The Mummy Returns

As a typical sequel, the sets are more colourful and the locations more varied, the plot is more brisk and crazy, Brendan Fraser is more cocky, John Hannah is more talkative and Rachel Weisz is more beautiful than in the first part, but more importantly, the film still manages to entertain with its original approach and Stephen Sommers, for the last time in his career, is so visually imaginative and, more importantly, funny that his direction this time around could have pulled off a much, much worse film. A cute Hollywood blockbuster, with less ambition, definitely better and more entertaining than the third Pirates of the Caribbean or Sommers' newer Van Helsing. 75% (08/07/2015)

Bigger, more epic, more spectacular special effects, more plot-driven. Simply the classic attributes that the sequel to a financially successful popcorn movie "must" fulfill. As a result, more boring, over-the-top, more action-packed, more infantile (which I thought wasn't even possible), inconsistent, and overly long. Also simply the classic attributes of a sequel. A pleasant relaxing spectacle, but nothing more, and certainly not better than the first installment. (01/24/2007)

Solid ancient adventure, very similar in concept to the first installment, with lots of action, a fast pace, and a solid cast. However, for my taste it is even more cluttered, overwrought, and hyped than the first one, and here it bothered me quite a bit. Yet, one cannot deny the creativity and decent skills of the director. This time, I was pleasantly surprised by Arnold Vosloo, whom I still associate with a tough guy from Hard Target. The scorpion ending was downright silly, but considering the film's practically nonexistent ambitions, it can be endured. To have fun and let go, that's the basic motto. (06/19/2006)

Stephen Sommers' films work best on people when they are still young and oblivious to their various flaws and imperfections, and The Mummy Returns is a shining example of this. As a teenager, I was swept away on a rollercoaster ride of action, complete with jokes and plenty of fantasy-horror elements. With hindsight, however, you notice that this is a mediocre to below-average film that rips off, parodies, and at times even slightly subverts the first installment. Rachel Weisz and Arnold Vosloo are good, John Hannah overacts a little, little Freddie Boath was more annoying than funny, and Brendan Fraser is still a bad actor for me. Aside from the curious linking of the second film to the first through the characters' pasts, we are served a plateful of poorly done effects, topped by the Scorpion King with Dwayne Johnson's horribly digital face. Unlike Van Helsing, which is admittedly also dumb and full of unnecessary and not-quite-good visual effects, this one is not my favourite kind of stuff – after all, I like werewolves and vampires more than mummies – and that's why I give it a lower rating. (05/30/2019)

Let's face it, it's kind of nonsense, but something in me stayed, something that still appeals to this duo of movies, just the first and second parts. It's overdone, it's often a copy of the first one, but it's still entertaining and adventurous, and there are quite good characters, even the senator doesn't bother much. (04/06/2015)