Imhotep? More like Impotent...

Rating: Null/10 (17 July 1999)

You have gotta admire the chutzpah of Universal in releasing the movie in this state. They should never have wrapped this Mummy. Unlike some of the artefacts, the movie as a whole looks decidedly unpolished, and one leaves the theatre feeling mildly entertained (only about 10 minutes of the film are actually boring), but with a sense that it could have been so much more if only a little attention had been given to the writing, editing and overall ambience.
I saw this movie in Barcelona where it's rated for kids age 7 and up. (It was rated as high as 15 years in some countries.) So, it seems only the Spanish appreciated its true target audience (and yes, Spain's version was uncut). It's a pity that the movie had to be quite as childish, wacky and simplistic as it was. But that's demographics for you. The cartoon-characterlike mummy was not the least bit chilling (although, not being a preteen, maybe I'm not qualified to comment). Imhotep? More like Impotent. However, a nice touch was to see Americans as arrogant villains for a change. Arnold Vosloo is better than I expected, however, as the human Imhotep, even if the only emotion he's asked to convey is sheer arrogance. I'd have preferred Billy Zane (to whom he bears a remarkable resemblance in some scenes), who may have brought more subtlety to the role. Rachel Weisz is competent enough, though she can't play drunk, and (strangely!) becomes noticeably better-looking as the film grinds on (she looks less tired than at first, anyone else notice?), though I'd have preferred Catherine Zeta-Jones (who wouldn't?) Brendan Fraser is, unfortunately, just plain bland and decidedly un-French. He looks too young, and not rugged enough, for this role. He's an excellent actor (e.g. Gods & Monsters) but just goes through the motions here.
Most of the glib one-liners failed completely, not just because I was watching the movie dubbed in Spanish (I understood about 95% of it), though I doubt the original US dialogue was much more scintillating. I'm afraid it's grade-school stuff, as usual.
On the effects (which of course is what the movie is all about), there's very little to say. They're effective (sorry), but not surprising. Unspecial f/x. The same effects, such as the scarab beetle swarms and skin bulging, are very overused. I wonder how much money that saved? After seeing an effect once, it has much diminished impact the second time. Which perhaps explains why I was noticing boom mikes, cameras (yes!) and other anomalous background things instead of being totally gripped by the action. I liked the opening panoramic scene of ancient Egypt more than the mostly mundane f/x thereafter.
While the film obviously doesn't take itself seriously (nor should it), the acting is mostly too camp (especially the effete Brit Jonathan and the nasty stereotype of the fat greedy Arab) to avoid oversilliness. That really diminishes the mystical and suspenseful atmosphere that the film should have derived from its lavish sets. As a result, the big money spent on production design was essentially squandered. The film has very little atmosphere and appears strangely sterile and subdued. You keep hoping it might pick up, but it never does, retaining a bland tone throughout; even the climax is unthrilling; an empty spectacle.
Conclusion: They should have spent a few million less on sterile sfx, hired some decent script doctors and donated the remaining millions to the preservation of GENUINE Egyptian cultural artefacts.

(Oh, and I wonder how Imhotep could see anything throughout the entire movie, considering he stole the eyes of that American guy who could barely see the hand in front of his face without his glasses?)