May 5, 1999, 4:25 a.m. CST
So whatever happened to that property? Hugh. Well, guess I don't wanna see another Anne Rice book to make it to the silver screen. I must say I like what I hear about the mummy. If it's anything like Army of Darkness and has great visual style, I'll be content. :) :) :)
May 5, 1999, 4:35 a.m. CST
Well I think if Father Geek liked it's safe. At least one film I can look forward to now, with Episode 1 still being so far from opening in Europe. And thanks for another lesson in movie history, Father Geek! I like that.
May 5, 1999, 5:55 a.m. CST
We'll be hitting this on opening nght without question, especially because my better half insists on it. Father Geek's review is encouraging, to say the least. I think this film will do quite well, thanks to a strong trailer, good promotion, no bad buzz, and its positioning as the last major release before EPISODE I, especially now that THE MATRIX's legs are fading. But we'll just have to see...
May 5, 1999, 6:29 a.m. CST
Basically, the previews and everything I'd read led me to believe this would be Indy Jones-like and oh so scary. Wrong! I was squirming in my seat due to embarrassment at what was happening on screen. I don't want to spoil it, but suffice to say the main Mummy looks like something from Army of Darkness and the rest of the mummy henchmen look like Jason and the Argonaut castoffs. Now, if that's your bag, you'll love it. Also, several stupid scenes with villagers running around chanting "Im-Ho-Tep" while in a trance. Lame. Also, when you are sitting there think that if this mummy is "immune to all mortal threats" why the hell is he having so much trouble with Brendan Fraser and the two weenies along with him? This is harmless fodder for 13 yr olds, but grownups will feel cheated. Also, the humor was misplaced, people wouldn't be fucking with a badass mummy and cracking jokes. On the plus side, the flesh-eating scarabs were great. I think they should have flesh eating scarabs in every movie.
May 5, 1999, 10:53 a.m. CST
Suffice it to say, this new MUMMY film is rotten! Terrible acting, a cliched, overdrawn script, laughable dialogue, bad editing, and all-too obvious CGI effects. There isn't even a real mummy -- except for the end, which is ripped off from ARMY OF DARKNESS (and, or course, JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS). This "mummy" is nothing more than an overblown, CGI coprse, like something out of the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET or HELLRAISER flicks. In short, this movie is a completely unoriginal mess, derivative of about 6 or 7 better films. It's not worth the price of admission (including matinee or third-run $2 movie houses), nor is it worth the price of a video rental, or the time spent watching it on cable or commercial television.
May 5, 1999, 12:04 p.m. CST
Subject about sums it up. Better humor, tighter story, good enough effects. I laughed in many parts, sure, and there were some imaginative effects, but the plot took FOREVER to get started and many effects fell flat in a technical way. The way the CGI parts of the bad guy's face lagged behind when he'd turn his head was just sad.
May 5, 1999, 12:30 p.m. CST
by W. Leach
In my humble opinion, I think THE MUMMY (1932) is the best of the Universal "Golden Age of Horror" movies, slightly eking past FRANKENSTEIN (my old fave) to the Number One spot. Just that opening sequence alone is worth the price of a rental. Karloff in the casket. The young archeologist reading the forbidden words. The mummy's black-liquid eyes slowly opening for the first time in centuries. His hand landing on the paper the young man is reading. The mad laughter. The mummy slowly lumbering out of the room, a bandage trailing behind him. A brilliant, effective scene done in complete silence: no jarring music here. I grew up watching these classic films on Saturday afternoons when they were part of CREATURE FEATURES, or if we were lucky, CREATURE DOUBLE FEATURE, where two great horror films were shown. Most of the Universal classic aired, and one week, DRACULA (1931) and THE MUMMY were shown. It was interesting to see these movies back to back, because THE MUMMY seems almost like a remake of DRACULA: a long-dead creature stalks the modern world, falls in love with a beautiful young woman, puts her under his spell, is pursued by the Good Guys (David Manners and Edward Van Sloan in both films), and is ultimately destroyed. The two even share the same theme music over the opening credits: an excerpt from SWAN LAKE. But, as I mentioned earlier, Karl Freund's THE MUMMY will always be the best. For me, there are no substitutes. Now if only Universal would release these titles on DVD...
May 5, 1999, 9:24 p.m. CST
Saw the movie. Great effects. Great camerawork. Great score. Great first fifteen minutes. After that it becomes more and more evident this is the writer/director of "Deep Rising." Script doesn't even begin to live up to its comic book/old time serial goals. More and more action as the film trudges on, but it gets less and less interesting as there's no reason we should care about any of the characters, much less the excuse of a story they flounder around in. This is one of those could've been, should've been movies that just ain't. Script rips off everything from Raiders to Sam Raimi and does it so blatantly that it isn't fair to call it "homage." What a waste of brilliant effects work.
May 6, 1999, 5:19 a.m. CST
I first heard about a new Mummy movie a few years back and was very excited. My excitement has diminished however in the last few months. Why ? If I was asked to name some movies from the past that the makers of the new Mummy should look to for inspiration I'd have quite a list. Karloff's Mummy.Chritopher Lee's Mummy.I would think of various gothic horror films including various versions of Dracula, Frankenstien and The Wolfman.Never in a million years would I think RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK !!! Why you ask ? Because it is not a GOTHIC HORROR story! It's an ADVENTURE story! Two very different genres! Don't get me wrong here, I love Indiana Jones. But he is NOT a GOTHIC HORROR character. That said, I'll probably like the movie but I can't help feeling that now we'll have to wait several more years for a Mummy movie that can be called THE MUMMY that is actual the right genre.
May 7, 1999, 10:59 a.m. CST
i thought the movie was very enjoyable. i thought all of the actors were well chosen and did a fine job. i thought the chick that played evelyln was cool-- pretty but not supermodel pretty y'know? anyway, i thought it was hilarious when evelyn's brother jonathan pretended to be one of the villagers chanting imhotep. i thought it was suspenseful cos i wasn't sure how he was gonna kill each of the americans. near the end when jonathan was piddling about trying to decipher the hieroglyphics from the golden book while evelyn and rick were being chased by the army of skeletons was a bit tired. i wanted to smack him and make him just read the damned thing. but for a 2-hour movie i was entertained. i did think the ending when the white chariot came to get the mummy and take his immortality and then rick simply stabbing him was too simplistic. i was like, "that's it? the end?" geez! but what happened after that helped make up for it. i was hoping for more gore, although the scarabs were cool and i liked seeing them mummify those people alive, but i would've liked seeing them actually rip some dude's brains outta his nose or having some good special effects showing the mummy sucking his victims dry. and i liked the part about the cat. i recommend seeing this movie big time but go to blockbuster afterwards and rent one of the older versions of the mummy.
July 23, 2006, 9:25 p.m. CST