2 of 4

Bob Smithouser at Focus on the Family argues that this installment is "equally violent and more spiritually bankrupt than the original. It's a headache-inducing, visceral barrage that seems determined to keep audiences from pausing long enough to realize how ridiculous it all is." Smithouser mocks the film's "maddening" theology, which pits one evil "god" against another. "Who's left to root for when it's darkness vs. darkness?" he asks.

Other religious critics either overlooked or ignored these flaws. Critics at Movieguide and Preview both object to The Mummy Returns only because it presents elements of the occult and reincarnation rather than Christianity. Holly McClure at The Dove Foundation may be the only religious media critic who seemed perfectly happy with it: "Truthfully I enjoyed almost everything about [Sommers's] movie. This is a thrilling, non-stop, action packed, special effects, intense mummy movie … full of exciting, funny, interesting characters that will entertain young and old alike. Sommers gives us a movie on the level of Indiana Jones."

I'd have to disagree with McClure on this point. The Indiana Jones movies are classics for qualities that are missing in the Mummy franchise. First and foremost, Indiana Jones movies gave us a memorable hero; thus, it's his name in the title, not the villain's. People are there to see Indy overcome evil, not meaningless monsters making mayhem. A memorable, likeable, admirable hero is a rare thing in the movies; most disposable adventure movies hold our attention by the flair of the villain while the heroes are rather boring, running and shooting and giving the monster something to chase. Can you imagine The Mummy Returns re-titled Rick O'Connell Returns? I don't think so. Director Steven Sommers seems determined to recycle as much of the Indiana Jones franchise as he can without lawsuits for plagiarism, aspiring for the same kind of fame and fortune. Sean Means at Film.com also saw unsettling rip-offs from other films: "the Jules Verne-like dirigible with the African Queen fuselage … and swordfights between [the women] that prove Sommers was one of the millions who saw Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." This provokes The New York Times' Elvis Mitchell to claim, "The Mummy Returns may be the least original motion picture ever. It even beats its 1999 predecessor … because at least the first film wasn't stealing from itself in addition to the collected works of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas and Universal's 1930's genre films."

Many will claim that critical analyses of these action movies are pointless. "Hey, quit taking it so seriously," a few friends have told me. "It's just meant to be fun." That may be the case. Critics can sometimes be snobs. But some of us prefer movies that are as fun to think about afterwards as they are to watch. Or, put another way, bring back Indiana Jones.

More monsters wreaked havoc this week in The Forsaken, a derivative, hyperviolent, gory vampire movie that most critics found far from scary or even entertaining. Preview's writer calls the film "a teen version of 1998's John Carpenter's Vampires" and concludes that "this film has little new to offer and shouldn't make a much of a dent at the box office. The movie is filled with gratuitous nudity, graphic violence, and excessive foul language." "Like the undead in Near Dark and From Dusk Till Dawn," notes Entertainment Weekly's Bruce Fretts, "these sunlight phobic creatures inexplicably hang out in the blindingly bright Southwest." Fretts cautions viewers of the film's "Weed Eater editing" and gratuitous violence. One incident in particular troubles him: "A cop who pulls Rex over for speeding gets blown away by a vampire with a shotgun and then has his body set ablaze with gasoline. Somebody call Joe Lieberman." Fretts is not exaggerating—as newspapers report foolish and dangerous youngsters repeating acts of violence they see onscreen, this is not the sort of thing that belongs in frivolous entertainment.

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

May (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45