In hope of getting his hands on the famed diamond known as the Codix Stone, Jack Wells joins a group of archaeologists out to explore a newly discovered tomb in Egypt, that of the cursed kin... Read allIn hope of getting his hands on the famed diamond known as the Codix Stone, Jack Wells joins a group of archaeologists out to explore a newly discovered tomb in Egypt, that of the cursed king Neferu. When the Mummy of the king returns from the dead seeking human victims, Jack is ... Read allIn hope of getting his hands on the famed diamond known as the Codix Stone, Jack Wells joins a group of archaeologists out to explore a newly discovered tomb in Egypt, that of the cursed king Neferu. When the Mummy of the king returns from the dead seeking human victims, Jack is in for the most horrifying experience of his life.
- Cooper
- (as Eric Young)
- Mummy
- (as Brandon DeSpain)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
About 10 minutes before the end, a couple of mummies showed up a bit and they were all played by humans in cheap Halloween costume. Not scary at all! It'd be nicer if it could use computer-aided scenes. Waste of my time and money and physically made me uncomfortable. I feel the director has stolen money (a few dollars) from me.
I strongly suggest you not rent this movie. It borrows the name Mummy and has similar scenes on its DVD cover and hence makes you think it is a sequel to the wonderful movie -- The Mummy.
And what's with the strong lady who is hired for "security"? Looks to me like she was hired because she's hot. Not to be rude, but she seriously didn't do anything useful in this movie except drop the tough guy act and crawl into the hero's sleeping bag before the first half hour was through.
The storyline is like being fed spoonfuls of dusty Egyptian fairy tales that are obviously garbage. It sounded fake even to me, a guy who knows next to nothing about Egyptian history.
Fortunately, special effects were limited in this feature. I'm not a big fan of overdone special effects, but having the camera blink out when anything exciting happens has never been a convincing method of building the tension to me. Especially when there isn't a reason for the camera to be blinking out.
But of course the biggest weakness this movie has is the "found footage" style of filming. I don't care how clever the writers think they are. "We thought up YET ANOTHER way to explain having a convenient camera to film everything in our movie! Yay!" It feels more like a ripoff of popular video games like "Metal Gear", with the boss routinely appearing in the corner every few seconds to bark an order, and the hero's voice coming in smoothly crystal clear, like it was recorded in a studio (it was, by the way).
Are there any good bits? I feel like I should mention some, but to be honest I'm having trouble thinking of any. The performance was very dry and honestly fairly dispassionate. Sure the actors ACTED angry, sad, in pain and the like, but it just still felt.. distant. Like you didn't have to care. Somewhere along the way the movie just got so cheesy that the viewer feels removed rather than involved. It fails to pull you in.
It's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it really just feels completely unexceptional and easily forgotten. In my mind, this is the greatest failure any movie can have, to be unmemorable. So I'm giving it a 2 to be generous.
Day of the Mummy does use the found footage-like/picture-in-picture idea. This could have worked and could have potentially been creative, but it is way over-used and often at points where it was not needed. To say it was distracting was an understatement, so much so that a lot of the time it was used it took me right out of the movie. The script is incredibly weak, some of it sounds like it was improvised on the spot but most of it sounds like the actors only received the dialogue just minutes before and were reading from cue cards, hence why it was acted out in such an uninvolved and awkward manner. As for the story, there are glimpses of one but there is strong emphasis on the glimpses, what there is of story is painfully predictable, interminably slow in pace and lacking in everything you'd expect for a horror to work(suspense, tension, horror, fun, scares, thrills etc.).
The characters are walking clichés ridden to death, and they are not developed or interesting at all so it's impossible to root for them. To make things worse the acting is awful from actors who clearly did not want to be there in the first place, even from Danny Glover who squints and winces his way through his screen time giving the impression of why did I ever agree to do this. However that he is actually the best actor in the movie is testament to how bad the acting is, William McNamara is a long way from a dashing hero and actually looks bored out of his skull, even the most bored-sounding answering machine has more energy than him. Don't expect the Mummy/monster to save the movie, it doesn't look too bad but it's under-utilised, it acts intoxicated rather than imposing so it doesn't come across as scary at all and it's hard to shake off the feeling of that it's a man in a costume. Apparently the director has prior experience, but considering the ineptness of the direction here that's hard to believe.
In conclusion, awful movie in every way apart from the tomb location. Maybe see it to see for yourself how Glover fares here and how his career has gone down the toilet, otherwise while not quite as abysmal as The Mummy Resurrected Day of the Mummy should have stayed buried. 1/10 Bethany Cox
Did you know
- TriviaAt 6:30 just after Carl refers to Jack as a professor of archeology, the camera lingers on a hat very similar to one worn by another cinematic adventurous archeologist.
- How long is Day of the Mummy?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 21m(81 min)
- Color