what did people expect?

Rating: Null/10 (10 September 1999)

It really puzzles me - the number of people who made the decision to see this movie then go to a lot of trouble describing how it was more like Indiana Jones, how the storyline sucked, how it wasn't a horror movie etc. etc. etc.
I went to see it BECAUSE it was promoted as an Indiana Jones type movie, BECAUSE it didn't pretend to be anything but popcorn and a rollercoaster ride. Sommers wasn't trying to get some profound message across, he wasn't trying to outdo Phantom Menace in the FX department yet I say he fared better in Mummy than ILM did in PM. The movie was entertaining, had great cinemaphotography and there're far worse ways to spend 2 hours. Brendan Fraser did fine and at no time did he try to be another Harrison Ford - he didn't have to. Vosloo as the Mummy did things with a 3,000 year old corpse that made many women want to be buried with him anytime! It amazes me some people go to a movie like this and expect Schindler's List or Alfred Hitchcock or some other classic. The movie never had any such pretensions.
I say, unleash The Mummy 2 and I'll definitely enjoy it when those critics start on it too because they'll have to ask why they're seeing it in the first place.