Diagonaldi Very well executed

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

howardqi-50504 It shot the movie with a handy cam. It's constantly shaking and it makes me dizzy from the beginning to the end. All my 3 kids and my wife and I vomited. The movie has basically no plot, but full of dumb cheesy conversations. 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.

Tony Heck "You get me the stone and we wipe the slate clean." Archaeologist Jack Wells (McNamara) is in trouble and when he is given a chance to clear his debts by millionaire Carl (Glover) he takes it. He joins a group in Egypt on the quest to find the lost Codix Stone. What they find is something that no one could have imagined. Just in case you were wondering this has nothing to do with the Mummy series. Other than that this is pretty much just not good. I was actually looking forward to seeing the way this was filmed. It is filmed in a type of video game style. Jack puts on a pair of glasses with a camera in it and you see Carl in a corner telling him what do to. That idea sounded neat, it was done OK but even that gimmick couldn't save this movie. I don't really like saying too many bad things about a movie because I have never made one, but if someday I get that chance I'm pretty sure it would be better than this. Overall, a neat filming idea and a awful, awful movie. I give it a D.

rasuk if it wasn't for Glover being in it i would never have watched it. even the mummy which you don't see till near the end just looks like a bloke quickly wrapped up pretty sure anyone could recreate this with a cheap camera. no idea why i watched it to the end, nothing really happens in the hole film. have no idea how much profit these low budget movies make, only assuming just enough to make there next.Danny Glover is the highest-paid actor in the world, pulling in an astonishing $96 million between November 2013 and November 2014, a nearly $60 million lead over his closest competition.maybe this film was a bigger hit then i realize???with the amount he was in this film im sure he spent the morning in the studio and then on to the next movie. making 22 movies in 2 years im sure that's a pretty busy scheduled. funny how some actors say yes to everything and some cherry pick the better ones, but then i guess hes doing something right.hoping the other 21 movies are better then day of the mummy

biff21572 You can see the miscasting in the opening scene, one half of a scene to setup a entire movie of cheap handy cam, point of view movie making, it was atrocious. The Mummy shows up very late in the movie, and we are never released from handy cam hell(if your on that tight of a budget, skip making a movie) or at least learn to make a movie that does not look like you made it for a boob tube channel.I kept hoping for the camera battery to go dead, unfortunately for me it held a charge to finish the 1 hour and 20 minutes of this wreck. For what he did in the movie, Glover was OK, it is just a shame to see him take work like this. Dreadful,Cheap,Cheesy. Save your money for a DVD of something watchable.