I though Mummy Returns was better then The Mummy?

Gavin K

Stunt Coordinator
Mar 9, 2001
No, no, no, no, NO! I cannot tell you how disappointed I was with this movie. The Digitalbits review touches on a lot of the reasons why I hated this movie.
The fight on the bus was cool, and Brendan Fraser was fun to watch, but the convoluted and highly contrived plot was lame, the CGI was incredibly bad.
Where did the dirigible find the gas? How was Anck Su-namun's body ressurected, but not her spirit? Why, as soon as the mummy was ressurrected did he immediately start regenerating? I thought he had to borrow parts from other people. If the Scorpion King's army was fighting in the desert, what the hell were the pigmies? And how convenient about the scepter of Orisis (?!) Spoiler: And how convenient that there was a HUGE glyph showing how to kill the extremely lame and unexciting scorpion king.
And did I mention the CGI. And what a John Williams ripoff of a score. This movie was trying too hard to be Indiana Jones instead of sticking with what worked so well in the original.
And every review I've ever read about this movie said that they threw plot out the window and just piled on chase after chase. I didn't find this to be the case at all. I was very bored by this movie. The first one was far more exciting.
This movie had rush job written all over it. And it's a shame. I shudder to think how awful the Scorpion King is going to be.
Rant off

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Aug 6, 2001
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
I agree with you on this, but I must say I didn't care for either movie too much. That being said, the second was more entertaining than the first.
Take care,

Tom M

Stunt Coordinator
Oct 6, 1999
"Where did the dirigible find the gas?"
We are not meant to know. Rick states that if anyone can find hot air, it would be the pilot. It's an old movie plot device and didn't bother me one bit.
"How was Anck Su-namun's body ressurected, but not her spirit?"
She is the reincarnation (NOT ressurected) of Anck Su-namun and SAYS SO in the movie.
"Why, as soon as the mummy was ressurrected did he immediately start regenerating? I thought he had to borrow parts from other people."
He only becomes partially regenerated as a way of keeping the movie going (and not repeating what we already know from the first movie.) and he DOES borrow parts from other people to complete his regeneration. Or did you miss the train sequence?
"If the Scorpion King's army was fighting in the desert, what the hell were the pigmies?
Guardians for the temple created at the same time as the Oasis in the beginning of the film.
"And how convenient about the scepter of Orisis (?!)"
Just a way of tying an object from the first film to the second. Thought it pretty clever myself. Stephen Sommers DOES assume you have seen the first movie.
I swear, people must be watching this movie with the sound off or just not paying attention. I thought it was better than the first. Both movies are fun, entertaining adventures.
As for the CGI, well I think most people think CGI technology is better than it actually is. That said, I had no problems with any of the CGI. Including the much discussed effect at the end.


Sep 18, 2001
I hated both these movies. Plain and simple.
Also, what is with BF's character having a tattoo that he got when he was a kid (m2) and not having it in m1?
Also, BF and his wife kiss so much in the movie that they ignore their child enough to have him kidnapped. Can a movie have too much kissing?
Also, I really didn't want to see BF fight a dumb proffesional wrestler.
Also, how much CGI is too much CGI? Answer: Mummy Returns.
Also, "I hate mummies." Actual quote from movie.
Also, should a movie really have 2 comic reliefs?
Also, pan and scan or widescreen... this movie sucks.
"I was born to murder the world." -Nix (Lord of Illusions)
My Home Page http://www.geocities.com/masternix/DVD.html

Gary King

Second Unit
Apr 13, 1999
I really enjoyed MR. The CG wasn't great, but the movie realized it was silly enough to not need uber-special effects.
Replace mummies with nazis, and I thought MR could pass for a pretty decent Indiana Jones adventure.

Rollo Lee

Aug 16, 1999
No way! I LOVE the Mummy 1998 film. I'd go so far as to say it's one of the finest popcorn flicks ever made. It was perfectly paced, had great effects and was visually stylish without falling into the tired MTV look everyone else does these days. Add to that the clever/varied plot, excellent chemistry between the cast, and funny dialogue and you have a movie that channelled the best of early 1980s Spielberg. Take the exact same movie and say Spielberg directed it and I bet it would have received better reviews.
But Mummy Returns basically triples the action while ditching the other things that made part 1 good. The interaction between the characters, at least their dialogue, seems a lot more forced and trying-to-be-cute than actually cute. It made all the scenes between the action hard to watch, whereas I actually looked forward to the non-action scenes in part 1 (rare for a popcorn flick).
And while the action was good, I just felt the whole thing was much less interesting. There wasn't as much variety or "clever" bits, and it repeated a lot of scenes from part 1. Unusual or interesting things like Fraser screaming at the Mummy, embalming scene, jail scene, scarabs, cats scaring Imhotep, "the language of the slaves", the shot of the pilot under an umbrella in the desert, huge desert face chasing them. The sequel at best just copies these to lesser effect and adds very little new that's cool.
Also, as everyone has noted, the effects in part 2 were just awful. I don't buy that Harryhausen excuse. If they were meant to look fake, why did they go to such extremes to make part 1 look real? Even the matte paintings were worse!
I bought part 1 as soon as it hit DVD. For the sequel, I'll wait for it to go previously viewed at Blockbuster.
"Who was that guy?"
"Your momma! Now shut up and drag me to work!"
- Fry and Bender, 'Futurama'
[Edited last by Rollo Lee on October 09, 2001 at 12:18 PM]


Senior HTF Member
Jul 28, 2001
....... I just spilled my coffee over my keyboard while reading the title of this.

Simply put: no. A BIG no.


Jun 12, 1999
Both Mummies are fun but in no way resemble the classic Mummy with Karloff. I just think hollywood has no one who can actually do a credible remake of classic horror. That being sadi, I do feel that Carpenter did a great job with The Thing as he actually did stick to the story line.


Supporting Actor
Oct 26, 1999
From all of the buzz here a couple of years ago about how great "The Mummy" was, I bought the DVD sight unseen. After I watched it, I immediately sold it for $5.00 to a coworker just to get rid of it.
This summer, I decided to give "The Mummy Returns" a chance (heck...I sat through the first one and survived). I was actually entertained by it. Was it a great movie destined to be a classic. No.
So my vote is, Yes, the second one was better than the first.

Michael Dueppen

Stunt Coordinator
Sep 19, 2000
I liked the Mummy as well as MR.
I just really hated the CGI in MR. The breaking and falling tree and the Scorpion King at the end looked worse than the CGI in the intro of an average computer game today.
- Michael
My DVD collection


Senior HTF Member
Jul 25, 2000
Real Name
The Mummy was much better than The Mummy Returns, IMO.
Way...way...way too much CGI and to boot, it looked terrible, very fake and unrealistic. Not enough humor. Too much story and too much action and too many of the same type of effects. The movie became boring and mundane half-way in and I had to stop and watch the second half the following night.
And that trailer for The Scorpion King also looks to be terrible prequel.
The Mummy was best.
Peace Out~

The Green Room | Rons DVDs

Alex Spindler

Senior HTF Member
Jan 23, 2000
Utterly disappointed in MR. I think M1 was four times the movie MR was, both from a storytelling standpoint, from a special effects standpoint, from an action standpoint, from a dialogue standpoint, from an acting (hehe) standpoint, from a humor standpoint, from a suspense standpoint, and from an overall package standpoint.

Julie K

Dec 1, 2000
I thought The Mummy was a great movie. It was fun in a cheesy way, the characters were cute, and was full of charm.
I thought The Mummy Returns was awful. It was not fun, the characters were no longer cute - and the kid was downright awful, and the charm was lost in order to make room for action piled upon action upon action. That type of high pitched action just bores me after a while.
I am trying very, very hard to get MR out of my mind so I can once again enjoy The Mummy the way I did before I saw that horrible sequel.
Who else noticed The Lost World rip-off when the pigmies were attacking the guys?
"Don't go into the long grass!!"
Well, both movies ripped it off of Peter Hathaway Capstick's book "Death in the Long Grass"...although I'll admit Capstick only had lions, elephants, etc. instead of dinosaurs and pygmy mummies.
"Well, that's it then. You must have tripped over the cat."
"Where did it come from? There's nothing up there but ceiling. I love how these animals just fall straight into your hands. I mean, what do they do? Hang upside-down by their claws and wait for people to pass by?"

Jeff Adams

Dec 13, 1999
Not at all. The Mummy is so much better in many ways. I really enjoy The Mummy. I like it more and more everytime I watch it. However The Mummy Returns was pretty dissapointing compared to the first one. The first one had a great plot, was alot more intense,dark and mysterious. It had the right combo of everything, horror, action, humor and special effects. The sequel was just a cgi roller coster action flick. Which was what I was expecting, so I was not dissapointed with the actual movie itself, just dissapointed in how it compared with the first one. But still, I enjoyed the movie.
"I'm your Huckelberry"

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Latest member