lordguano

Here we have one of those rare sequels that is every bit as good

as the original. Of course, I'm not saying the original was any good

to begin with. Actually, I'm not even sure they didn't just basically

recut the same old movie and tag one or two new characters and

then release it under this new title!

In any event, I took my 7 year old boy to see the movie and he had

a ball. Come to think of it, I was pretty well entertained also. Plot

details are too silly (and inconsequential) to get into. Suffice to say,

the title character (the sullen Imhotep) is somehow resurrected

and, by some contrivance, once again must face the meddling of

Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz (now married with a tow headed

Junior Egyptologist as their son) and the bumbling brother-in-law

John Hannah. Mysterious native good-guy Ardeth Bey is also back

as are the usual Indiana Jones inspired assortment of swarthy

power (or money) hungry villains.

The new twist involves the legendary character of the Scorpion

King (WWF's The Rock in his well suited -- and undemanding --

debut performance) whose legend is laid out in a tidy opening

sequence set some 5000 years in the past. Suffice to say, the

forces of both good and evil are concerned with the Scorpion

King's resurrection and the ancient prophesy that would release

the evil Egyptian God Anubis' army of the undead upon the

unsuspecting world. Do I have to keep it a secret as to who

prevails?

The movie is charged with energy and the action doesn't let up

long enough for anyone to groan over the scripts numerous

attempts at machismo-levity in the face of great peril (a hallmark of

Fraser's). In the end, the movie, like its predecessor, strives to be

an Indiana Jones episode. And, as with its predecessor, it comes

off as a 2nd rate imitation. It just tries too hard and the strain bogs

the film down. What's most surprising about this movie is how

disappointing the special effects turn out to be. The seams really

show during several crucial sequences. Most egregious of all is

the CGI figure of the resurrected Scorpion King as a half man/half

scorpion creature. What is supposed to look like The Rock's head

and upper torso, looks like one of the human characters from Toy

Story. Those Ray Harryhausen stop motion creatures from the

Sinbad movies would have been more effective.

I would recommend The Mummy Returns for everyone who enjoyed the first movie. It's not a bad family fright movie either.

While the action may be intense for the smallest movie-age

kiddies, the violence is quite bloodless. Most harrowing for

youngsters might be the scene where the decomposed Imhotep

"sucks" the skin off of three victims (who kind of deserved it

anyway, in the morality of the narrative) in order to reconstitute his

own flesh. It sounds worse than it actually appears on film, believe

it or not. Actually, so does this movie.

I am a huge Woody Allen fan, but I must say I was somewhat

disappointed in this loving, but sometimes awkward and very mild

tribute to Hollywood musicals of the 1930's. Actually, perhaps that

is something of a misconception, as the movie never really

attempts to pay tribute to the usual "boy meets chorus girl on her

way up" depression era musical story lines, nor does it attempt

any recreation of the Busby Berkely type production numbers that

prevailed during that period. Rather, it tells a modern (and typically

neurotic Allenesque) love story where the characters break out in

song to convey their inner (or outward) thoughts and emotions --

and the tunes all happen to be from the '30's.

There are actually several "love" stories here, each seeming to

depict various modes of romantic infatuation. Edward Norton and

Drew Barrymore mostly play out the conventional Hollywood love

story about two well to do youngsters engaged to wed. Woody

himself is a long divorced ex-patriat New Yorker now living in Paris

and rebounding from yet another in a series of failed relationships,

who finds himself infatuated with a woman (Julia Roberts) he

sees while vacationing in Venice. He pretends to be Roberts' soul

mate by masquerading himself with character traits that his

daughter (Natasha Lyons) supplies to him based on intimate

information she gathered while eavesdropping on Roberts

psychiatric sessions back in New York. Lyons herself seems to

fall in love with just about every new young stud she meets. And

even the betrothed Barrymore fancies a fling with a seductively

dangerous prison parolee portrayed by Tim Roth. Meanwhile, Allen

also harbors lingering love for his ex-wife (Goldie Hawn) who is

now happily married to Alan Alda (and their teenage daughters

both fall in puppy love with the same local boy they've been

admiring from afar).

I wasn't sure how the musical numbers would work, and there

was much promise displayed with the opening number sung by

Edward Norton, which the movie launches into directly out of the

brief opening credits. The mood seems just right as Norton

serenades Barrymore on the streets of Manhattan, and passersby

(including a disheveled panhandler) soon begin to join in with

song. Unfortunately, this kind of earnestness is reproduced only

sporadically throughout the rest of the movie. A definite highlight

would be the singing and dancing spirits that emerge from coffins

in a funeral home to implore the bereaved to get out and enjoy life

while they still have the time. The comedy is rather mild, but there

is one priceless gag where ultra-liberal Alda gets a medical

explanation for his son's inexplicable reactionary Rush Limbaugh

brand of conservatism.

Allen does save the best for last, however, in a sequence that

begins with a musical tribute to Groucho Marx at a Parisian gala,

and continues with two priceless scenes (one at the gala, the

other along the Seine River) between Allen and Hawn. These two

have such wonderful chemistry and the film comes so sparklingly

to life in their interplay, that it is a wonder Allen hasn't since written

a vehicle in which the pair could properly shine.

Everyone Says I Love You is never more than mildly amusing, and

never less than pleasantly diverting. Yet, one must applaud the

bold and noble experiment. Allen is an artist who has proven in the

last 10 years that he is still capable of producing strong and even

poignant material (Husbands and Wives, Sweet and Lowdown,

Deconstructing Harry) that it is somewhat surprising when his

films do NOT rise to his usual level of excellence. Fortunately for

us, such misteps (Shadows and Fog) are few and far between.

This is Chris Lee's 3rd appearance as Dracula, and Hammer

continues to believe that less Lee is more. As with this film's

immediate predecessor, Dracula Prince of Darkness, Lee is given

precious little screen time, but when he is on screen, he is

absolutely riveting. Many people think this is a highlight of the

series, and when I was younger, I used to be one of those people.

Now, while I still find this a vast improvement over Prince of

Darkness, and much better than the horrible pair of "modern day"

films (Dracula, AD 1972 and The Satanic Rites Of Dracula) that

would eventually mark the end of Lee's involvement in the cycle,

this film still pales to Hammer's 1958 original as well as the next

two films. Once again, the film makers have decided that we are to care a

great deal for the vapid dullards who are to be the nominal hero

and heroine in the story and therefore spend a great deal of time

away from the Count focusing on their relationships. Ho hum. On

the other hand, the film does score points for playing up the sexual

angle (ie, the breathless anticipation of Dracula's bite and the

orgasmic response thereto) to a degree that none of the earlier

films would venture, as well as trying to infuse the vampiric lore

with religious overtones. I'm not sure I'm entirely satisfied with the

latter angle, although it does lead to two of the films most powerful

sequences: one wherein the Count angrily wrenches a steak from

his chest after the hero's lack of religious conviction renders its

effect mute; and the final impalement of Dracula upon a huge

metallic crucifix. Also an upgrade from the last movie is the fact that Lee gets to

actually speak a few lines throughout the movie. But this is a

double edged sword as the lines are the most poorly written drivel,

such as "Now my revenge is complete!" Which leads me to the

poor plot, which has the Count seeking revenge on the family of

the monsignor responsible for nailing a cross to the door of his

castle while the vampire lay inert, frozen under the creek beyond

his castle walls as we left him at the end of Prince of Darkness. If

nothing else, I do admire how each film (at least through Taste

The Blood of Dracula) took great pains to pick up exactly where the

previous episode ended. While Taste The Blood of Dracula (the immediate sequel to this

film) also deals in a sense with revenge, Dracula's perverse and

subtle intrusion into the Victorian ideal of the proper English family

(a concept lifted from the original novel) provides that film with a

rich subtext that (for me) makes it the unsung entry in this series. It

is certainly the least known and least seen in the US. And it is well

worth hunting down. In fact, I think these two films would make a

fine cozy night's double feature.