This blog’s comparative movie reviews have struck a chord with readers. Today, we embark on a thrilling expedition into one of the most underrated treasures of the late 20th century: The Mummy (1999). As we dust off this Brendan Fraser-led gem, we’ll explore how it outshines any post-1980s Indiana Jones installment.
From the opening scene, The Mummy hooks us with a pulpy blend of swashbuckling action, supernatural wonders, and charismatic players. Our hero Rick O’Connell, portrayed by a pre- fall off Brendan Fraser, channels the spirit of Indiana Jones with his rugged charm and quick-witted banter. This soldier of fortune’s charisma rivals even the fedora-clad archaeologist’s charm.
Fraser’s O’Connell finds a foil and love interest in the clumsy yet resourceful Evelyn Carnahan. Played by Rachel Weisz, Evelyn has more sense than any Indiana Jones leading lady. Better still, she manages to not be annoying, aside from some mild 90s style go grrrl-ism. Fun fact: Evelyn was originally stated to be – and is still hinted to be – the daughter of Lord Carnarvon, who financed the discovery of King Tut’s tomb.
Let us not overlook the film’s formidable antagonist Imhotep, portrayed with wicked brilliance by Arnold Vosloo. Imhotep is a terrifying force driven not just by an insatiable desire for vengeance, but by romantic love. In this respect, the eponymous mummy fits the tradition of semi-sympathetic Indiana Jones villains. Except he’s far more menacing. His presence casts a shadow over the whole film, presenting an apocalyptic threat that drives our heroes and propels the story.
The Mummy also boasts a rogues’ gallery of memorable supporting characters who add layers of charm and intrigue. Oded Fehr steals every scene he’s in as the enigmatic Medjai warrior Ardeth. John Hannah turns in an endearing performance as Evelyn’s brother, bumbling thief-with-a-heart-of-gold Jonathan. And who could forget Kevin J. O’Connor’s meme-worthy turn as the slimy opportunist Beni? This colorful ensemble not only adds flavor, but depth, to the narrative.
What truly sets The Mummy apart is its seamless fusion of action, adventure, and mystical elements. The Indiana Jones franchise used the supernatural as a hook while offering mostly standard Hollywood action. In contrast, The Mummy leads with its chin. It takes its haunted world of ancient Egyptian curses, resurrected mummies, and menacing scarab beetles at face value. Unlike other post-Ground Zero IPs, The Mummy isn’t obsessed with demythologizing or apologizing for its preternatural subject matter. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in particular stumbled with its ill-conceived detour into Atomic Age UFO lore, The Mummy stays internally consistent.
Furthermore, The Mummy embraces the pulp adventure spirit, delivering exhilarating action while never taking itself too seriously. This ability to blend heart-pounding excitement with moments of levity showcases the film’s understanding of what makes the genre work.
Whch is why The Mummy keeps the viewer’s pulse pounding with high-stakes fight scenes, exhilarating chases, and epic set pieces that complement each other. It strikes the right balance between horror, drama, and comic relief, never sacrificing fun for unnecessary darkness (Looking at you, Temple of Doom).
One of the key elements that makes The Mummy an underappreciated gem is its rather simple yet immersive setting. The desolate ruins of Hamunaptra, the lost city of the dead, becomes a character in its own right. Its eerie aura hangs over every scene, even those not set there. This evocative setting, combined with effects that punch above their weight for the time and accomplished cinematography, transports us to a past that never was while making us believe it could have been.
In the final analysis, though, it all comes down to the fact that The Mummy still holds up as a fun adventure film. In contrast, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is looked back on as an embarrassment. And The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles has been forgotten, except as an odd novelty.
The Mummy (1999) is a hidden jewel that outshines any post-1980s Indiana Jones project in its unabashed pursuit of rollicking adventure. With its charismatic cast, captivating blend of action and the supernatural, and relentless pace, it succeeds where latter-day Indiana Jones falters. So dust off your DVDs, grab a bowl of popcorn, and immerse yourself in the mesmerizing world of The Mummy—a cinematic testament to the enduring spirit of classic adventure fiction.
The epic mech adventure saga’s mind-blowing conclusion
I’ll add: Not only does he get the girl in the end, the courtship is relatively chaste compared to the usual offerings in this category. Moreover, in the (not as good) sequel, that relationship led to marriage, a child, and remained intact. Brandon would remark in an interview that the intact relationships really appealed to him.
My favorite exchange:
“What does your problem have to do with His Majesty’s Royal Air Force?”
“Not a damn thing.”
“Is it dangerous?”
“Well, you probably won’t live through it.”
“Splendid! What’s the mission?”
“Rescue the damsel in distress, kill the bad guy, save the world.”
That last line is downright based today.
Winston made an outsized mark on the film, despite his short screen time. It goes to show there are no small roles …
I enjoy rewatching the movie. It’s such a blast. It entertains without the cringe. It’s unapologetic pulpy fun.
Even the courtship harkens back to the 30s/40s a bit.
xavier
The Mummy is a near perfect movie. The way it blended humor, action and horror so seamlessly must be the envy of every Hollywood filmmaker.
Few appreciate how hard it is to balance those elements, comedy in particular.
“The Mummy isn’t obsessed with demythologizing or apologizing for its preternatural subject matter Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in particular stumbled with its ill-conceived detour into Atomic Age UFO lore, The Mummy stays internally consistent.”
You nailed it. Most modern creators can’t embrace “weirdness” without cynically taking jabs at mysticism. It’s why trad pub and recent movies aren’t as fun or immersive as it once was.
This was the first DVD I ever watched, and first director’s commentary. Is that even a thing nowadays? It was novel to me at the time and I learned a lot about the filmaking process, especially the horrors of controlling large groups of extras. The director always noted any time the key artifact changed hands. He said it was a priority that the audience would always know where the key was. It was just a good, solid, fun film, the kind that Hollywood used to be so good at and now is nearly incapable of making.
I actually prefer these over Indiana Jones, to be honest. Effects aside, I like the characters and themes much more in these movies. But then Spielberg has never really hit the mark with me.
One thing I think is interesting about The Mummy is that the people who like this series are satisfied with how it ended. They do not want the IP revived endlessly. Instead they want new movies done in it’s spirit, as it should be.
As opposed to Indiana Jones fans that do not want new movies done like it. They merely want the IP to continue on forever. Much like a certain tired space battle franchise.
It says a lot about how perception over stories has warped so heavily even since The Mummy released in 1999 that few realize how they were once able to let things end and now can no longer do so. The insistence on trying to give Sony money to make Ghostbusters fanfiction forever after rejecting sequels from the creator for decades (and blackmailing people like Bill Murray to be involved) is proof of that.
Movies like this really do feel like a lost art now.
“One thing I think is interesting about The Mummy is that the people who like this series are satisfied with how it ended. They do not want the IP revived endlessly.”
To back up this point, Universal’s disastrous attempt at a Mummy reboot produced the first Tom Cruise flop. Before that, he was about the only A list actor you could say had never made a bad movie.
Imagine if Spielberg had insisted on doing another movie in the “Secret of the Incas” franchise instead of making a new property.
“As opposed to Indiana Jones fans that do not want new movies done like it. They merely want the IP to continue on forever. Much like a certain tired space battle franchise.”
I don’t agree with this assessment. All of the Indiana Jones fans that I personally know and the majority of those that I have witnessed online have repeated the same refrain for years: “There are only three Indiana Jones movies.” They refuse to acknowledge the existence of “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” and have no interest in “The Dial of Destiny”. Are there some Indiana Jones fans who want a bajillion sequels and will eat anything up? Sure. But I think that they’re the exception rather than the rule. And I believe that the abysmal box office numbers of “The Dial of Destiny” lend credence to this.
“I actually prefer these over Indiana Jones, to be honest.”
I would rank “The Mummy” over “Temple of Doom” and probably give it a tie with “The Last Crusade”. The Indiana Jones movies have better action and a more iconic lead, but I prefer Evy over any of the “Indy girls” and consider the romance in “The Mummy” to be better than any of those in the Indiana Jones movies (I covered all of that in more depth in another comment further down on this page), and I think that Imhotep is a more compelling villain than any of the Indiana Jones villains.
“The Mummy Returns”, alas, is a textbook case of sequelitis, in my opinion. It has some good moments and even a few great ones, but I consider the movie as a whole to be a badly-written, overstuffed, over-CGI’ed mess that’s only about 1/4 as good as “The Mummy” – if I’m being generous. And “Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” is utter garbage. In my head-canon, the first movie is the only one that exists.
“Effects aside, I like the characters and themes much more in these movies. But then Spielberg has never really hit the mark with me.”
What do you think about the themes in the Indiana Jones movies about the importance of faith and the folly of evil people thinking that God’s power can be misused for their purposes?
The emotional stuff of both M1 and M2 had weight. There was a nice moment in M2 when brother and sister (John Hannah and Rachel Weisz) are on high overwatch with rifles, sniping baddies, and Evelyn says quietly to her brother “That’s my son and my husband down there,” and then they start delivering the hurt. It was well done.
The Mummy may not have been a great movie (but it was very good!) but I think it was a perfect movie. The execution of its themes and ideas were without fault.
I may be in the minority, but I actually liked the 2001 sequel more than the original. It expanded on the world and walked a thin line between being overdone and unbelievable well. The characters all had arcs to them, and they were satisfying throughout the entire movie. Every character seemed real. Is it wrong of me to have wanted a movie about the Medjai that explored their culture. I wanted more Ardeth Bay after 2001. I wanted to see him in a stand-alone adventure movie.
Consequently, I don’t understand the hate that Tom Cruises movie gets. For what it’s worth, it was a serviceable action movie, if a tad woke. It’s not as bad as “The Last Jedi” or “Rise of Skywalker”, but I do think Universal screwed up when they ignored all of the mythology and tone of the original Movies (1998-2008). I remember thinking at the time, they needed to do so little world building for this Monsterverse and they had a built in audience with the Mummy. All that the reboot needed was to be more of a continuation of the original series and allowed us to check in on the Medjai and O’connell’s descendants in the modern world. That the world of the Mummy and by extension, the Universal Monsters was simply the world that most people didn’t know or talk about but was there. I thought I was going to get that movie and then they wasted that potential.
Is ignoring the world building that previous creatives have done that’s extremely popular all that common or is it something that has only come into vogue in Hollywood when studios saw the fool’s gold that Disney made with “the Force Awakens”? A lot of money but emotional and artistically dead with no story to build on.
I’ve never seen the new Mummy movie, and nothing in your description encourages me to do so. It is very easy for me to find movies to watch that are better than a “serviceable action movie that’s a tad woke.”
I’ve been very fond of “The Mummy” for many years now. I think that it’s one of the most endlessly rewatchable movies ever made. Some of the CGI looks a bit rough by today’s standards, but the Ray Harryhausen-inspired style and tone of much of the action makes that not matter too much.
The movie never got much respect from mainstream critics, but I’ve always found it to be perfect for what it is and one of the best modern attempts to recreate a 1930s style of adventure storytelling (although I think that the movie that recreated 1930s adventure the best of any yet made – even more than “Raiders of the Lost Ark” – is still Joe Johnston’s masterpiece “The Rocketeer”).
Brendan Fraser’s accent is a tad modern for the 1920s, but I can overlook it due to just how charismatic he is as Rick O’Connell. Rick looks about as much like a pulp hero as is humanly possible (he is almost the spitting image of Doc Savage as he looked in the original 1930s pulp covers by Walter Baumhofer), is big and beefy enough to sell the larger than life action, and has a very charming sense of humor.
Evelyn “Evy” Carnahan is my all-time favorite female co-lead from any adventure movie, and I consider her to be significantly better than any of the “Indy girls”. I also think that the romance between Rick and Evy is one of the better and more charming of such romances of all time in the adventure genre. I like how well the two compliment each other, with Rick being ultra-capable when it comes to physical action, and Evy being a bumbling bookworm but highly intelligent. Neither would be able to succeed in the quest without the other. They also both save each other’s lives at various points, and there’s an interesting handling of the damsel in distress trope in that Evy willingly lets herself get captured by Imhotep because of how much she trusts Rick to save her.
“Fun fact: Evelyn was originally stated to be – and is still hinted to be – the daughter of Lord Carnarvon, who financed the discovery of King Tut’s tomb.”
That was their original plan, but they scrapped it and changed her last name from Carnarvon to the similar-sounding Carnahan in order to make it clear that she was an entirely fictional character (albeit somewhat inspired by the real-life Evelyn Carnarvon).
“Unlike other post-Ground Zero IPs, The Mummy isn’t obsessed with demythologizing or apologizing for its preternatural subject matter.”
There were moments (such as the line “Rescue the damsel in distress, kill the bad guy, save the world.”) that feel a bit like the filmmakers saying to the audience “Yeah, we know this stuff is ridiculous, but just go with it.” There’s a good balance, though. Just tongue-in-cheek enough to let slightly cynical audience members let their guard down and enjoy a story that they couldn’t if it was played 100% straight, but not so goofy as to turn into a complete self-parody.
The semi-serious, semi-comedic tone of “The Mummy” has been perceived by some people as modern, but I would argue that it’s actually very much in keeping with classic adventure and even horror cinema.
What many people don’t know is that “The Mummy’s Hand” (1940) is the “missing link” of Mummy movies. It inspired both the 1959 Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing version, and (as much as Stephen Sommers tries to deny it) the 1999 version to a far greater degree than the Boris Karloff movie did.
“The Mummy’s Hand” was a horror/adventure/comedy movie with a very similar mix of tones to the 1999 version, and included many similar plot elements, such as a secret society of people connected to the Mummy (although they control him rather than wanting to keep him from waking), a character destroying an item in order to keep the heroes from using it to find the location of the Mummy’s tomb, and the Mummy’s tongue having been cut out. It was also the first Mummy movie to feature the Mummy walking unstoppably onward as the hero repeatedly shoots him, something that both the 1959 and 1999 versions would later do.
The 1959 version also borrowed a lot from “The Mummy’s Hand”, including the name of the Mummy (Kharis) and some plot elements, but it went for a much more serious, straight-horror tone. It also borrowed a lot (including elements of the finale) from the sequels “The Mummy’s Tomb” (1942) and “The Mummy’s Ghost” (1944). The 1999 version feels more like a proper remake of “The Mummy’s Hand”, featuring a similar plot, similar tone, etc.
So essentially, “The Mummy” (1999) is a loose remake of “The Mummy’s Hand”, with a few elements from “The Mummy” (1932) and some influence from Indiana Jones and Ray Harryhausen movies (including an extended homage to the skeleton battle from “Jason and the Argonauts”).
Another important and often overlooked influence is “Dracula”.
The connection between Dracula and the Mummy goes back a long way.
The 1932 version of “The Mummy” is very derivative of the 1931 “Dracula”, reusing much of the same plot and cast. It could almost be considered a re-imagining of Tod Browning’s “Dracula” set in Egypt, with an added romance/reincarnation angle.
The 1992 version of “Dracula” has certain portions that were faithfully adapted from the novel, but included a major deviation in the form of a romance/reincarnation subplot curiously similar to that of the original “The Mummy”.
The 1999 version of “The Mummy” bears a strong resemblance to the plot of both the book and 1992 Coppola adaptation of “Dracula”, making it hard to figure out which it was more influenced by (as the reason for the romance subplot is mostly that it was present in the original version of “The Mummy”). The 1999 version differs from both the original 1932 version and the 1992 “Dracula” in that there is no explicit reference to reincarnation. Evelyn is never actually implied to be the reincarnation of Anck Su Namun. Imhotep simply mistakes her for Anck Su Namun, due to the vision-impaired pair of eyes he had stolen (as confirmed in the director’s commentary), and later decides to make her the sacrifice to bring Anck Su Namun back to life. (Personally, this is one of my favorite things about the 1999 version, as I’ve never liked the reincarnation subplots present in most mummy movies.)
Explicit references to reincarnation in the Stephen Sommers Mummy franchise didn’t appear until “The Mummy Returns”, in which Anck Su Namun is reincarnated, and Evy is suddenly (to the point that it seems inconsistent with the first movie) revealed to be the reincarnation of Nefertiri.
The similarities to the book of “Dracula” in the 1999 version of “The Mummy” include:
Beni has a “monster’s servant” role very similar to Renfield. The way Imhotep first bribes him by holding out his hand and showing him some gold is similar to the way Renfield describes Dracula as “promising me things—not in words but by doing them.”
Dracula starts off looking very old, but rejuvinates (becoming stronger and looking younger) after preying off of the crew of the Demeter. Imhotep starts off as little more than a skeleton, but becomes stronger and more human-looking as he preys off of the Americans.
Dracula attempts to make Mina a vampire and his servant. A large part of the motivation of the heroes is to destroy him before he finishes destroying her. Similarly, in “The Mummy”, the heroes must prevent Imhotep from killing Evy.
Dracula can control various animals, including bats, wolves, and rats. He uses this power, especially with wolves, to his advantage several times in the novel. Imhotep does much the same with insects.
Just as hordes of rats are often to be found near Dracula, hordes of scarabs are seldom far from Imhotep.
Imhotep can turn himself into sand in much the same way Dracula can turn himself into a mist. The way he enters Evy’s room through the keyhole as sand is similar to how Dracula entered Mina’s room as a mist to attack her.
A cat to Imhotep = a crucifix to Dracula.
Much like Abraham Van Helsing in “Dracula”, Ardeth Bey is the one who knows more about the monster and how to defeat him than the rest.
In “Dracula”, Jonathan Harker goes to Dracula’s castle, and by doing so, unwittingly helps Dracula become able to leave Transylvania and start trouble near Harker’s home. Dracula is then chased back to his home by the team of heroes, where he is killed on his own turf. Imhotep similarly is empowered by the unwitting actions of the heroes, goes to the city where some of them were staying and causes trouble, then is later killed on his own territory.
In “Dracula”, Jonathan Harker discovers and takes some gold in Dracula’s castle. In “The Mummy”, the heroes ride away with several sacks of gold from Imhotep’s domain.
In “Dracula”, the heroes use swords and guns fight off a group of gypsies working for Dracula at the climax of the story. Similarly, there is a sword and gun battle between the heroes and Imhotep’s priest and soldier mummies at the climax of the “The Mummy”.
Dracula was killed by simultaneously being stabbed in the heart with a knife and having his throat slashed with a machete-like blade. Imhotep also dies by a wound inflicted by a metal blade.
Dracula was done in by a team: Jonathan Harker, Mina Murray/Harker, Abraham Van Helsing, John Seward, Quincy P. Morris, and Arthur Holmwood. Imhotep is vanquished by a similar team: Rick O’Connell, Evelyn Carnahan, Jonathan Carnahan, and Ardeth Bey.
The heroes of “Dracula” used both physical (knives, swords, stakes) and symbolic or spiritual (crucifix, holy water and wafers) weapons. The heroes of “The Mummy” similarly do so with a combination of such weapons as swords and guns, and cats and inscriptions from the book of death.
When Dracula dies, he crumbles into dust. When Imhotep dies, he deteriorates into a rotted form.
Interestingly (but almost certainly coincidentally), the ending of “The Mummy”, in which the city of Hamunaptera crumbles up, is startlingly similar to a part of the ending of “Dracula” describing Dracula’s castle crumbling up following his death, which was written by Bram Stoker but not published in the novel. A “deleted scene”, so to speak. This deleted portion went as follows:
“As we looked there came a terrible convulsion of the earth so that we seemed to rock to and fro and fell to our knees. At the same moment with a roar which seemed to shake the very heavens the whole castle and the rock and even the hill on which it stood seemed to rise into the air and scatter in fragments while a mighty cloud of black and yellow smoke volume on volume in rolling grandeur was shot upwards with inconceivable rapidity.
Then there was a stillness in nature as the echoes of that thunderous report seemed to come as with the hollow boom of a thunder-clap – the long reverberating roll which seems as though the floors of heaven shook. Then down in a mighty ruin falling whence they rose came the fragments that had been tossed skywards in the cataclysm.
From where we stood it seemed as though the one fierce volcano burst had satisfied the need of nature and that the castle and the structure of the hill had sunk again into the void. We were so appalled with the suddenness and the grandeur that we forgot to think of ourselves.”
As most of the similarities apply to both the book and 1992 movie of “Dracula”, it’s hard to say which was the main inspiration to Stephen Sommers. One possible influence from the 1992 movie is as follows:
In Coppola’s “Dracula”, Jonathan Harker fires a gun at Dracula, but Mina grabs his arm to stop him. In “The Mummy”, Rick aims a gun at Imhotep, but Ardeth Bey grabs his arm and tells him “live today, fight tomorrow.”
“So dust off your DVDs”
Speaking of DVDs, “The Mummy” is the biggest leap in quality from DVD and Blu-ray to 4K that I have ever seen. The 4K edition is astoundingly good and blows the DVD and the (horribly DNR’ed and badly graded) Blu-ray out of the water. Every single piece of film grain is beautifully preserved and everything looks perfectly filmic, as if one is watching a 35mm print.