Disclaimer:

This movie is rated: PG-13

There will be some disturbing imagery included in this review, so reader discretion is advised.

I also reserve the right to use mild swearing in this review.

I imagine you probably have two questions. One: why did I call this film The Mummy (1999)? For those who’re unaware, this movie is technically a remake of the classic Universal Monster flick of the same name made in 1932 starring Boris Karloff (last seen on this blog spreading misery to the citizens of Whoville in Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas!). Second: why, of all movies, did I choose this one as the first review of 2025? I don’t have a good answer for that. It just sorta happened.

With that said, Happy 2025! Hopefully this year will bring us all sorts of new movies to praise, rip apart, and stare blankly at. So, which of those categories does this film fall under? I’m not sure. When I was young, this was the first PG-13 film I was permitted to watch upon turning 13. At the time, it was surprisingly hardcore considering how gruesome it could be in its kills. Although, it’s been a hot minute since then. Has my opinion on it changed over time? To put it simply: yes.

I wouldn’t say I hate this film now, but my opinion on it has become considerably more mixed since I first saw it. Of course, I respect it for being grittier than most other PG-13 fare, but it can still be ridiculous. Despite being a straightforward story on paper, the movie makes it both convoluted and clumsy. Also, who could forget those effects? Clearly they were saving their A-material for the sequel. However, because this was a special film to me in my childhood, I have a bit of a soft spot for it.

So, while I may have liked it years ago, let’s put my faith in this film to the test. Grab your book of the dead and let’s raise a three-thousand year old dead guy from the grave in The Mummy (1999).

---

Oddly enough, this movie is much longer than I remember it being. Its full running time is 2 hours and 4 minutes which is pretty crazy since the original 1932 film was only 1 hour and 13 minutes. What’s the biggest difference between these two films? In the first one, it takes Imhotep less than 10 minutes of screen time to be resurrected and start wreaking havoc. With the remake,

IT TAKES A WHOLE HOUR!

What in the hell are you doing with the rest of your time? As it turns out: bad character exposition. Every character in this movie is either a plot vessel, an excuse for awkward humor, or both. And we’re stuck with them for the first hour of this movie. Let’s start with our rugged badass hero: Rick O’Connell (played by Brendan Fraser).

All he cares about is treasure, guns, and sleeping with women. I assume. Beyond this, there isn’t much else to him. The only thing that defines him is his interactions with other characters such as the wide-eyed librarian Evelyn (played by Rachel Weisz),

her greedy and annoying brother Jonathan (played by John Hannah),

and everyone’s favorite punching bag: Beni (played by Kevin J. O’Connor).

Normally this would be a good thing, showing someone’s true colors through their interactions with other people, but the only trait I get out of O’Connell is “strong man.” Despite being the protagonist, he’s the least developed character in the film.

Besides him, how’s Evelyn? She’s the love interest. I don’t know what else you expected. To be fair, it seems like Evelyn is more intellectually capable than anyone else in the cast, but beyond that she’s the Princess Peach of this movie.

I think Jonathan is supposed to be the comic relief of the movie, but Beni is more of a comic relief character and has more bearing on the story than Jonathan does. Jonathan is not only annoyingly unfunny, but also completely useless. All he does in the film is exist, bumble about, and make things worse. Why is he even a character then?

The only character I can forgive (to some degree) is Beni, because he at least is consistent with his characterization (being the selfish coward) and can sometimes get a laugh. I especially love this one scene where he runs into Imhotep (played by Arnold Vosloo), shortly after being resurrected, and tries to protect himself by praying to literally every religion that comes to mind.

There’s also these Americans who show up just to get killed (like a true slasher film) and I don’t even remember their names. Mostly because their names aren’t important. As I said before, practically every character is a plot vessel in this movie, and when these characters die they’ve fulfilled their purpose. If you want me to feel bad for them getting killed, you’re sucking at it.

Although, part of the appeal of this film for me is how dark it can be at times. The method Imhotep uses to kill his victims is very disturbing, especially this one with its brilliant sound effects and creepy shadow shot.

Although it does get stupid when we see how Imhotep looks after this attack.

Take your pick, I’m sure anything you find will look like they rendered it with a PS2.

With all that said, these effects easily undermine any sort of tension the film was trying to build up. This is disappointing because whenever the film uses a practical effect instead of a CG one, it usually looks good.

With all that being said, what draws people to this film? I can’t say “an interesting story,” because that wouldn’t be true. Much like the 1932 original, this film is about a mummy being resurrected and attempting to bring his long lost love back along with him. Simple enough. So why is it 2 hours? Again, I have nothing against long movies so long as they have a reason to be long. Instead of having the focus be on the mummy, Imhotep, this film focuses on these idiots.

I know I probably shouldn’t be referencing the original film so much, but it really does suck you in. It keeps the focus where it’s needed (on the reanimated corpse), keeps its tone consistent, and raises some interesting questions about the nature of love. This movie has nearly an hour more screen time and by the 15 minute mark I’m already questioning my life choices, because instead of delving into complex human emotions it goes full on into B-movie style antics.

Even excluding the horribly dated effects, the movie focuses too much on wacky humor to the point where the movie feels less like The Mummy and more like The Haunted Mansion. In one moment they may be trying to build up the weight of Imhotep’s powers, and the next they have O’Connell and Beni arguing. Then they’ll have hired diggers be melted with salt acid only to be followed by Jonathan nearly crushing Evelyn and O’Connell in a comedic whoopsie.

At every turn, this movie seems to want to betray what the original had in mind. However, I never answered my question. Why are people drawn to this film? Maybe I can explain.

---

Despite its obvious flaws, it does kinda work as a fun/ridiculous adventure movie. That’s what drew me in as a kid, and I’m sure that’s why a lot of other people enjoy it. Even now, I can’t deny that the journey on its own is weirdly engaging to watch in a “so bad it’s good” kind of way.

Personally, I’d say this film is an adventure with “slasher” horror elements. While it in no way represents the original film, I suppose you could watch it and enjoy it fine. If you don’t bother to pay too much attention to characters, story, or crappy effects then you can just enjoy this balls-to-the-wall ride. The film amounts to little, but it may not have aspired for much to begin with, so I can’t fault it for accomplishing whatever stupid goal it set out to achieve.

So, if you’re interested in a mindless adventure akin to several Indiana Jones knockoffs this New Year, The Mummy (1999) might just be the movie you’re looking for.

Let’s see…2/5 Boris Karloffs. That’s the best I can give this movie. I considered giving it a 1/5 for a while, but then I remembered my Avatar review. I gave it a 1/5 because it was trying to mean something only for it to mean nothing. With The Mummy (1999), it tries less so I suppose it offends less. Sure it doesn’t represent the original, but when you look at it in its own context…it’s still bad, but at least it’s comfortable being bad. To me, watching the film with that mindset makes it more tolerable.

I look forward to another year of reviews with you all.

Don’t worry, there’s more on the way!

(I make no claim of ownership for any of the images used in this post)

(Each of them are owned entirely by their respective copyright holders, which are not me)

(I’m just a humble blogger who talks about movies, I do not make them)

(Yet)