"The Mummy" times ten, for better or worse

Rating: 5/10 (5 May 2001)

If you didn't care for "The Mummy", this one won't appeal to you either. Despite a several-year gap and changes in character relationships, there's very little difference here. The same flip attitude, the same everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink approach. The only difference is an increase in budget, and thus in the proliferation of special effects. And therein lies the main problem.
This film is a prime example of the principle that just because you CAN put something on the screen, it doesn't mean that you SHOULD. The filmmakers have a serious problem with restraint; when flesh-eating bugs appear, they can't just show enough to kill people...there has to be a boiling flood of them. They can't just have a tribe of pygmy zombies chase the characters, there have to be a few hundred. When Anubis' warriors arrive, they must coat the landscape. After a while, the effect defeats itself, and it becomes impossible to feel impressed with the scale.
Another problem lies in underestimating the audience. There are far too many "surprises" here that we can see coming over the horizon, and yet the filmmakers insist on drawing out the "suspense", convinced that we don't know what's about to happen. Not to print spoilers, but suffice to say, when the plot revolves around resurrection, death is hardly much of a threat.
Finally, on a minor note, the much-ballyhooed appearance of The Rock (is he going to start using his name anytime soon?) induces more chuckles than thrills. The role comprises perhaps five minutes of film time, and his only dialogue is in Egyptian. And even under these modest demands, his performance fails to impress. It is very much the performance of someone who makes his living with over-the-top shouting.
I give the film a 5 out of 10; it isn't really worse than the first one, but more doesn't mean better, either.