The Mummy Resurrected

Many people seem to be watching this under a false misconception, and are going in under the impression that it is connected to the popular 1999 Universal remake "The Mummy", and it's sequels/spin-offs. This is not the case. This film has nothing to do with those films- no shared cast or crew, no common story elements, not even a common studio producing this "effort." It has literally nothing to do with those films. This is what is commonly referred to as a "Mockbuster"- a low-budget film from a studio specializing in low-budget productions, which attempts to capitalize off of the success of much larger, more profitable studio films by making itself LOOK like those films through deceptive tactics like using similar titles, similar advertisements/poster designs, etc. But please know- this film and it's creators are in no way connected to or affiliated with any previous "Mummy" movie in any way.

I felt it important to get that out of the way, as the "mockbuster" trend has been a growing problem in the world of home entertainment (thanks to companies like "The Asylum" who specialize almost exclusively in making rip-off "mockbusters"), and has for at least the past decade caused an increasing amount of confusion for consumers and movie-fans.

I'll also note another important fact- "The Mummy Resurrected" is so bad... I wasn't able to make myself sit through it start-to-finish. It's cheap. Lazily constructed. Filled with flimsy scares and ludicrous amounts of padding. And dreadfully acted. Out of the 70ish-minute runtime (yes, it's only about 70 minutes, and is padded out to 80 with a prolonged opening credits and even more prolonged closing credits), I've maybe seen 40 minutes start-to-finish, before skimming through the rest on Fast-Forward.

To go over the plot is virtually pointless. You know what you're getting into plot-wise. Curse tomb, evil mummy, blah-blah-blah.

What you're really interested in are the actors, the scares, the "spooky" effects and the titular Mummy himself. And those are all drastic let-downs.

For starters, the actors (all basically unknowns) mostly fall flat. It's hard to tell if they're truly "bad actors" of if they just can't manage to build any performance from the terrible writing and direction... but they almost universally fail at connecting with the audience and building any personality. This is one of those cases of "cardboard cut-out" performances, where a plank of wood with a face drawn on it would've worked just as well on screen. But I'm not going to blame the actors for this 100%. As I said, it could very well be the product of the lousy production.

The "scares" are just dreadful. For starters, this is a remarkably boring film (mainly due to Patrick McManus' atrocious directorial choices), and the scares are all equally boring and phoned in, often being so needlessly prolonged and padded, they become unintentionally amusing as a result. (Case in point one scene, where bandages ssslllooowwwlllyyy snake along the ground and cover up a victim for what feels like a short eternity.)

The visual effects are poor. Mainly comprised of terrible CGI "sand" that looks like early area 3D-video-game graphics. It doesn't feel organic or even remotely real-to-life.

And the mummy itself is probably going to make you laugh out loud whenever it's on screen. It looks like any cheap "zombie" costume you could find in a Halloween shop, that's been wrapped up in nice, new clean gauze from a CVS pharmacy. You know you're in trouble when your 2014 film's mummy looks objectively worse than the creature from the original 1932 Boris Karloff film. Evidently, 80+ years of development in makeup effects don't mean squat if your design team is completely incompetent.

"The Mummy Resurrected" is one of the most painful entries in the "mockbuster" genre I've seen in quite some time. It's so cheap and padded, it's virtually unwatchable, and it can't even be bothered to give us even a remotely interesting mummy to look at.

This one easily earns it's 1 out of 10 rating. Are we sure this wasn't meant to be a parody or something? Because it certainly doesn't work as a serious film, and supplies more unintentional chuckles than thrills...

As an Egyptian, I always find it really unpleasant when a movie, that is supposed to be taking place in Egypt, contains "Egyptians" who neither dress as Egyptians nor speak in the language that Egyptians speak. And who live in a land that doesn't quite look like it could be anywhere in Egypt. The makers of this movie, obviously think that all Arabs are the same. Quite as foolish as thinking all Europeans are the same. We actually do feel really insulted by this kind of attitude. And while in other movies that contained some of the same mistakes, such as the Mummy, or Raiders of The Lost Ark, actually had a real fun movie to compensate, with good acting, plot, and special effects. So, we'd still find them worthy enough to overlook such silly mistakes, and we actually do like them despite of that. This film has none of the above that could be considered a compensation to this sort of crap. Bad acting, bad everything. The plot is... well, is there a plot?! The only good thing, if there's any, is that the all girl crew going to the tomb are kinda pretty. So, I give it one star. And my opinion is: Simply awful!

Before I began watching The Mummy Resurrected, I wondered how anyone could make a mummy movie with a budget of only $750,000. Then, as I watched the film I understood. Most of the money was spend on special effects (they were reasonably good and a few were very good) but there really wasn't anything left to pay for a good script or actors or a director. And, speaking of director and script, it is very odd that when I looked up this film on IMDb, I noticed that although the cast and producers were listed for the film, this is NOT the case for the director or writer. Perhaps they didn't want to have their names associated with the film—all I know is that it makes no sense to omit these two very important credits.

The film is the story of six cute co-eds who are inexplicably in Egypt and are invited along on a mummy hunt. Now considering that these young ladies don't seem to know the first thing about archeology and seem like extras from a college sorority film, I felt perplexed. Yet, somehow we are expected to believe that one of them has a long-lost archaeologist father and instead of mounting a proper expedition with SUPPLIES, appropriate clothing and Egyptologists, for instance, he takes these six cute undergraduates into the desert to look for some ancient burial site. Once there, the three guides he brought are murdered (by whom we never have any idea—as it looks like the writer forgot about this plot thread) and he and the girls just ignore this and go exploring!

Later, the girls start dying—one by one. Does the girl whose father brought them there care? Not particularly—she just wants to hang out with daddy. Nor, unfortunately, does the audience care as it took so long for these deaths to occur that you'll find your attention sadly waning. Much of it is because the ladies' reactions were so muted. I've seen women break fingernails and act more upset than these actresses when one of their friends dies. I also had to laugh because one of these well-trained and well outfitted ladies had to use her smart phone as a flashlight inside the tomb because you can only assume they forgot to bring enough flashlights for everyone! So how does it all end? Who cares?!

Let's cut to the chase--the film is quite poor. The dialog was often atrocious ('it's like I totally blacked out'), the story was often dull, the edits were occasionally poor (scenes would go from full sun to dusk and back within the same scene) and the film never really made a lot of sense. These folks also didn't really seem like actresses—more like ladies who showed up for a campus kegger and on the way got invited to appear in the film because they had nice hair and looked kinda cute.

The bottom line is that the 1932 version with Boris Karloff is a classic. See that instead.

Unfortunately the characters are totally unconvincing and unbelievable. the plot is unfathomable. I don't blame the cast or directors but will not in future trust my service provider. They are clearly not interested in providing value for money to their customers being happy to charge me four pounds to watch the film (the same as inbetweeners 2,lucy, left behind, all advertised on the same page).Lesson learned for me in future, always check the reviews before handing over your cash. I don't want to be unfair to the people who made the film, work is work, and there were some fairly sophisticated special effects. Based how entertaining the Mummy Resurrected was forty pence would be a generous rental price. Seriously.

This horribly written script only left out one thing that might have saved it from bankrupting the producers and those that were foolish enough to bankroll this epic flop - Teen Heart Throbs with pretty faces, 6-packs, big busted low-cut honey's with tight butts in short-shorts, like all the moronic vampire and zombie films and TV shows aimed at the addle-brained adolescents that flock to them.

Trying very hard to look and smell like a Brandon Frasier "Mummy" epic, this is a very poor rip-off. Perhaps the producers should have taken a "slap-stick" approach, rather than attempt a feeble serious guffaw that this turns out to be.

OMG, where to start? The Script, acting, "cinema" photography, plot and probably even the food table for the actors and hands was horrible! You'll be more entertained if you go and rent (buy it) one of the original 1932 B&W Boris Karloff "Mummy" films. This one gave me a whole roll of Tums case of indigestion!