The Age of Commercialism

Fresh and Exciting

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The second in a trilogy, though I am unsure if a third was intended at the completion of this film. I just completed the trilogy and will sadly see the new film as well.The cinematography isn't bad. The story is worse than the first one. The characters are about the same. The lone exception is the child, which meant that the film would be horrible. It is bad enough that the "good" characters have superhuman abilities to avoid any danger, they can also come back from the dead.I am unsure if this was used in the first or second film, but the phrase, "Mortal weapons cannot hurt him/kill him." He does seem to be able to get hurt with a few punches though. If a bullet doesn't hurt, why would a punch/rock/anything else?In conclusion, this is a stupid film. It is good if you want to sleep, as I did towards the end (the first time). If you like it, you will probably be happy in life, as you like films that treat you like a child.It made a lot of money, which isn't shocking. Hopefully the people that paid for it had a horrible fate befall them. If you think that is harsh, good for you. The film is painfully bad, though not as bad as the third.

Worst CGI ever: check Wooden acting; check Zero chemistry between Fraser and Weisz: check Zero chemistry between the annoying kid and his "parents" check Most annoying kid ever, that I wanted to see dead from the first moment he showed up: check Actors having no fun this time around. Thery're just there to get paid: check Oded Fehr: worst actor ever, with the most ridiculous white teeth I've ever seen: check Even worse than Indiana Jones 4: checkOnly good thing is the stunning, sometimes half naked Rachel Weisz fighting and kicking ass. How Stephen Summers could muck this up after making an awesome original The Mummy and accept what was horrible CGI even 16 years ago, is beyond me. They must have had a much bigger budget and yet this comes of as so much cheaper looking than the original movie. Every action sequence falls flat and is ruined by horrible CGI. Just don't ever watch this. Stephen Summers and his CGI effects team should be taken outside and shot for making this turd of a movie.

There were a few flaws in this movie I wanted to point out. Their son, Alex is eight. If you took the year they met and added it up until the time setting that is only seven years, which meant he couldn't be Rick's son unless he had a one night stand with Evie that neither remembered.In the first movie Ardeth Bay never tells them what his name is, it is never mentioned, but in the second movie they greet him by name.As sequels go it was pretty good. An added bonus is buying the DVD two disc version that gives you much back history on the people and characters depicted in the movie. It also has a blooper reel that still makes me laugh. I do enjoy it and the first one too including that beautiful white cat that should've been around for the whole movie. The third one i found a little silly and completely unnecessary, but this was not a bad movie, it really did have some great moments.

Greetings from Lithuania."The Mummy Returns" (2001) was fan worse movie then superb first film. It lacks anything that made first film fun - very poorly paced, with lots of not fun adventures and some lines (lots of them actually) and acting that made my eyes rolling. Special effects weren't that special, check out this movie now and you will see how dated it looks now. And the ending with The Scorpion King was pretty OK, but special effects of the The Scorpion King himself has to be (still) one of the worst special effects efforts ever.Overall, "The Mummy Returns" is louder, more action oriented sequel that lacks everything that made first film truly fun and very impressively looking adventure. As for now, this is the worst film in the series.