TotalTelly.co.uk

Devoted to Popular, Cult and Retro TV

The Mummy [1998]


RRP: £9.99
Our Price: £2.88 (subject to change)

Editorial
Amazon.co.uk Review

If you're expecting bandaged-wrapped corpses and a lurching Boris Karloff-type villain, then you've come to the wrong movie. But if outrageous effects, a hunky hero, and some hearty laughs are what you're looking for, the 1999 version of The Mummy is spectacularly good fun. Yes, the critics called it "hokey," "cheesy," and "pallid." Well, the critics are unjust. Granted, the plot tends to stray, the acting is a bit of a stretch, and the characters occasionally slip into cliché, but who cares? When that action gets going, hold tight--those two hours just fly by.

The premise of the movie isn't that far off from the original. Egyptologist and general mess Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) discovers a map to the lost city of Hamunaptra, and so she hires rogue Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) to lead her there. Once there, Evelyn accidentally unlocks the tomb of Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo), a man who had been buried alive a couple of millennia ago with flesh-eating bugs as punishment for sleeping with the pharaoh's girlfriend. The ancient mummy is revived, and he is determined to bring his old love back to life, which of course means much mayhem (including the unleashing of the 10 plagues) and human sacrifice. Despite the rather gory premise, this movie is fairly tame in terms of violence; most of the magic and surprise come from the special effects, which are glorious to watch, although Imhotep, before being fully reconstituted, is, as one explorer puts it, rather "juicy." Keep in mind this film is as much comedy as it is adventure--those looking for a straightforward horror pic will be disappointed. But for those who want good old-fashioned eye-candy kind of fun, The Mummy ranks as one of choicest flicks of 1999. --Jenny Brown

Editorial
Special Features

English
Region 2

Editorial
Synopsis

In the 1920s, a group of archaeologists led by adventurer Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) discovers the mummified body of Imhotep, an Egyptian priest who was cursed for falling in love with the Pharoah's mistress. When they accidentally resurrect him, the battle for survival begins, as the mummy begins to use his powers to reclaim his long-lost love. Director Stephen Sommers updates this classic Universal monster for the 1990s, using a dazzling array of computer-generated special effects. Fun performances from Fraser and Rachel Weisz add to the tongue-in-cheek Saturday matinee appeal.

Mummy AND Mummy returns review.
Review date: 2008-03-08 Rating: 4 out of 10

When i bought the Mummy Returns on VHS it was without seeing it, i had really enjoyed the Mummy and thought this would be a sound buy, and at the time (some seven years ago) i thought it was after seeing it. But 7 years later looking back on both the Mummy and its sequel i realize that both this films, more so the second one are rather limited. Its not that i didn't enjoy them or felt the effects were poor, but they don't really give you anything more than a decent enough adventure story which really becomes formulaic in film 2. I think The Mummy had enough fun, good acting a was a good enough watch for 2 hours, despite rolling around in its own humorous easy-going story, but hey that was very watchable and there was hardly a dull moment in that movie which in short delivered what it promised and did its job as a fun filled summer blockbuster. But number two never really enters new territory, you have a organized group of bad guys who want to resurrect the mummy from film one to "take down" the new villain, the scorpion king(which allows "The Rock" a glorified cameo at the start of the movie).

The heroes from film one are all back with one new slightly indifferent addition Alex the O'Connell's son who manages to avoid being too annoying despite taking any real seriousness the film had to offer away. The acting for the most part is good with the regular gags,one-liners and more of the same action from film 1. Whether The Mummy returns is a rehash is up for debate but generally quite a bit is recycled from its predecessor namely the action sequences such as the sandstorm from film one, this time with water, various nods to gags in film one such as dialog, the bookcase scene but i suppose this film has enough new material despite not seeming all that original. The action scenes are fun namely a bus chase involving mummies at the start and the most improbable chase through the jungle where Brendan Frazer outruns the sun(yes i did say that). I think another reviewer on this page(Rp Jones) hit the nail on the head when they said the novelty of the first movie had worn off.

The Mummy was(for me at least) a 20's style adventure in the desert with a arsenal of special effects, good actors and a decent premise that featured all this action in pyramids and exciting scenes of that nature and thats what i at least found so appealing about it after looking back over it. Its sequel doesn't ever seem as interesting despite being watchable and the characters seem a little more detached in the scenes involving CGI than they did in the first one. As a massive Indiana Jones fan i feel obligated to say that these film s do not come anywhere remotely close to that Trilogy but to be fair we don't generally get a Raiders movie very often so it doesn't infringe on these movies too much, just don't go in expecting to see Raiders of the lost Ark/Temple/Last Crusade quality in these movies is all i mean.

Overall the two Mummy movies do alright, i enjoyed film one even if it it was a bit silly and could have afforded to be a bit more sinister it was still entertaining. The Mummy returns however didn't do it for me in the ways the first movie did, it didn't manage to pull off the humor and occasionally serious aspects of the first nor was the story as interesting, while film one was a part loves story/adventure/apocalyptic , Returns revolved around a quest for immortality and i suppose the family dynamic it introduced. Finally, The Mummy did enough a good blockbuster, Mummy returns was OKAY both do just enough to pass. I have posted this for both The Mummy movies pages because this is an opinion of both as opposed to just one of them.


Similar Products

Reviews


Good visual effects, but ...
Review date: 2007-12-08 Rating: 4 out of 10

A few minutes into this I realised that it was more of a kids film. Perhaps I was expecting something at least a little bit more sinister and gripping, but that certainly wasn't the case.

This movie does have great visual effects but it seems to be rather aimed at juveniles (13 or under?) which is a big surprise considering that it's officially rated 15.

Two-thirds of the way through I ended up slightly speeding up the DVD and reading it from the subtitles. If I had kids I would maybe sit them in front of it while I did something else like mowing the lawn.

Really enjoyed this film
Review date: 2007-09-14 Rating: 10 out of 10

Bit disappointed to see some very negative reviews of this film but each to their own. We don't all have to agree. I should stress I haven't seen the original Mummy so I'm not comparing the two.

I did enjoy this film though. Right from the start, I found the plot interesting and eye catching. The recreations of ancient Egypt are beautiful. However it's not the sets (or even the outstanding special effects) that do it for me in this film, it's the characters.

It's difficult to fit The Mummy into one genre. You have historical information (may not always be totally accurate but then neither was Braveheart), you have action, you have extremely likable characters and strangely, you have comedy.

Acting, this film is quite good in my opinion. Rachel Weisz and John Hannah are both accomplished actors and seem to enjoy their parts (Hannah is particularly good as the cowardly yet lovable Jonathan). Arnold Vosloo (Ihmotep) doesn't do much speaking as the Mummy but nevertheless I did enjoy his portrayal of the character. Brendan Fraser is ok in this role. He's definately been hired for the chiselled good looks more than his acting though. He plays the rugged Rick O'Connell who falls in love with Weisz's character Evelyn as well as being the man to tackle Ihmotep face to face.

The characters I think is what makes this film so enjoyable. They seem to have a genuine rapport with each other and it shows on screen. I can't pick a favourite character but each have their little quirks that made me laugh out loud. What is also interesting is that all the characters are likelble, even Ihmotep. However, I didn't find Ihmotep to be 'bad', more tragic.

Although explained in a bit more detail in the Mummy Returns, Ihmotep operates through love and his desire to resurrect his one love. He doesn't operate through a desire to control the world or to inflict death on people (although he has to kill to regenerate, the curse makes him do this). In this sense, Ihmotep is in a way a bit of a sad, controlled character. Most of the time he is operating due to a curse or in the second film, only resurected to help the plan of another.

I think the light heartedness of this film deserves a mention because it's unexpected and for me, it makes the Mummy that little bit more special. if you decide to get this film, or have seen it, you'll know the light hearted bits I mean. One of favourite parts were the disliked jailer on the burning boat asking O'Connell "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?!" to which O'Connel replies 'Wait here...I'll go get help!' he then jups overboard leaving the man on the sinking boat to work out for himself what he should do in those circumstances.

Benny, the back stabbing (supposed) friend of Rick also deserves a special mention. The poor man is on the receiving end of O'Connel's beatings, attempted drownings and well as being obliged to enter into Ihmotep's service. All of this however, is done with such a gentle and light hearted attitude that there isn't really much that's unpleasant about Benny (Probably meant to be the least likable of all the characters).

The effects in this film, I don't think anyone can deny, are outstanding and cutting edge for the time. The Egypt recreations are dazzling but the sand effects with Ihmoteph's face are fantasic.

All in all, this film may not be perfect but it's still enjoyable and as I've said, doesn't take itself too seriously. The effects alone make this film worth at least a little bit of your time. While this film isn't meant to test you, or give you a hugely action packed ending, it's still more than watchable and frequently, amusing.

Give it a go and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

THE MUMMY IS GOOD BRAINLESS HARMLESS FUN
Review date: 2007-08-08 Rating: 8 out of 10

This version of The Mummy (one of the several titles within film lore that seems to have been made and remade for decades) is pretty much exactly what you would expect from a modern adaptation of an old horror classic, especially given the types of films that are released these days. The action and special effects of the 1932 classic have been massively increased, and the new film turns more to shocking special effects, often cheesy comic relief, and sparkling scenery, away from the slow, creeping tension of the original. As a result, we get a fast moving feature that places a lot of emphasis on its special effects and it's good-looking stars. Thankfully, the movie knows when to laugh at itself, but it trips because it doesn't know when to stop.

The film starts roughly 3000 years in the past, with the Egyptian priest Imhotep being put to a rather vicious death for getting a little too friendly with the Pharaoh's mistress. Naturally, he is mummified alive, sealed in a coffin with a lot of flesh-eating beetles (the sounds of which make up some of the creepiest stuff in the whole movie), only to be accidentally resurrected by a lot of bounty hunters a few millennia later. This is where the cast comes in, Rick (Brendan Fraser), Evelyn (Rachel Weisz), and her brother Jonathan (John Hannah).

Rick is the hero of the movie, the guy who has been there and done it all and just wants to get his money and get out. He's kind of like a cross between the single-mindedness of Han Solo, the bad one-liners of James Bond, and the adventure experience of Indiana Jones, except that he comes across more as a muddy conglomeration of characters like those rather than an original character of his own. He goes through his part upset by the fact that other people seem to be constantly be holding him back from some faraway goal, the importance of which they can probably never be expected to understand.

Evelyn is there mainly with scientific interest (until she meets the hottie hero and romance is added to her To Do list) and her brother Jonathan is there for pure financial gain, as is the movie's director and crew and production team. There is also a tagalong character named Beni who I can only satisfactorily describe as a greedy rat, someone you would expect to meet on the wet streets of New York in the 1940s or something. He is a constant double-crosser who never has anyone's but his own best interest in mind, and so naturally ends up working for the resurrected Imhotep. His weird eye-makeup and pathetically whiny little voice make him a perfect candidate for the throwaway antagonist, who Rick tries vainly to save in a climactic scene near the end of the film.

The interesting thing about the plot comes up when you consider when exactly Imhotep became the bad guy. Really, all he did was fall in love with the wrong girl, and then when he was brought back to life, obviously he wanted to bring her back, too. One of the first things that I learned in film studies is that the audience should know as soon as possible whether they are meant to like or dislike a character, because first impressions are difficult to overcome. With that in mind then, when exactly was it that he went from the poor love-struck protagonist from the first act of the film to the monstrous antagonist during the rest of the movie?

My best theory is that first and foremost, he's killing people to bring himself and his love back to life. Granted, more killing would not justify the death of himself or of his loved one, Anck Su Namun, but considering the fact that all he did was fall in love and also considering the way that he was put to death, his reaction upon achieving life once more becomes a little more understandable. Second, what exactly does a resurrected protagonist look like? I must admit that there is something a little too daunting about trying to come up with a likable mummy, but Imhotep is certainly a man who has seen more than his share of suffering.

The special effects are hugely impressive despite the fact that they are obviously special effects (the art of invisibility was not achieved very well here). When Imhotep is slowly regenerating, there are scenes showing his body and face that are impressive in their spectacle, but not impressive in not looking animated. As a whole, The Mummy is exactly what you might expect it to be, except that it was released amidst so much excitement and hype that it really should have taken itself more seriously and been more of a thinking film. It would have, under those circumstances, been immensely more respectable and might have joined its predecessor as a movie classic. It is a successful update of the Mummy theme (which has become almost a genre in itself), but there is a lot of fluff in the film that simply doesn't belong.

Trashily glamorous
Review date: 2007-06-18 Rating: 8 out of 10

By all rights, "The Mummy" shouldn't be a good film. The premise is ridiculous. The plot is laughably flimsy. The acting is so-so. Even the special effects - so impressive in 1999! - haven't stood up to the test of time. And yet somehow it all pulls together to become one of the better tomb-raiding pictures of recent years.

What makes the film so successful is that it's complete rubbish - *and it knows it*. Escapism at its finest, "The Mummy" promises a great adventure film and delivers it every step of the way. In spite of the abundance of plot holes and some of the frankly absurd elements (who knew that Egyptian pyramids were so well-lit?), the viewer is swept up along with the story, and it's absolutely impossible to become bored.

To be fair, the movie's strong points don't lie entirely in its campy brilliance. The casting is good, even if the acting is a little shoddy: Fraser positively smoulders on-screen like a classic Hollywood star, and Weiz is delightful in her dizzy librarian role. Hannah, probably the most capable actor of the group, also gets the best lines (and consequently becomes most peoples' favourite character). The Egyptian landscape is absolutely gorgeous - if only there was more of it shown! - and even the painted backdrops inside the pyramids are very well done. The script, although by no means of Academy Award standard, is still miles ahead of the average adventure movie script - its jokes are actually funny, for one.

"The Mummy" won't move the viewer to tears or even a great deal of sympathy. Certainly don't watch it if you want anything resembling a history lesson. Even the DVD is nothing to write home about, boasting no special features whatsoever. It is, however, a great laugh, a great romance, and a great adventure. Highly recommended for anyone who enjoys a bit of silly fun!

Product Details/Specifications


Actor(s):
Bernard Fox
Brendan Fraser
Corey Johnson
Patricia Velazquez
Kevin J. O'Connor

Creators:
Brendan Fraser (Primary Contributor)
Bernard Fox (Primary Contributor)

Director(s):

Recording label: 4 Front Video
Manufacturer: 4 Front Video
EAN: 5050582005431
Binding: DVD
Number of items: 1
Format: PAL, Special Edition, Widescreen,
Release date: 2006-06-05
Audience rating: Suitable for 15 years and over
Region code: 2
Running time: 120 minutes
Theatrical release date: 1998
Language: English (Original Language)

Add to Cart

© 2006 Darren Hester, DesignsByDarren.com, Some Rights Reserved.
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional