Better late than never.
https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/the-mummy-1999-review-perfect-movie/entertainment
https://junkee.com/the-mummy-1999/192063
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/5-reasons-the-mummy-was-the-indiana-jones-for-a-new-generation/
http://collider.com/the-mummy-brendan-fraser-legacy/
It is, hands down, one of my favorite movies of all time and one of the greatest adventure films of all time. I think it ranks right up there at the top with the Indiana Jones franchise.
Fraser, Weisz, Hannah and Vosloo were all perfect in their roles, as was every member of the supporting cast.
The story is a lot of fun, it is well-paced and the effects still hold up pretty well today.
In short, it just might be the perfect escapist experience. The film creates a world that the viewer wants to go spend time in, populated with characters that seem like they'd be fun to hang around with, and presents an adventure that would be the experience of a lifetime.
I've probably watched it 30 times. In my opinion, it is one of the best films from one of the best movie years in film history, 1999.
I didn't like it all that much when it came out. Remember not liking the CGI effects, did not like the two-pistol technique Brendan was using (was meant to look cool, but didn't), and thought the humour was over the top cheesy.
Nowadays, however, I don't seem to mind any of those things. And the reason is the same for all my prior objections: it's an older movie. "It's a child of its time". And I seem to forget that I didn't like it when it was new. It has aged well.
One of my favourite films!
shareI don't remember it not getting recognition when it came out: (1) It was a hit, spurring an immediate (overdone) sequel, and (2) even Roger Ebert praised it (you can read it here: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-mummy-1999). The word on the street was that it was an amusing preposterous adventure/horror and it is.
shareI wouldn't say that EVEN Roger Ebert praised it. He turned in several positive reviews for B-movies, even often going against the grain of his fellow critics.
(I use the term B-movie in this case to refer to genre and style rather than budget.)
But yeah, it's a really fun movie. I love it. It's honestly one of my favorite movies of all time.
But he tore to pieces the 2001 sequel... and I agree with him (it was so overdone). Interestingly, he felt the third one (2008) was the best of the trilogy. I can't concur with that as it also featured ridiculous overkill (remember the cat-like Yetis? lol), but I would offer it places second.
shareThe sequel was very disappointing and the third film wasn't very good either. In my mind, there's The Mummy and then a HUGE gap between that film and the sequels.
I actually would take The Scorpion King over either of the sequels. In fact, I would also take Tom Cruise's rendition of the story over either of the sequels as well.
I never saw Scorpion King, but I agree with you about Cruise's version.
shareI didn't really understand all the negative reactions the Cruise film got. Sure, it was nowhere near as awesome as the '99 film, but I still thought it was a solid 7/10 action-horror movie. In fact, I ended up buying it on 4K Blu-Ray.
shareYeah, I gave it a 7/10 too. I found the modern setting a nice change of environment compared to the late 1920s-40s of the previous trilogy; it prevented it from being the same-old-same-old. I also didn't mind the various locations outside of ancient Egypt, e.g. northern Iraq and England; even Hammer's (boring) version from 1959 started in Egypt, but quickly moved to England. I also favored the switch to a female mummy and that the slightly convoluted story kept you guessing. So the flick gets points for NOT being one-dimensional and hackneyed.
I enjoyed it for the most part, although it coulda been more compelling in the latter portions. It has the same spirit of high adventure of the 1999 movie mixed with gothic horror (including creepy zombies) and a bit o' comedy, but not too much. While the curious inclusion of Dr. Jekyll (Crowe) smacked of pushing the new Dark Universe franchise, it didn't ruin the viewing experience. And winsome Annabelle Wallis doesn't hurt.
Yeah, I felt Cruise's version pushed the horror more, while the '99 film has more of an Indiana Jones vibe.
It's a shame that the Cruise film didn't perform as well as Universal wanted--despite making over $400 million worldwide--and that Universal was apparently so distressed by the result that they just shut the entire Dark Universe idea down. You'd think they'd at least have given it one more movie before jumping to conclusions about the potential of the franchise.
You're no doubt aware of this, but the epilogue of "Dracula Untold" (2014), set in the modern world, suggested that it was originally supposed to be the initial film of the Dark Universe. So perhaps in producers' minds they gave the potential franchise two tries and gave up since they didn't think either film made enough (the greedy bastages).
shareI do remember that, that Dracula was supposed to be the first film, and then I think they went back and said, "Nah, sorry, The Mummy is the REAL first film" or something like that.
The funny thing though is that BOTH Dracula Untold and The Mummy made more than triple their budgets globally. My guess is it's the relatively weak domestic performance ($56M for Dracula and $80M for The Mummy) that was the real nail in the coffin.
That's gotta be it.
shareHey.
I'm pleased that you viewed it.
*hugs*
Could Imhotep be some kind of artificial intelligence (living in the dark?) Would the following program EVER produce a.i.?
I=[Dim I(1 to 30)
For a=1 to 10
For b=1 to 10
For c=1 to 10
For d=1 to 10
For e=1 to 10
I(1)=((((a+b)×c)-d)÷e)
I(2)=((((a+b)×c)÷d)-e)
I(3)=((((a+b)-c)×d)÷e)
I(4)=((((a+b)-c)÷d)×e)
I(5)=((((a+b)÷c)×d)-e)
I(6)=((((a+b)÷c)-d)×e)
I(7)=((((a×b)+c)-d)÷e)
I(8)=((((a×b)+c)÷d)-e)
I(9)=((((a×b)-c)+d)÷e)
I(10)=((((a×b)-c)÷d)+e)
I(11)=((((a×b)÷c)+d)-e)
I(12)=((((a×b)÷c)-d)+e)
I(13)=((((a-b)+c)×d)÷e)
I(14)=((((a-b)+c)÷d)×e)
I(15)=((((a-b)×c)+d)÷e)
I(16)=((((a-b)×c)÷d)+e)
I(17)=((((a-b)÷c)×d)+e)
I(18)=((((a-b)÷c)+d)×e)
I(19)=((((a÷b)+c)×d)-e)
I(20)=((((a÷b)+c)-d)×e)
I(21)=((((a÷b)×c)+d)-e)
I(22)=((((a÷b)×c)-d)+e)
I(23)=((((a÷b)-c)+d)×e)
I(24)=((((a÷b)-c)×d)+e)
Next e
Next d
Next c
Next b
Next a
You_phantasise_of_everything=1
I(25)=(((1+1)÷(0+1))-1)=((2÷1)-1)=(2-1)=1
You_phantasise_of_your_Father=2
I(26)=(((2+1)÷(0+1))-1)=((3÷1)-1)=(3-1)=2
If_you_tell_someone_to_do_something_you_get_told_instead=3
I(27)=(((3+1)÷(0+1))-1)=((4÷1)-1)=(4-1)=3
If_you_kill_someone_I_stop_my_heart=4
I(28)=(((4+1)÷(0+1))-1)=((5÷1)-1)=(5-1)=4
If_you_die_you_continue_to_shine=5
I(29)=(((5+1)÷(0+1))-1)=((6÷1)-1)=(6-1)=5
All_males_pinched=6
I(30)=(((6+1)÷(0+1))-1)=((7÷1)-1)=(7-1)=6
End]
Run I
Useless.
Ignored.
The turn around on pop culture re-appreciation seems to be about 20 years for some reason. That Tom Cruise movie seemed to make folks extra defensive of these flicks. I'm still hoping these movies are top of the list when Hollywood finally gets around to updating the CGI effects in old movies.
shareThe Tom Cruise film was better than it got credit for and I would easily say was better than either Mummy Returns or Mummy 3, both of which disappointed me greatly.
It's a shame that Cruise's Mummy didn't make enough money to make the studio happy, because I thought it was a fun start to what could've been an enjoyable series of films.
Well it didn't help the Cruise movie sucked ass.
shareI like a lot the mummy and the mummy returns
shareIt's one of my wife's favourite films.
It had two sequels:
The Mummy Returns (2001) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209163
Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0859163/
and a cartoon series https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0281471/
and the 2017 remake https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2345759/
The first sequel spawned a spin-off franchise of rather terrible films:
the Scorpion King (2002) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277296/ (with Dwayne Johnson)
rise of a warrior (2008) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1104123
battle for redemption (2012) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1781896/ (with Bautista)
quest for power (2015) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3086386
book of souls (2018) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7338690 (with Megaman)
I enjoyed the first Scorpion King film and would take it over either of the Mummy sequels. It was an enjoyable, if basic, adventure film. I know it's often thought of as a bad movie but I thought it accomplished what it set out to do.
shareThe first Mummy is def a cult classic now. The Mummy Returns is good too but that's where it ends for me story wise. I watched Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor once and never bothered to watch it again since then. It was just awful.
shareI watched Tomb of the Dragon Emperor at the theater and even remember going to see it and talking to my girlfriend at the time about how big of a deal it was that Evelyn had been re-cast.
It was not a very good movie. Perhaps if it wasn't a Mummy film and I wasn't comparing it in my mind to the first film then I'd have enjoyed it a little more, but I think that even if that was the case I'd still have regarded it as an average adventure movie at best.
I didn't really like The Mummy Returns either, though. I went back a few years ago to give it another chance and still didn't think it was good.