The Mummy Review
by Joe Barlow (jbarlow AT earthling DOT net)May 7th, 1999
THE MUMMY
A movie review by Joe Barlow
(c) Copyright 1999
STARRING: Brendan Fraser, Arnold Vosloo, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah, Kevin J. O'Connor
DIRECTOR: Stephen Sommers
WRITER: Stephen Sommers
RATED: PG-13
RELEASED: 1999
RATING: ** (out of a possible ****)
Whether we like it or not, it has become standard practice for Hollywood to remake classic films for modern audiences. Stephen Sommer's new cinematic retelling of "The Mummy" marks the first time Universal Pictures has revisited one their most popular (and
profitable)
characters since the 1950s, a decade dominated dominated by cinematic werewolves, vampires, and aliens. Thanks to the popularity of the "B" movie during this time period, the Mummy developed a loyal and dedicated fan base. The fact that he's back in theaters in '99 is not nearly as surprising as the amount of time it took to get him there. Is
the wait worth it?
Early indications looked good-- the film has been receiving favorable write-ups in entertainment magazines for a while now, and innovative TV ads and a great trailer have only served to whet the appetite of horror fans. The thought of seeing a new story about one of
the genre's premiere villains seemed like a great way to spend a couple
of hours, and my expectations were high as the theater lights dimmed. But alas, this movie won't go down as a classic, as some have suggested; nor is it a modern "Raiders of the Lost Ark," although portions of this movie are clearly inspired by it. "The Mummy" suffers
from a pace that borders on laconic, characters that are the epitome of
cardboard, and a formulaic plot that's a little too neatly (ahem) wrapped
up.
The story opens with a splendidly filmed flashback. Nearly
two
thousand years before the birth of Christ, an Egyptian priest named Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) tempted fate by doing the unthinkable: falling in
love with the Pharoah's mistress. For this act of trechery, the priest
was buried alive, and, for reasons I'm still not sure I understand, imbued
with a curse: if his tomb is ever disturbed, the mummified priest will come back to life and bring ten mighty plagues (the usual stuff: locusts,
fireballs, turning water into blood, etc.) to Egypt. (Why? I have no idea.) But the Egyptians are so concerned that the priest will one day
rise from his grave that they appoint a group of soldiers to guard his temple (rather like the Holy Grail society in the third Indiana Jones film).
This elite group is maintained over the millenia, with sons taking their
father's places as they die.
Flash forward to 1925, as Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) and his partners Johnathan (John Hannah, Gwyneth Paltrow's boyfriend in "Sliding Doors") and Evelyn (Rachel Weisz, who looks like she's desperately trying to be Kate Winslet) undertake an archaeological dig in
the city of Hamunaptra. No points for guessing what they find and accidentally unleash while they're there. Soon the locusts are a buzzin'
and the sores are a runnin' as our explorers try to defeat the reincarnated
Imhotep, who plans to imbue his mummified lover with Evelyn's spirit.
With me so far? Good... then perhaps you've already noticed some
of the same problems that I did. Let's start with the 'Guardians of the
Priest's Tomb' concept. Look, if the Egyptians are so concerned that a
dead mummy might one day come back to life that they actually bred generations of soldiers to guard his tomb, why not just burn the body? For that matter, if this particular curse is such a dangerous one, why cast it in the first place? If the guy is that evil, why didn't they just
kill him back in B.C. times and be done with it? If they hadn't cursed
him, he couldn't have come back to life later, and there'd be no need to
breed generations of guards. It seems like a silly loophole to me. Or if
they simply *must* curse the poor guy, is it really wise to bury the tools
needed to bring him back to life within easy reach of anyone who should
happen to find the tomb? Ever think about storing them somewhere else,
guys?
Never mind.
I have no problem with films that require little or no
thought;
indeed, if "The Mummy" hadn't caused me to think at all, I could at least
have enjoyed it as a strictly visceral experience. As it stands, I spent a
lot of time mentally cataloguing the numerous plot inconsistencies and contradications (of which the above paragraph is only the tip of the iceberg) when I should've been paying attention to the eye candy and special effects. Spotting the various plot holes gave me more enjoyment
than the movie itself.
It's not all bad, though. Much has been written about
Universal's
complete overhaul of the Mummy character, and I must admit that they've
succeeded in making him pleasantly creepy. Gone is the moaning, slowly-walking man in the white bandages, replaced by a formidable (if obviously computer-generated) opponent with complete mastery over the elements. The Mummy actually succeeds in becoming an interesting character! (Now that's a sentence I never thought I'd write.) Too bad he
appears in so little of the movie-- the film is halfway over before he puts in his first appearance; hence the laconic pacing I referred to earlier. Brendan Fraser also does fine work in his first "action-hero" role.
Although the script attempts to paint the character as an Indiana Jones
clone, Fraser succeeds in rising above mediocre material and being genuinely likeable, just as he did in "Blast From the Past." This is a
man who knows how to play up to a camera, and the audience absolutely loved him.
The second half of "The Mummy" is actually kinda fun, though it's not extraordinary-- it's standard popcorn fare, with a lot of action,
great special effects, and some audience-pleasing quips and humor. The
tedious opening scenes, however, go on far too long and don't contain enough relevent information to justify their length. People don't go to a
movie called "The Mummy" because they want to see people sitting around a table talking; they go because they want to be scared, have fun,
and root for someone (be it hero or villain). The movie's second half realizes this, and it's no surprise that it's the more rewarding of the two.
("The Mummy" totters into theaters on Friday, May 7th.)
************************************************************* Copyright (c)1999 by Joe Barlow. This review may not be reproduced without the written consent of the author.
E-Mail: [email protected]
Joe Barlow on Film: http://www.ipass.net/~jbarlow/film.htm
If you'd like to receive new film reviews by e-mail, please write to: [email protected]
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
