Bigger is NOT always better; here it's overKILL

Rating: 4/10 (11 March 2014)

I'm a fan of the first movie from 1999 and was naturally looking forward to this 2001 sequel. I originally saw it at the theater with two friends; after about 10-15 minutes we were all bored by the bombardment of action and F/X. We just laid back in our seats in tedium for the remaining couple hours.
It's a curious thing that too much action and F/X in a film can be boring. It may not seem logical but it's true; and "The Mummy Returns" is Exhibit A. I usually give certain movies second and third chances in the hope that my first impression may have been in error, which I've done with this one over the years. Unfortunately I keep finding myself relatively detached from the story even though there are all kinds of exciting things going on; or, at least, things that SHOULD HAVE been exciting.
"The Mummy Returns" has a lot going for it: A great cast, locations, costumes, cinematography, F/X, etc. (although some of the CGI is woefully cartoony, like the Scorpion King at the close). It has great Indiana Jones appeal. Unfortunately it all adds up to a forgettable piece of cinematic dung. What went wrong? Simply put, no substance. "The Mummy Returns" abandons the characters while the plot is utilized as a clothesline for action and F/X sequences.
The flick curiously has so many ingredients right, but it somehow utterly fails to absorb the viewer. It is unadulterated cinematic JUNK. It should be utilized in filmmaking classes as the quintessential example of style over substance or overKILL: having all the right elements, including budget, and yet stupefyingly fumbling the ball.
The film runs 2 hours, 10 minutes (overlong), and was shot in England, Morocco, Jordan and Egypt.
GRADE: C-