Paul Magne Haakonsen This movie does at first seem like a copy of the "Indiana Jones" movies, and it does bear a lot of striking resemblances to those movies. That being said, don't get me wrong. Because "The Curse of King Tut's Tomb" is an entertaining movie. Sure it may not have had the same budget as the "Indiana Jones" movies, but it did manage to hold its own well enough.The story is about archaeologist Danny Freemont (played by Casper Van Dien) who is after four emerald fragments of a mystical tablet that Tutankhamon broke in order to keep Set and his demonic spawn from the world of man. At the same time a secret order, with a sinister agenda of their own, is chasing after the very same four fragments for using in their dark dealings."The Curse of King Tut's Tomb" does offer entertainment, action and excitement in a very "Indiana Jones"-like way. If you enjoyed those type of adventure movies, then you will also enjoy this particular movie.The CGI effects were adequate for the purpose they served. Just don't expect it to dazzle your mind and blow you away.There is a good continuous flow to the movie and storyline, and the people on the cast list were doing good jobs with their given roles and characters. The movie runs about two hours and forty minutes, so you will be in for an extended evening of adventure.The scene with the dead guy had me laughing, because you could so clearly see his eyes fluttering and his chest heaving as he was breathing.The movie does have an appeal to both young and mature audience. I was thoroughly entertained by this movie, and it surprised me when it turned out much better than I had anticipated.

winles I was subjected to watching this at a friend's,who thought I liked Egyptology; Which this certainly isn't! I couldn't believe quite how bad it was.It was rotten at the start and just got worse & worse & worse. As someone else has said Johnathan Hyde & Malcolm McDowell must have REALLY needed the money to make this turkey! Basically it's just a bad rip off from the excellent "The Mummy",oddly enough Hyde was in both of them;maybe he thought the Tut film was more of the same,it certainly isn't. If I could give a Raspberry Award it would go to this movie.As I can't I shall just blow a big raspberry at it. In the words of the great Carol Channing in "Thoroughly Modern Millie" "OH RASPBERRIES"

stitch-99 While I hesitate to call movies Indiana Jones ripoffs, this one isn't even trying to hide that fact. It's fairly blatant. The acting is sub par, but not terrible. The special effects (about which I normally don't care) are disgustingly bad. The plot line is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, I still can't believe I watched the entire thing. It's not even a fascinating ridiculousness; it's just crap. The action sequences are almost always tacked on with no relevance or importance. A notable example is when the antagonist has a supporting character captive in his car and is going to kill him. The captive escapes and they spend several minutes in an attempt at an exciting chase scene across rooftops only for the antagonist to catch him and kill him anyway. Nothing new was gained from the chase, only time wasted. I would go into further detail but it has been a while since I've seen this title, and I've tried to block most of it out of my mind. As such, I shall stop this review now.

c38clark The only thing that kept me watching this turkey was the belief (fervent dream) that this sucker was going to improve, hopefully, dramatically. But...no..it..did..not...There were some approaches to good action but they all fell short of Indiana Jones which the movie obviously impersonated, at least at times.There was the usual Computer Generated Imagery made famous by the Mummy movies but that was impersonation on an amateurish level. This entire movie was like that - copycat and poorly made.It makes me wonder how it got financial backing. Did someone lose a bet? Was blackmail employed in order to get funding? Extortion with a 9 millimeter to someone's head?