Computer effects drenched excuse for a decent movie.

Rating: 7/10 (25 April 2003)

First off, I have haven't seen the original version of `The Mummy' so I can't comment on how the new version compares to the original. But if it were anyway above average, then it would beat this one hands down. Because what we are presented with is a poorly acted, special effects laden, and rather cartoony, hopelessly unconvincing movie. Now I'm not one of those critical snobs who believes that all movies should try to be cinematic masterpieces, but this is just plain childish for the most part.

But there is that one saving grace that only barely manages to lift it out of the dross- the computer effects. That was probably the sole intention of reviving this old film. But in fairness to it, the luscious landscapes and beautifully created computer generated images do compensate for some things, but not enough.
The one bad thing that stands out amid the rest is the acting. Brendan Fraser was a blindingly bad choice as the film's hero. Mainly because he just isn't serious enough for the part. Rachel Weisz is OK for her part as a clutz, but does tend to overact in the worst possible way. John Hannah was yet another bad choice as yet another form of comic relief. He attempts to be funny but only succeeds in being excruciatingly annoying. Arnold Vosloo takes on the bad-guy role of the title. He's OK but it would have better had he been replaced by a CG mummy.
Another very bad thing is the way that the film goes for cheap and rather childish jokes instead of solid shocks and genuine scares. It lowers the overall effect to make it seem far too much like a comedy than anything else.
The visual effects only barely make `The Mummy' anything to recommend. The narrative, acting and overall tone are appallingly bad. But at least it's better than its disastrous sequel `The Mummy Returns'. At the same time though, this is below par. 4.8/10.