Best movie of this year hands down!

Admirable film.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

This truly god-awful excuse for a film really should never have been madeAs has been (quite rightfully) said before, there is not a tangible plot in sight, the acting is shoddy, the locations are laughable (the 'auditorium' in the 'remote compound' is quite clearly a conservatory - with the neighbour's house clearly in sight!!), the script is non-existent... this movie thoroughly deserves its bottom 100 position!I found this movie being sold for £1 in my local supermarket and thought it might be good for a laugh... I'm now off to demand my money back. I firmly believe that I could have done a better job making this movie myself - the acting, the direction, the writing, the cinematography (I know, what cinematography!?!?!) - I could have done them all betterAnd yes, the mummy is fat. 'Nuff said

I only just got this movie a few days ago and have only just watched it and my god IMDb has not got an a grade that can show how bad this film is.The acting is atrocious. I have seen more lively pieces of ... cough, cough, you know whats. The actors are completely unmotivated and are just saying their lines without any thought. When they were talking I thought 'the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.'As for the storyline, it is even worse. During the first three quarters of the film nothing except the occasional killing.The soundtrack is probably the most note-worthy aspect of this entire piece of 'beep' and that is moderate at best.My final opinion is 'leave this in the tomb and let it gather dust.'

Having sat through Legend of the Mummy 1, I thought this couldn't be any worse and I was right. It's equally terrible, though for different reasons. Once again we have a mummy on the loose, this time pursuing a group of archaeology students, and I hope they really are archaeology students, because they're certainly not actors, judging by the number of over the top and under the top performances given here. The mummy itself is marginally more horrific than in LOTM 1, though all the budget seems to have been spent on a scary face. It walks like it's advertising adult diapers and his is full. Does the story make sense? No. Some mumbo-jumbo about rain gods and bullying. Are the characters likable? No. Most are interchangeable cyphers, typical of most stalk and slash horror but not as well written. Plus points: one guy looks good in his tighty whities and the final heroine is not your typical busty blonde. But the horror (apart from the script) is generally off-screen. The mummy has a very large curved knife that is put to good use on wiping out the general population, but never gets a bloodstain on it. You hear a lot, but don't see much - perhaps something more visceral would have helped to take your mind off the tedium. A truly dreadful attempt at film-making.

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.