Last word on the Mummy,until it returns

Rating: 6/10 (22 July 2005)

Colorful, old-fashioned, full of adventure. Yes, all these describe this big-budget re-make of the old Universal flic; what a difference 67 years make. A box-office winner, this capitalizes on the current FX capabilities to display almost anything one can imagine (as long as you have the money): wanna show a locust invasion? No problem. A 'living' sandstorm? Okey do-key. Essentially a horror comedy, the minor horrific elements are offset by a tongue-in-cheek attitude; probably the creepiest sections for the audience have to do with the marauding hordes of beetles that scour the insides of the burial grounds and have a tendency to get under your skin. The monster of the title (played by South African actor Arnold Vosloo, who has no English lines) is more like a force of nature, with many supernatural powers, who needs to feed off the life-essences of various victims to regenerate himself, uh, itself. The movie has some great on-location desert photography, with the whole thing having a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" feel to it. So, why doesn't it rate higher with me? There is a word, I believe it's 'derivative,' which can also be used to describe this romp. When "Raiders.." came out in the early eighties, it was fairly original, even tho it was based on old-time serial pics. By the late nineties, this scrambling from one peril to the next is not. This is also a primary example of computer FX used to such excess that nothing resonates with any real impact on the viewer. Since the story is set in the 1920s, I could hear in 1999 the wheels turning in Hollywood executive heads regarding a sequel set in modern times. But, that didn't happen - the sequel moved ahead only a few years, to even better grosses. Now, THAT'S Hollywood. Uh, The Mummy Returns Again?