The Mummy Review
by Chad Polenz (ChadPolenz AT aol DOT com)May 18th, 1999
The Mummy
Chad'z rating: ** (out of 4 = fair/below average)
1999, PG-13, 127 minutes [2 hours, 7 minutes]
[adventure/horror]
Starring: Brendan Fraser (Rick O’Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evey), John Hannah (Jonathon), Kevin J. O’Connor (Beni); produced by Sean Daniels, James Jacks; written and directed by Stephen Sommers.
Seen May 13, 1999 at 6:10 p.m. at the Crossgates Cinema 18 (Guilderland, NY), theater #2, by myself for free using my Hoyt’s season pass. [Theater rating: ****: excellent seats, sound and picture]
There are some movies you don’t actually have to watch to know what happens. There are some movies that are so standard, so cliche, so unoriginal they don’t take much mental energy to pitch, produce and sell to the public. And in keeping with movies like this, which “The Mummy” is a perfect example of, us critics don’t have to do much in the lines of reviewing them because the public, the film studios and us critics ourselves already know what we’re going to say, it’s just kind of a formality to sit down at a computer and push the letters on the keyboard in the proper sequence.
I figure if the filmmakers are going to go to recycle the same material over and over, why can’t I do the same with my review?
So here’s some quotes from reviews of other movies. I trust my readers are smart enough to figure out what I’m trying to say... I’ll meet you at the end of the review while I go grab a beer.
“From the title alone... doesn't sound too appealing because it's so generic and boring. It's the epitome of a sci-fi title, and not surprisingly, this is the epitome of a sci-fi movie. It... tries to use both intelligent reasoning and barbaric violence to solve problems - guess which method dominates?” - review of “Alien.”
“Getting an audience's attention right from the beginning plays a major role in how today's films work. We want to have something exciting to watch, not a slow build-up of a story (God forbid!), and this film plays right into the mainstream's hands. The opening sequence uses mystery, comedy, and action simultaneously to give a sneak preview of the level of the in-your-face energy the film has,” - review of “Armageddon.”
“It's clear the film doesn't want to waste time on reality and thus the attempt to establish plausibility (the most minimal amount necessary) comes across as a half-assed effort. Supporting characters and shady sup-plots are introduced, but as is the case with films made up of a large cast of characters, only a handful have any real significance... There's a fine line separating homage from plagiarism...,” - review of “Godzilla” (1998)
“... this story is fine and the film does a good job in creating a suspenseful mood since we seem to be the only ones who can see the obvious. Horror stories thrive on this kind of element, so when the evil things happen we can say to the naysayers, "Told you so." However, the manner in which the film actually breaks down the plot and uses this element is quite exploitative,” - review of “The Exorcist.”
“Unfortunately, as is the case with most modern thrillers, once the film showed potential for authenticity and intelligence, the cliches and action sequences take over,” - review of “The Jackal.”
“Most of the film is a bad rip-off of the "Indiana Jones" films and just about every sci-fi movie and comic book ever. We get a lot of rhetoric that seems to justify all the unnecessary violence and bizarre storyline and mythology, but just considering the basic elements, it's too stupid to take seriously,” - review of “Stargate.”
“The last act... seems like the world really will come to an end and yet none of the characters seem worried about it... The script conviently provides for the massive special effects disaster imagery it promises and a climatic resolution, but still fails to work even as eye candy as it's very unconvincing and ends much too quickly,” - review of “Deep Impact.”
“There isn't much going for... other than its special effects and production design (which are excellent, I'll have to admit it), but that doesn't make up for the mediocre story. Maybe if it had been scripted with more wit, it would be worth getting excited over,” - review of “Aliens.”
But seriously folks, what it all comes down to is that “The Mummy” tries to be funny and intense at the same time and it just doesn’t happen. It’s hard to find the intense and suspenseful elements intense and suspenseful when you already know what’s going to happen. It’s good they throw in the comedy to keep us laughing when there’s no action or adventure going on, but why not through in the comedy during the supposed adventure elements? What we end up with is clashing moods which cancel each other out and all we’re left with is people running around and special effects. We could watch “Waterworld” for that.
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.
