found the old movie mummies very scary as a kid, this new and "improved" version may just scare the pants off little kids if they're allowed to see him, but didn't do much for me.
That pretty much holds true for the film in general when viewed on an artistic level. While the screenplay -- courtesy of director Stephen Sommers ("Deep Rising") with help from Lloyd Fonvielle & Kevin Jarre -- efficiently moves from one point to the next, nothing special or surprising ever really unfolds.
Essentially turning into an effects heavy, Egyptian haunted house (or tomb, as it is), the film's scares are of the traditional bogeyman style with things moving behind or suddenly jumping out at people. Once the mummy leaves the realm of special effects and is embodied by a real actor, though, he's anything but scary and did nothing but constantly remind me of the evil high priest in the 2nd Indiana Jones film.
However, other special effects -- and there are tons of them throughout the film -- range from good to outstanding, and certainly make this film a visually exciting experience and an expensive piece of eye candy at that.
In addition, some fun moments do occasionally occur and the film does pick up a feverish pace as it races toward its conclusion. As far as mindless, old-fashioned cliffhanger type films go, this one mostly works and delivers the goods in a rousing, albeit quite familiar way. One only wishes, however, that it had more zing, that something special that would make it standout from the crowd.
Part of the problem also lies with the casting. Beyond the fact that the villain isn't particularly menacing as a human and is all too obviously computer-generated when he's not, the rest of the performers don't have that matinee idol status to propel the film to the necessary level.
As such, Brendan Fraser ("Gods and Monsters," "Blast From the Past") and Rachel Weisz ("The Land Girls," "Swept From the Sea") are likeable enough, but beyond the inevitably unfavorable comparisons to Harrison Ford and Karen Allen, they just don't have what it takes to carry the picture. Whereas Ford's wisecracking quips in the "Indiana Jones" movies felt right -- especially due to him being a seasoned and rough around the edges explorer -- when they come out of Fraser's mouth they don't.
Supporting performances are generally okay and deliver what's expected of them, but the talented John Hannah ("Four Wedding and a Funeral," "Sliding Doors") seems wasted in his bumbling sidekick role. A brief highlight arises when Bernard Fox (Dr. Bombay from the old "Bewitched" TV show) appears, but he's likewise underused and doesn't stick around for long.
Despite the complaints, the film did seem to entertain our audience that was obviously primed and ready for the summer's first big-budget extravaganza. It does have its moments -- both funny and adventurous -- and like a weak version of the various incantations read from an ancient book used late in the film, manages to cast a mild spell over the audience.
While the film has plenty of problems and its similarities to "Raiders" will draw much criticism and immediately turn off some viewers, the fact that it intentionally strives to be a mindless, but adventurously fun film wards off some of those critical barbs. While we weren't that impressed with the picture overall, we found its escapist qualities somewhat redeeming. For that, we give "The Mummy" a 4 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](https://www.screenit.com/images/screenit_subscriber_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
![[Around the World in 80 Days]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/around_the_world_in_80_days_2022_small.jpg)
![[Family Camp]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/family_camp_small.jpg)
![[Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/doctor_strange_in_the_multiverse_of_madness_small.jpg)