One of the year' worst movies, another mindless special effects extravaganza. * (out of four)

Rating: 2/10 (4 June 2001)

THE MUMMY RETURNS / (2001) * (out of four)
By Blake French:
I can tell you exactly what happened with "The Mummy Returns." The filmmakers of "The Mummy" were in stitches of the huge success of the first film and quickly had the original actors sign for a sequel. They got the green light based on the box-office grossing of the first film, and probably started shooting before the first draft of the script was complete. The results of this shallow, mind-numbing array of visual effects are ridiculous, frenetic, and spontaneous-one of the year's worst films. It proves when a movie is made with the intentions of grossing a lot of money, it does not provide audiences with much more than visual stimulation.
"The Mummy" was one of the biggest box office hits in 1999, but even that was no cinematic masterpiece. Considering the rule of thumb that the original film is always better than its sequel, my expectations for "The Mummy Returns" were not especially high. I expected the same kind of movie, where the plot is simply a clothesline for lots and lots of special effects and high-tech action sequences. I was right on the money, but I never expected the movie to be this horrible.
The plot in the original mummy' was kind of interesting-but in "The Mummy Returns," the filmmaker's do not really supply us with a plot-but with a string of incidences that setup for yet another pestering sequel. "The Mummy Returns" opens with professional wrestler The Rock playing the Scorpion King, a warrior who trades his soul to a god in exchange for military victory, but becomes frozen in time. Most of the original film's actors reprise their roles; Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, and John Hannah as protagonists and Arnold Vosloo as the antagonist. Director and writer Stephen Sommers also returns, with a script created for the sole purpose of making a sequel.
I will not waste my time with a detailed plot synopsis. The film is much too incompetent for such an explanation. Besides, does the story really matter? If you chose to see this film, it will not be because of a thought-provoking story, or even an interest in the actors, but because it is a big-budget, special effects extravaganza. Many people will see this film-my guess is that they will walk away loving the action and visual effects, but once out of the theater this movie may never account in their minds again. It is forgettable, disposable, recycled junk-and you do not even have to think. Before you see this movie, park your brain outside the theater, you will not be needing it.
What about the action sequences and special effects? Even that aspect of "The Mummy Returns" fails miserably. The action scenes are predictable, superficial, and relentless. Action scenes relieve suspense. In this film, they occupy the tension-free plot. The film never builds for any suspense or momentum. This would not be a major problem if "The Mummy Returns" had other redeeming factors-but the whole thing is one extended action sequence. The insignificant exhilaration never stops to take a breath. Watching this movie is just like watching "The Mummy" again, but this time we expect every occurrence and see every turn coming from a mile away. The "Indiana Jones" similarities become even more obvious. The film also introduces several new horror creatures, including a Scorpion monster so badly created that many audience members laughed at its sheer presence.