Add a Review

  • Seamus-253 June 2001
    Oh dear, what were they thinking when they wrote this - about something else is my guess, the shopping, what they had for breakfast that morning - pretty much anything except "lets make a good movie".

    The acting is atrocious, with stilted dialogue, especially by the guy who plays Morris, you can see him listening for his cues.

    The budget was obviously spent entirely on the creature itself but don't let it fool you into thinking this is worth watching - the creature looks like some shambling fat man who has been hit by the ugly stick a few times. The creature fails to be scary as it rarely gets above the pace of an athritic snail.

    As I said the creature was where the majority of the budget went, it did not seem to stretch to location or extras. This film is meant to be set upon a school campus and I think you see a total of 9 people, including the creature throughout. Also the "Dorms" look distinctly like a normal house, probably the directors. I even began to suspect that the constant cliche of walking around darkened rooms was probably an effort to save on the lighting bills.

    There is no character build up - so little in fact that I can only remember the Morris guys name (because he was so awful) and I have only just watched the damn movie. You do not care about a single one of them.

    On my box the film is called "Bram Stoker's The Mummy 2". What the hell as this film got to do with Bram Stoker?

    Do not ever ever ever ever ever watch this movie - do not be fooled into thinking "oh, it may be so bad it's funny" - it isn't it's just plain bad.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This has GOT to be one of the worst (if not THE worst) excuse for a horror film I've ever seen. I should have known that ANY movie directed by David DeCoteau ("Prison of the Dead," "Voodoo Academy," various "Puppet Master" sequels) would deliver the same basic junk that he's famous for...but this one goes one step further. He teamed up with Matthew Jason Walsh (the idiot responsible for such gems as "Zombie Cop" and "The Killer Eye."). The result, to say the very least, is not unlike standing a squirrel in front of a semi-truck. Complete and utter disaster.

    There's absolutely NOTHING here. No plot, no believable characters, bad acting, bad writing, bad casting, (as many have stated here, it's supposed to take place on a college campus, but there's only nine people in the entire film). The entire thing looks like it was shot in someone's apartment, and they just kept moving furniture from room to room to make it look like a "school." How many fireplaces and kitchens do you actually find in a "museum?"

    SPOILERS (as if anything could really "spoil" this movie further than it already is)

    Why the title? "Scream of the Mummy"---The only time the mummy even screams is at the end of the film when he gets stabbed and lets out a low, wheezy groan (my grandpa used to sound like that when he rocked three times to get off the couch).

    Why did the characters do the things they did? Among the "unbelievable" lineup was "Morris", a stereotypical "dumb jock" who for some reason is hanging out at a college of archeology. He would rather chase after girls than study, but the student he likes supposedly won't give him the time of day. Yet, after five minutes of talking with her, they're suckin' face, breaking into a museum together, and searching for booze so they can "go back to her place."

    Of course, she's hacked to death before they can make it, but the Mummy has the foresight to drag her body from the museum back to her apartment, where he dumps it in the shower, then starts the water running so Morris will think she's taking a bath. That way, being the quick-thinking mummy that he is, he can pretend to be Morris' girlfriend and sneak up on him while he's laying on the bed. Morris sweet talks the mummy, thinking it's his girlfriend getting out of the shower. He can't tell it's a thousand-year-old rotting corpse because he's suddenly developed a bad case of narcolepsy and can't open his eyes. The mummy just keeps shuffling forward at his geriatric pace and kills him.

    Then there's the other student who keeps saying how afraid of spiders he is---a great opportunity to introduce some, even if they had to crawl out of the mummy....but alas! There was nary a spider in sight through the whole movie.

    The end of the movie was about as stupid as the rest of it...no, I take that back. MORE stupid. We've got college kids that have supposedly gone to school all summer together, shared a room together, partied together, etc...Then most of them, including their teacher, are hacked to death by a psychotic mummy. Yet, when the two surviving students emerge from the Museum, the girl asks "What went on in there?" "I don't know," the guy replies. "And I don't want to know. I just want to get on with my life." What?????

    This movie is living proof that anyone with a typewriter and a bottle of Wild Turkey can write a "modern" horror movie. Too bad there wasn't a writer's strike...it might have saved us from this kind of garbage.
  • SpudMons22 February 2006
    A colleague of mine got this for free with his DVD player. Even at that price, this movie represents a shockingly bad deal.

    It features tremendous acting skills - especially on the part of the female professor character, who seems to believe acting involves twitching your eyebrows in a deranged manner and nothing more.

    It also boasts outstanding sets. Actually it has just the one set, which I suspect is the producer's house, but is supposed to be a university. The room in which they put the mummy on display has a fireplace and a sofa in it, for crap's sake! I won't even go into the lacklustre special effects, because awful as they may be, they outshine every other aspect of the production.

    I cannot believe that this excrescence has lost its place in the Bottom 100. Get voting "1", people!
  • Really lame horror flick. No gore or nudity,(R rating must be for the teenage profanity), bad acting, dumb dialog. You know you are talking low budget when the dead characters wounds are just a splash of fake blood here and there. I would give this one minus 4 stars.In other words people should be paid to watch this.
  • I'm normally a fan of the cheap and cheesy drive-in genre, but after seeing this flick, I would seriously consider finding the print, setting it on fire, burying the ashes, digging them up a week later, and burning them again. This is now the most recent addition to my list of the Ten Worst Movies Of All Time.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Whe we bought this movie, he had thought we were going to see a decent mummy movie. True, from the pictures on the package, and the misspelling on the back summary, maybe a low-budget movie, but still something fairly entertaining.

    How wrong we were...

    This is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune of seeing. The setting looked like someone's house, not a museum or a college campus. Many of the actors looked like it was very possible they were related, and the dialog was some of the corniest lines I have ever heard. The entire script was like some of the world's oldest and most predictable clichés had been thrown at a skeleton of a plot.

    Also, there were so many things wrong technically with this movie. The way the mummy was handled, the lack of care the professor put into the 'priceless artifacts' in the museum was absolutely astounding.

    The one good thing I will say about Ancient Evil is that it did make me laugh, harder than most comedies. So, if you're in the mood for a mind-numbing B-movie, I would recommend this movie.
  • A group of archeology students are stalked by a resurrected Aztec

    mummy.

    Well, just when I thought I wouldn't see a movie as bad as

    Crocodile this year along comes this piece of work. What's the

    worst part? The acting. Wasn't even up to high school theatre

    level. Then there's the plot which has been seen a million times

    before (and probably will be a million times hence). There's not

    even any sex or decent scares to provide and lowest common

    denominator entertainment.

    DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE!!!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    1st of all this film is called scream of the mummy, the mummy never screams, just makes a few gurgling noises.

    The acting is bad, I don't care about any of the people in it, I actually cheered when the annoying professor died.

    A large part of film seems to revolve around men in boxer shorts chatting.

    "the last surviving priest" who can bring the mummy back looks like a 10 year old computer geek.

    The acting is the best part of the film.

    *as a side note this has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st mummy film, and Bram Stoker would probably be p1ssed off if he knew.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    ... would the Aztec Gods be offended? I was wondering this as the pudgy Velma from Scooby-Doo looking chick announced her hymen was still intact, I knew that she was going to be slated for some kind of sacrifice.

    So I'm figuring the Aztec Gods are like, "Man, that is one ugly Virgin, but we haven't had a human sacrifice in like 500 years, so I guess we have to take what we can get."

    This film is the cinematic equivalent to Montazuma's Revenge.

    The plot is that a little community museum gets a rare Aztec Mummy, but one of the students of the drunken professor is in fact the last Aztec Priest, who has been waiting to sacrifice a virgin and cause the end of the world. All he has to do is get his overweight mummy to eliminate the usual cast of characters in a movie like this, including the Expendable Black Guy(TM) the Horny Kids, and the Good guy, who is usually indestructible in a film like this.

    JoeB131- Watching bad movies so you don't have to.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Why the hell does it say Bram Stoker on it? I can't believe i watched this it is stupid, ridiculous shite that i might just use as a doorstop!It really is that bad, the acting is a complete joke, the so called "scary bits" are just people wandering around a room saying "hey would you stop that.This joke isn't funny" the mummy is just a person covered in brown paper and made to roar and groan and walk like a zombie. I actually can't think of one good thing to say about it as it is all awful and I will never sit through it again, that's for sure! If you are gonna watch a decent mummy horror film, then try 'the mummy' or 'the mummy returns' but don't get those classic titles confused with this trash!
  • where should i start ? the thing is, this movie killed totally my fantasy, and no matter how much i was willing to give it a chance, the boredom was unbearable, i've read other comments about fat-mummy, poor acting, suspenses.....cant agree more than i do, tried to stick the focus on it but found the time to have two phone calls during the "show", thing that, on a normal movie, never happen, suggestions ? let's not be rude, there is always a first time for everything (or almost), i gave my first "dry" 1 to this flick yawn.....hope in the future to see again something even close to indiana jones 1 and 3, those are the adventures movies worth watching
  • TBelton113 September 2003
    I bought this movie because I am a big fan of director David DeCoteau's B movies, and look forward to the somewhat silly horror he offers in all of his movies. This movie was actually better than average though; and apart from a few mistakes in the plot about the Aztec culture, (they didn't have wrapped mummys, the characters repeated mispronunciation of the Aztec Rain God Tlaloc's name, and the Aztec High Priest's new wave outfit) it made for a pretty good mummy flick. I can honestly say that the whole cast did a good job acting as well, particularly Michael Lutz, in his first role playing (Morris); Trent Latta (Norman); and Jeff Peterson (Don). All in all, I give it an 8 out of 10.
  • I actually think some of these reviews provided for this movie are a tad harsh. You really get what you would expect from a low budget horror film with this one. If you're looking for a trashy horror that is full of hilarity based on the poor story line, bad choice of shooting locations and wooden acting then this is perfect. Watch with friends for an absolute laugh. If you're expecting anything decent then you definitely will be disappointed, there's no doubt about that. However, if you like to joke around regarding how bad a film can actually get this will provide an abundance of entertaining moments. I've certainly seen worse!
  • ianrthompson16 February 2006
    Don't bother with this film. I did and wish I didn't. I couldn't wait for it to end. It's unbelievable and just one of the worst films ever.

    I thought it would be at least entertaining but there was so much that could have been explored but was glossed over. The special effects were dire and the acting was wooden.

    This movie must have been made on a budget of less than $100. I can't see how the filmmakers could have spent any more on this.

    If your ambition is to see every mummy film ever made, then you'll probably watch it. If you want something scary for a night in, rent something else.
  • This is a genuinely pitiful film that cannot hide behind the excuse of having no budget, I have seen student films that outclass this one and some of those were made in an afternoon.

    There's this jock who is inexplicably on an archeology course. Where's he studying? Well judging by the sets he is at the prestigious university of the directors kitchen. The entire movie is filmed in some guys house and lecture halls are artfully represented by the living room. I expect the dean's office is in the crapper.

    Anyway nothing much happens except an ungodly amount of trekking from one room to another. The monster is unleashed for ridiculous reasons and there's an Aztec priest who must surely win the prize for worst casting ever.

    In fact the entire cast are awful, not one of them would be considered convincing enough to use on an advert so how they actually got onto a DVD that sits on my shelf I honestly don't know. Some of them say their lines and then look directly at the camera because that's where the guy holding the cue cards is stood.

    It really is a pitiful effort. One of the worst films I've ever seen and just so totally pointless in every way. It's also pretty obvious they don't know who Bram Stoker is.
  • Rented this on the advice of "You'll love it". This was obviously for the comedy. I've never laughed that much in my life. There is nothing WHATSOEVER frightening about the 'Mummy' (who looks suspiciously like a fat man wrapped in toilet roll) and the acting is terrible. The plot is dull and the sets (well, set, as there is only one) are cardboard-like. I won't even begin on the continuity, just think magically disappearing blood and you have the start of it. Add to this the usual sprinkling of stereotype teenagers, some voodoo magic, dodgy costumes and, voilà!

    However I would watch this again just to see the slowest, least frightening Mummy in history stalking his victims with a rubber knife. This film is great...if you want to cry with laughter!
  • brawny6413 December 2001
    It appears the director did not max out the Visa card.

    There is no acting or directing to speak of in this movie. The plot was lame, the effects were bad, and it has the fattest mummy I have ever seen. It looks like the entire cast and crew hopped into a small bus, bought $100 worth of supplies, rode up to the director's house and filmed this in one night.

    One other thing. No matter how many times the mummy slashed someone, they ended up with the same splotch on their chest. I don't know why I noticed this.

    The real victims, however, were the viewers. Luckily(?) I saw it on HBO, so I didn't directly pay for it.

    Oh, the horror.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I found this in the bargain bin at the local grocery store, and think that 2.95 was overpaying for this garbage.

    The film looks like it was filmed at somebody's home and none of the characters are likable. The Egyptian-looking Aztec mummy is fat and moves at the pace of an arthritic slug. The kid who supposedly is a direct descendant of ancient Aztec priests is fish-belly white, and the pronunciation of Aztec words is hideous. (Tlaloc, pronounced ta-lay-lock, instead of tla-lock) You will definitely walk away from this flick thinking "there go two hours of my life I'll never get back! )

    YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!!
  • dario8718 October 2000
    Who thought of this one? Granted, this direct to video movie does have a cool looking mummy but other than that, this movie is really BAD! The script is laughable to say the least. The acting is atrocious and there are maybe 6 people in the whole entire film, including extras (this is on a college campus?). There is no good gore or violence at all even though the body count is high it is all aftermath. Not even some T and A to tide us over. Just a poorly made movie with lots of idiotic 20 year old's swearing and overacting. Rent the Boris Karloff version
  • Gosh! I wished I had never seen that movie, and that's the first time ever I feel this way towards a bad movie. The acting was non-existent, there was no special effects to speak of, and, the director being an ex-porn film director, I would have expected a minimum more fun as teenage actors go. My bad. The whole "it's so bad, it's good" doesn't even come into the equation. I suspect the director should also be sued for misleading its public by claiming that:

    a) it's something to do with Bram Stoker b) that this title doesn't have anything to do with the more successful "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns", with Rachel Weisz et al.

    Definitely wasted time and money. I wouldn't even want it for free. Sigh. I long for my favourite Hammer horror flicks now. At least the special effects were more advanced at the time.
  • I've seen better film on a bath tub. The producer/director may have worked in Hollywood for over 20 years and started out with a fright master, but he must have cribbed pages from the Ed Wood Book of Terrible Movie Making! No, that's a spiteful statement, isn't it. Sorry, Ed! At least your movies were fun! Don't waste your time on this movie. The acting is not much better than a junior high production and the cliché mood-setting storm is annoying instead of scary. Stilted dialog, ham reactions, and staid camera work create a boring experience. The mummy in profile looks more like Homer Simpson wrapped in day-old diapers.

    In fact, the only positive things I can say about this movie is the mummy's makeup is spot on (not his costume!) and the packaging is top quality. Whoever designed the DVD packaging should have written and directed the movie as it appears more time and thought went into the cover instead of the movie.

    You can't sue to get back the 96 minutes wasted on this "film". You'd get more out of making your own version of Scream of the Mummy, and it would probably be much better than this.

    This movie proves that you really can't judge a movie by its DVD packaging, and there ought to be a law about delusional and false self-promotion on DVD covers of what amounts to something that is not much better than a frat-boy weekend home-made video.
  • They've obviously never seen this film.

    I got this film on a drunken Xmas night out to the petrol station to get some smokes, it was in a box set with Night of the living dead(original), The Plague and Howling IV.

    Truth is, I wish I'd covered myself in petrol and set light to myself before watching this, The Plague and Howling IV.

    I guess the £4 this box set cost me was for Night of the living dead! Don't watch this film, in fact, if you see a copy BURN IT! In fact, maybe you should watch this film Then people might realise Uwe Boll isn't the worst director to have graced Hollywood!
  • This is really a good Mummy movie.I admit that when I looked at the back of the box I didn`t know what to think but being a huge fan of Mummy movies I had to rent it and I am glad I did. Ofcourse this is not like the Mummy with Brendan Frazier because it isn`t suposse to be.This is the first or one of the first Mummy flicks I can recall about a Aztec Mummy.You get really use to this movie because the guys stay in one place and doesn`t jump from city to city like other movies.I like films amd horror films that focus on in one place.As for the Mummy himself,he really isn`t a bad looking mummy,he carrys his sacred stabbing weapon and as for the gore there really isn`t any at all and the acting isn`t bad either by the youngsters.In My opinion this movie is presented like a old late 30s,40S flick,especialy the begaining of the movie when the credits are shown. Overall I like this movie.Here is a tip,when you watch the movie listen as close as you can to the music,the music I love and it fits perfectly,it is composed by new compposer Jared DePasquale. By listening to this you may want more of his music,I know I did.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In the midst of the inexplicable success of 1999's CGI-fest 'The Mummy', this sequel to the previous year's 'Bram Stoker's Legend of the Mummy' slithered out onto the straight-to-video market. Like that first entry, this is cheap, hackneyed, badly acted and clichéd. However, whereas the first film barely featured a Mummy at all, this time we see more of the creature – much more. Christopher Bergschneider, billed as Anton Falk, plays a shorter, more overweight Mummy than I have ever seen, and is impossible to take seriously. By its very nature, such a creature should be skeletal, cadaverous, and that is not the case here. So it must be tongue-in-cheek. You would think. But no – it is played straight, or as straight as can be by this group of second graders. Strangely (or not), hunky braggart Morris (Michael Lutz) is the most convincingly played – you fully believe he is a lazy, arrogant, ignorant braggart. Also, he clearly fills the tight boxer-shorts he parades round in well enough for the casting director.

    So then, an ancient Mummy has been found and placed in an insecure country compound and is placed on a slab, entirely open to the peccadillos of the young students staying there. Cretin Morris takes away an amulet so to impress chipper, chirpy Janine (Michelle Erickson), whilst Norman (Trent Latta), the butt of everyone's jokes – who initially appears to be autistic – is actually an Aztec priest. Luckily for Morris, Janine is instantly in love with him when he gives her the amulet, so that's nice. The big fat Mummy, buried with a circular blade (which makes you wonder why he didn't use it to slice his bonds and escape his incarceration all those thousands of years ago) stalks the compound during an endless storm after the picturesque young people. For a compound, the location seems more like an average sized house, which is adequate, as only about 7 people are staying there.

    Actually, I quite enjoyed this. It's not quite so bad it's good, but it is along those lines. The dialogue is ham-fisted and clichéd, but it's eventful, well-paced and as cheesy as a cheese-burger in a stilton sandwich. It is an old style chiller – although not really very chilling – with a small budget and an undistinguished cast. It just isn't particularly good on several levels, but perfectly enjoyable on another.

    "Your time on this planet is over, Don!" I'm pretty sure that dialogue has as much to do with Bram Stoker as everything else on display here. And yet I still enjoyed this more than the Brendan Fraser efforts.
  • Somebody, please, for the love of Christ Possessed, give David DeCoteau one of those "Worst Director Ever" awards. Or at least have the world know about this through other means. A moronic idiot should never be allowed to play with a camera and a strobe lightning effect device. I'm not laughing.

    A bunch of teenagers on a location that looks like a mansion with some dorm rooms. They're supposed to be taking some extra geology or history classes (during summer, is my guess). There's a dried-up mummy stored on a table in the mansion, and some nerd awakens it with some ancient evil plastic scepter thing (or whatever). The mummy looks like some dude with a Halloween mask, wrapped in dusty toilet paper. Some teenagers get killed, and I can't even remember how (I saw this flick a few weeks ago and I don't have Alzheimer, so go figure...). And then this movie ends at some point.

    The most fascinating thing about this film, is director David DeCoteau's idea of suspense. Building up tension, to him, equals having someone walk around in the house, while the mummy is shuffling through the frame in the background of the shot, like some stoned dude who got lost on his way to the toilet. While that sounds more like comedy to me, it's not even funny.
An error has occured. Please try again.