by Rich Elias, May 6, 1999

• 124 Minutes
• Rated PG-13
• 3 Stars

This turns out to be easier than expected because the ruins of the ancient city are still standing, which raises the question of why the city was ever considered "lost." But let's not quibble over the plot because "The Mummy" doesn't even try to make sense, especially about the title character. Back in ancient Egypt, his name was Imhotep, a high priest who got a little too close to the pharaoh's main squeeze, a gal named Anck Su Naman who runs around in a body stocking looking extremely un-Egyptian. But the pharaoh isn't the kind of guy who'll put up with Ancky's hanky panky, so he orders his minions to turn Imhotep into a mummy. This shuts him up for about 3000 years until he runs into Brendan Fraser.

After spending a few millennia in a crypt, Imhotep doesn't look too good. Actually, he looks a lot like a giant loofa, except it's a loofa in the shape of a man. Unlike Karloff in the 1932 movie, this Imhotep doesn't bother with mummy wrappings -- you know, those bandages that kept falling off our hero. I guess the giant loofa look is more 90s. In case you were wondering, this mummy isn't very scary. He's a supernatural homicidal killer, of course, but aside from this failing and a general loofa cheesiness, Imhotep is an OK guy. All he really wants is to revive Anck Su and turn back the clock.

Once you realize that there is almost nothing in this "Mummy" to frighten you, it's easy to relax and enjoy it as one more Hollywood exercise in self-parody. It seems to me that most Hollywood movies these days fall into two categories: remakes of old TV shows that weren't worth watching 30 years ago and remakes of old movies that were an awful lot better than the new versions. Within the past few years we've seen a new "Dracula" and "Frankenstein," and now a new "Mummy." The first two took themselves too seriously and ended up as high camp in period costumes. The new "Mummy" spends money on its 1920's look as well as on special effects which are sometimes so good you have to wonder whether Stephen Sommers, the writer and director, could have made a horror film that would scare the pants off you.

But we're beyond horror these days. Movies like the two "Scream" pictures knowingly parody the conventions of the slasher movie but are slasher movies nonetheless. A few years ago "Congo" tried to make sense of a Michael Crichton potboiler and gave up, opting for self-parody, as when Ernie Hudson, in jungle wallah khakis, introduced himself as "Your Great White Hunter, only you probably noticed that I'm black."

Looking at Brendan Fraser in khakis gives me the feeling I'm watching an off-brand Indiana Jones. Fraser has a strong physique and a blocky face. He looks like he should be heroic. But his acting continues to astound me because he makes the same goofy faces in all his movies, whether he's playing "George of the Jungle" or the lawn guy in "Gods and Monsters." Rachel Weisz is more fun to watch because she's gorgeous, but her role makes little sense. In an act of sheer postmodern perversity, the sexiest character in "The Mummy" is the mummy, played by South African actor Arnold Vosloo to killer effect once Imhotep gets past his loofa phase. (I forgot to mention that once Imhotep starts killing people, he starts to recover his looks.)

You never end up rooting for the mummy. This movie isn't that perverse. But you have to sympathize with him. Being buried for 3000 years in the desert doesn't look like fun. And let's be honest here: if I looked like Vosloo, with his piercing eyes and very buff body, I wouldn't stint at a few slayings to get my looks back, especially if I was trying to gussy myself up before resurrecting my girlfriend. Ain't love beautiful?