Is the 1959-movie better than the 1999-movie,starring Brendan Fraser?
shareI honestly prefer the 1999 version (and no, I'm not a kid). Having the mummy not wrapped up was very effective. Lee could have done so much more with the role if we could have at least seen his face when he was stalking his victims.
"What I got don't need pearls." -- Linda Darnell (1923-65)
I'm not afraid to admit I kind of liked the 1999 version, but it's hard to compare them because it's not even really a horror movie. There are a couple of horrific aspects (mainly the scarabs), but mainly it's just an adventure film, nothing much creepy or scary or horrific about it. I guess I like the Hammer one better because it's a straight-up horror film and that's what I think a mummy movie should be, but I like them both in different ways.
I like the 1932 version better than either of them, but that wasn't the question.
Get on up.
It would be nice if BBC showed this peter cushing one, hasnt been on tv for quite a while now.
But i think this one and 1999 one is superior to boris karloff one, which i foiund rather boring.
I loved both films, though I honestly like the 1999 film better. Though it's extremely hard to top Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Anytime those two were in a film together was excellent.
"Do you mind if I don't smoke?" ---Groucho Marx
I liked the 1999 Movie too, but after all it was a more tongue in cheek enjoyable adventure trifle than something remotely comparable to the Cushing/Lee movie.
shareThe 1959 version is better for me, although the 99 version is pretty decent. I hated The Mummy Returns, though. A CGI mess from beginning to end. Didn't even bother with the 3rd one. I love the 1932 movie, too.
Don't cheese me off.I'm running out of places to hide the bodies.
Yeah, 'The Mummy Returns' was nonsense, though I like the two female leads (one of which has a bigger role than in the first one). The 1990s film was a good adventure film with some horror elements, and nods to most previous films (including this great 50's one), but it is the weakest of the four major Mummy films.
I think the best one if the 50s version, followed closely by the Karloff film, then the first Kharis film, followed closely by the 90s film.
---------------------
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.
Of the Kharis films I like Ghost the best, not sure why but I do, I have worked in my head on a script for my own Remake of that, which would incorporate elaborate Flashback sequences.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
This is my favorite mummy movie. I don´t particularly like 1999 film.
share[deleted]
Much better, in my opinion. Color photography, sets, heroine and her dresses are lovely, script is enjoyable and cast top-notch. I like Curse of the Mummy´s Tomb, too.
sharethis is the one i've liked best and found most memorable, its also the first mummy movie i saw, it aired on tv when i was around 12 perhaps, strange they would air a horror movie from the 1950's on commercial tv, but it happened and i was lucky it did, to think all kids get today are mainstream movies. actually all i can remember of the 1999 one now are special effects, but i did like it when i saw it. the original with karloff left an impact too.
playing with fire,
burn by your heat,
until inside nearly turn to a crisp,
got me in an exotic spell,
inside you set a flame,
and i feel unease,
fire in your eye sometimes sets horror in me,
or is it just an innocent thrill,
playing with heat.
Yes it is.
shareI must disagree.
I just finished watching the '59 film and thought it was just okay and at best a 6/10. The '99 film, by contrast, is one of the most fun films I've ever seen.
This film, to me, occupies a weird place where it's not nearly as enjoyable and as entertaining as the '99 film but at the same time it's not a significant historical film artifact like the '32 film.
It just kind of . . . exists.
To each their own. I do really enjoy the 1999 film, and I agree that it is definitely more fun and entertaining than this movie. It mostly depends on what I'm in the mood for. If I want to watch a creepy, suspenseful, and atmospheric straight up horror film, I'll watch this movie. If I want to be thoroughly amused and have some laughs, I'll watch the 1999 film. I find them both to be good in different ways. But the 1932 classic beats both of them in my opinion.
shareFor me, the '99 film is an extremely important movie. I remember that I went to see it with my girlfriend in 1999, came out loving it, and I have watched it several times since then and owned it on, I think, four formats (VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, 4K Blu-Ray). I'd probably put it in my personal Top 10 of all-time, I just love it that much. I only wish the sequels had lived up to the original.
I watched the 1932 film for the first time just a year or two ago. It was an interesting watch. I'd say I enjoyed it more than the '59 rendition, but at the same time it's very . . . "basic" I guess would be the right word. I enjoyed watching it, but more as a film archaeologist examining an artifact from the distant past.
Yeah I know what you mean. And I agree that the sequels to the 1999 version should have been better.
share