Monday, May 20, 2019

The Mummy (1932)

I expected something very different from this version. I expected guy in bandages walking around and killing people. Old mummy movie I had seen was that kind of movie. This was actually good movie. It tells about Imhotep who was cursed to be living dead for trying to resurrect his dead love. And of course English archaeologists who find his tomb.

I always wondered why Boris Karloff's performance was praised. It was when I thought he was wrapped in bandages. He is more like hypnotic wizard. Without his performance the story wouldn't have worked. He brings other worldly tone to scenes he is in with still being relatable with his love story. He is not evil. He is more man trying to resurrect his love at any cost.

I didn't write anything about curse being connected to box rather than coffin in 1999 version review. It comes from this movie. I don't think it was explained in 1999 version. Here it is explained that the text in the box is more dangerous than man in the coffin. Which makes sense. I thought it was minor plot hole in 1999 version to make heroes find the coffin without getting the curse.

Quick comparison to 2017 version. Helen in 1932 version has more agency than Jenny in 2017. Let that sink in. To benefit 2017 version Tom Cruise doesn't act like he could force female lead to have sex with him which happens in 1932 version. I guess that was viewed romantic 1932. Outside that one scene male lead is overly romantic.

I have hard time putting first two versions in order which was better. 2017 version was the worst. 1932 and 1999 versions are both good and both are good for different reasons. 1932 made Imhotep more relatable thanks to Boris Karloff's performance but you have to endure 1932 acting from other actors and 1932 writing. Brendan Fraser can't carry 1999 version as well as Karloff. 1932 is more horror and 1999 more fun action. Both are worth watching. You can safely skip 2017 version.

No comments:

Post a Comment