Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): Style WAY, WAY, WAY Over Substance . I'm a fan of the 1999 "The Mummy" and was understandably looking forward to this sequel. In the summer of 2001 I went to catch it at the theater with two friends and after about ten minutes we were all bored senseless by the incredible bombardment of action and F/X. We just layed back in our seats for the next two hours in utter tedium.      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 Exibit A. I recently considered the possibility that my first impression may have been in error so I decided to re-watch it after over five years. Yet, after a mere 10-15 minutes I was again completely detached from the picture, even though there were 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. In addition it has a great Indiana Jones appeal. Unfortunately it all adds up to a cinematic piece of excrement. What went wrong? Simply put, no substance. "The Mummy Returns" abandons the characters, and the plot is utilized simply as a flimsy clothesline for action and F/X sequences.    FINAL ANALYSIS: "The Mummy Returns" has so many ingredients right, but it somehow utterly fails. It's unadulterated cinematic JUNK. It should be utilized in filmmaking classes as the quintessential example of style over substance -- having all the right elements, including budget, and stupefyingly fumbling the ball.     Needless to say this could have been a great film franchise, but it was not to be. "Returns" put an end to that.
Output (English): NEG