Never seen the new one, but I wouldn't want to. This film is so great!
**********
They blew up Congress!!! HAHAHA!
No camparison.
The original is a classic. The remake had very little in common with the original. It relied more on action and special effects, and Brandan Frazier is no Indiana Jones.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I like both of them, but I view them more as two different movies with similar plots and character names.
Kristen & the Fuzzy Huskies Team
http://www.freewebs.com/kristenssleddogs
I would not call "The Mummy" (1999) a remake...
tHe MuRdER CaPiTaL oF thE woRLd
"walk into this world with you head up high"
I would not call "The Mummy" (1999) a remake...
No, the correct word for it would be "sh!t."
---
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/
"No, the correct word for it would be "sh!t."
Actually it would be called a "Re-Invisioning", but whatever
The Jerk Store Called, And There Running Out Of You!
Looking at the antics, 'The Mummy' (1999) is in spirit more a 'remake' of 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), a horror/adventure comedy.
Karl Freund, Boris Karloff and the rest of the 1932 team told a beautiful atmospheric horror story.
"The Beamer Xperience: 9 feet wide home cinema bliss."
You just can not do a proper remake for a number of reasons.
1. In the words of Felix Unger (Odd Couple TV series), Would I mess with a Classic?
2. The 1932 version is perfect; its quiet, dark, atmospheric, and draws the viewer into the subplot of a tragic damned love story (very 19th century romantic).
3. Films now have to rely on action and special effects not dialogue; so as to sell in the overseas market.
4. Everything is special effects to prove a point, if you can do it ALL the better, right? Sometimes, wrong.
be wary very wary of any flick that pushes special Fx over story.
So I totally agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!
To sell in the OVERSEAS market?? Well, the US is FAR more into big special effects than Europe is. Sure, we like action/adventure once in a while, but some of the best rated movies here within the last year are The Descendants, Intouchables and Martha Marcy May Marlene. Sure, Avengers also got good reviews, but to say that the overseas market want all the explosions and whatnot is a downright lie.
Don't mistake hate speech for free speech. Remember, hate speech kills!
"I like both of them, but I view them more as two different movies with similar plots and character names."
Yeah, it's barely a remake; it uses the same basic premise, but the intent is completely different.
You would have to pay me to watch the 1999 version of the Mummy, or its sequels.
shareI didn't like the original mummy, I found a lot of it very boring and this is coming from a guy who enjoys old movies and radio programs.
I an't afraid of no ghosts!
The 1999 Mummy is fun but stupid. And it's NOT a remake of this film. It's not even a re-imagining.
It borrows elements from various mummy films and borrows the tone from Indiana Jones.
[deleted]
"It borrows elements from various mummy films and borrows the tone from Indiana Jones."
I remember sitting in the theatre watching it and mentally compiling a CHECKLIST of all the movies it was ripping off (ahem-- paying tribute to, heh) at once. And I had the feeling nobody else in the theatre was old enough to even be aware of it. (Take every "Mummy" movie ever made, the "Indiana Jones" films, "Jason and the Argonauts", and even toss in the climax of "Land of the Pharaohs" with Joan Collins! Stir together, then crank it up to the max...)
Then add an uncharismatic lead actor, some unfunny jokes, clunky [not-so-]special effects and stir.
shareOld enough to be aware of it? Did you watch the original in the theaters back in 1932 during the Depression? Were you born at the latest during the Roaring 20s?
shareI actually had not seen the original Mummy since I was a kid, maybe 35-40 years back, but I couldn't believe how boring it actually was. I had forgotten the story, and I guess most of my memories were more from the Christopher Lee Mummy film, which had more action while still retaining the story and being believable.
As to the 1999 Mummy, I can not STAND films like this. Taking classics and turning them into action comedies. Worse is that the public was still buying in to them sequel after sequel. The effects were so cartoonish I just refused to watch any of them from start to finish. I usually catch 5 minutes here and there, and turn the channel to something worth seeing.
What is really scary is that a lot of the fans of the 1999 film seem unaware that there was a film before it........
I'll Teach You To Laugh At Something's That's Funny
Homer Simpson
Well I'm sure many fans of Charleton Heston's Ben Hur were not aware of the earlier silent film that came before it. Why would 60 years be any different if 30 years wasn't?
shareI like both the original and the remake, but they're pretty different films when you get right down to it.
My ignore list is quite large.
Exactly! They have nothing in common but the title and some Egyptian motives, as with hundreds of other films! Stop calling it a remake! The original is a horror film, not an adventure film, and the original was followed by several other mummy horror films!
shareI like both. 1999 version had it's own charm and direction. I wouldn't even call it a remake. The attitude towards it is quite appalling. It never tried to be the original in the first place. Definitely one of Universal's better modern action adventures.
shareThe 1999 version is very pleasing as an action-adventure film. Entertainment wise, I would definitely say it has the edge over the original. The sequel is a very enjoyable film, too.
As for the better film overall, the original takes the cake.
But honestly, I think the remake is called a remake simply because it was titled "The Mummy." In my opinion, it was more of a homage to classic mummy films in general.
Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!
The Mummy 32 shuold only be discussed together with The Mummy 59! Thats It!
shareIf the 1999 adaptation is so boring, dumb,etc. how on earth did it make so much money for Universal ? Someone obviously liked it or there would not have been sequels. I love black and white films from the 30's but this one is a serious clunker. If the only thing The Mummy 1999 has going for it is the fact that it is gorgeous to look at,( as well as being clever and fun) then that is enough for me.
"I say,open this door at once! We're British !"
And why on Earth are you one of those who insist bringing up two separate movies of two separate genres just because they have the title in common? Shall we do the same with the other hundreds of titles that just happens to be named the same?
shareI did not start this thread.I am also not one of the many who are recasting Rick and Evie when that has nothing to do with the "remake"....etc. of the 1932 film that I acknowledge had nothing to do with the Brendan Fraser 1999 film besides the title and a few character names. There should NOT be hundreds of movies named the same! I also think that there
should be limits on the use of film titles. If writers are not clever enough to come up with original titles perhaps they should not be writers in the first place.
In horseracing, names cannot be used for a designated number of years so that there is no chance of two horses with the same name racing or even being bred at the same time. It certainly cuts down on the confusion that would cause. And names of racehorses that have gained sufficient notoriety are retired permanently. Can you imagine every idiot deciding to name their horse Secretariat ? Why shouldn't the same system be used for films? That would cut down on comparisons and the idiocy of remakes, reboots, reimaginings, etc. would not exist.
"I say,open this door at once! We're British !"
The 1999 version is more like Indiana Jones. This one is way better.
share