Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Brilliant and touching

Awesome Movie

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

This is a fun movie, especially Part 1 and Part 2 , did the trick for me. Forget Part 3, just don't delve in there. Rachel Weisz and Brendan Fraser have this crazy, neurotic chemistry perhaps owing to the somewhat on-the-edge character of Evie ( Rachel) and the dapper-wrapper , knight on a white horse character of O Connell ( Brendan) . The fx is on pointe. It jumpstarted me from my seat then and when I see it replayed, it is still good laugh after many years. When I go to the musea and there are sarcophagus on exhibit, I giggle inside as I am reminded of this film franchise in micro portions.

The original version of "The Mummy" from 1932 was one of a series of monster movies made famous by Universal Pictures. Directed by Karl Freund, and following in the footsteps of the likes of Todd Browning's "Dracula" (1931) and James Whale's "Frankenstein" (1931), it was a horror classic about a mummified Egyptian priest called Imhotep who was inadvertently brought back to life after an archaeologist reads an ancient spell, and then prowls the city of Cairo intending to revive his lover, the Princess Ankh-es-en-amon. It was a hit, and it became one of several movies that make up the Universal Monsters franchise.65 years later, because the revivals of different movie monsters were becoming hits in the '90s, the studio decided to remake the original 1932 film, only instead of having it a straight-up horror movie, they take the Indiana Jones route and made it a swashbuckling adventure movie. As a result, we have a movie that's more of an original work than a direct remake of a black and white movie from the 1930s.3,000 years ago, the high priest Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) suffers a fate worse than death as punishment after desecrating the tomb of Anck-Su Namun (Patricia Velásquez), wife of Pharaoh Seti I and Imhotep's lover. The punishment: live mummification and the worst of all Egyptian curses where, if brought back to life, would unleash hell upon all of the land, plagues and all. Unfortunately, 3,000 years later, two teams of treasure hunters set up a digging site in the lost city of Hamunaptra and come across Imhotep's sarcophagus, and the book of the dead (not to be confused with the one in the "Evil Dead" trilogy). One night, one of the treasure hunters, a librarian named Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) decides to give said book a read. Bad idea, as the book contains the passage that brings Imhotep back to life. Imhotep's revived, he still wants to bring back his lover Ankh-Su Namun, and everyone's screwed. So it's up to our ragtag team of heroes, which include Evelyn, her brother Jonathan (John Hannah), and Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) to reverse the curse and save the world.Whether you think the history behind Ancient Egypt or figures like Ankh-Su Namun or Imhotep are accurate or not (fun fact: it's not even close) is irrelevant for a movie like this. What matters is that this is is an adventure flick done in the style of Spielberg and Lucas' "Indiana Jones" franchise. Yes, the plot can get pretty silly at times and the main hero of the picture, Rick, is more of a wisecracking jackass best suited for an action comedy. That's also not to mention that some of the CGI hasn't really aged that well since the movie's release in 1999. However, for your standard adventure movie fare, "The Mummy" is a fun movie in its own right, and a lot of the effects seen in the movie were groundbreaking for the time, so I gotta give credit where credit is due.The movie reached #1 at the box office upon release, and the director of the film, Stephen Sommers, has stated in an interview that a day after the movie was released in theatres, Universal Pictures contacted him over the phone and said "We need another one!". Thus, the film spawned two sequels: "The Mummy Returns" in 2001, and "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" in 2008. A video game would also be made and published by Konami in 2000, and yes, even an animated television series would be released. As for the movie itself, it's still a fun romp to watch, and with the new re-imagining already released in theatres this year starring Tom Cruise, it would definitely be worth seeing this film again before going to see that one, and even if the newer one sucks, at least you have this one and the original 1932 film to keep you company.

It's always difficult for brainless action movies to hold up over time. It's incredibly rare that such films can stand more than a decade or so without feeling too silly. The Mummy, which was made nearly 2 decades ago, definitely falls under this category. With a dumb script, exaggerated acting, dated CGI, and a dopey tone, 1999's version of The Mummy is a cable movie at best.It's amazing to see how far this series has come, from the intellectual 1932 film to the blockbuster action 2017 feature, it's clear that this is a property that people are interested in no matter the genre it forms. With that said, if a film titled 'The Mummy' never manages to offer a single scare or thrill, there's something seriously wrong with the direction. "But that's not the direction they wanted to take with the movie", some may say, well then make the film you intended at least a little bit entertaining. I had heard this film wasn't to be taken seriously, but to show no respect or knowledge for the source material at all feels disappointing to say the least.The acting is abysmal. Some of it can certainly be contributed to the dialogue they were given and perhaps the direction as well, but the line delivery here is just brutal. I know Brendan Fraser isn't particularly regarded as Oscar caliber, but Rachel Weisz definitely is. To see all them do such poor work is more than difficult to watch. But I think this can all come back to the tone established by director and writer, Stephen Sommers. The lighter, goofier tone is clearly purposeful, but it only works if you buy into the characters. I always bring up the Fast & Furious as examples for these types of films because they succeed in making over the top action movies without sacrificing the dynamics between their central characters. The Mummy doesn't do that one bit.I think one of the things that does work is Jerry Goldsmith's beautiful score. Not only does it harken back to the days of John Williams' heroic theme for Indiana Jones, but it actually complements the action quite well. It's just too bad I didn't particularly care for the action that was going on anyway. Overall, this film displays a serious lack of awareness in tone, humor, and writing, even if some of the action provides brief swashbuckling fun amidst a great score. The Mummy is forgettable.+Score-Tone-Rough acting & writing3.8/10

Jonathan Carnahan (John Hannah) obtains a map of the ancient city of Hamunaptra from Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) whom has landed himself in prison. He shows the map to his sister Evelyn Carnahan (Rachel Weisz) a librarian whom is also an authority on Egyptian History. When Evelyn learns that Rick knows the way to the ancient city she pays a considerable sum for his freedom and the three of them make their way to the ancient city. Unfortunately for them, a rival group have also arrived at the ancient city (in search of the treasure), but even more unfortunately for everyone else their combined meddling has awoken a Mummy that has been dead for over 3000 years. The Mummy (Arnold Vosloo) intends to use Evelyn as a sacrifice to bring his dead lover back to life...The Mummy is a fairly goofy, tongue-in-cheek type adventure film and that is perhaps one of its greatest strengths. The fact that it doesn't take itself seriously is actually one of its selling points - the cast look like they're having fun here and that does translate well on screen.I think where this film may run into problems with some people is if you start drawing comparisons to other films - when looking at it is does remind one slightly of Indiana Jones (it's easy to see elements of both Raiders of the lost ark and The Last Crusade). The problem is that it is weaker than both these films because it doesn't have the same tension to it - director Sommers seems to use goofball charm and humour to get by. Don't get me wrong it's fun to watch and quite enjoyable, but it doesn't offer the same type of tension or suspense that you get from an Indiana Jones film and naturally suffers by comparison.The cast are all on good form with Brendan Fraser making a good hero; he's not quite Harrison Ford, but he does a good job. Rachel Weisz is excellent as well and whilst she's clearly intelligent for the most part I did like the way that she had occasional ditzy moments and also liked that she was afforded some vulnerability (the scene where she was drunk is a good example). John Hannah was fun to watch as a minor comic relief character (kind of like Sallah in Raiders of the lost ark). Vosloo was very good as the antagonist, but in some ways the goofy nature of the film held him back and he wasn't as terrifying as he perhaps could have been.In some ways The Mummy is both unremarkable and unmemorable (particularly when compared to the earlier Indiana Jones films), but it does have some charm to it, some laughs and the fact that it doesn't take itself seriously is also a big plus. It's good for a one time watch, but if you want to watch a really good adventure film focusing on archaeological digging the you really owe to yourself to watch Raiders of the lost ark which is an absolute classic.