The Mummy Retrospective: The Conclusions

THE MUMMY RETROSPECTIVE: 

THE CONCLUSIONS

The myth of "the mummy's curse" is so engrained in popular culture that we take it for granted that is a longstanding fact that entering an ancient Egyptian tomb will unleash supernatural dangers. In reality, this idea of a curse and of a long-dead Egyptian shuffling along, all wrapped up in cloths, is a Hollywood invention. 

This invention is more perplexing when you stop to watch the four Mummy films that I saw for this retrospective. Save for the 1959 version, none of the Mummy movies featured anything close to the popular conception of a bandaged, slow-moving, moaning figure. I figure that this image came from the myriad of sequels or follow-ups, which I did not see for this retrospective. In the same way that Frankenstein's monster evolved from an articulate creature to a slow, grunting one, this Universal monster went from mysterious to almost camp.

Three of the four Mummy movies have held up rather well. Each brought their own take on this figure too. The one exception? The 2017 Mummy. I think the reason the 2017 version failed is because Universal Studios lost focus. Rather than aim to make one good movie, they decided to take The Mummy as the kickoff to a franchise, their hoped-for Dark Universe. It went from one action sequence to another, but there was no joy, no fun, no sense of mystery or adventure. We were essentially watching a trailer for something that will never come. The Dark Universe is dead, deader than Imhotep (or in the 2017's version, Princess Ahmanet).

That was never the issue with the 1999 version. That version of The Mummy was unapologetically fun. It was open about being a throwback, wanting to give audiences nothing more than a good time, blending action with romance and even a touch of comedy. The 1999 Mummy is still beloved by fans, I think precisely because it was fun. It was pure fantasy, with a dashing and daring hero, a beautiful and strong female lead, and if not a sympathetic antagonist at least one with a reason for being. 

Finally, there is the original 1932 version. That one has the benefit of being the genesis, not having to compete with what came before. I cannot say that it is "scary". In some ways, looking at it ninety-plus years removed, 1932's The Mummy is tame. However, this version of The Mummy is very atmospheric, eerie. It also has a standout performance from Boris Karloff or Karloff the Uncanny as he is billed on posters. There is a great use of mood in The Mummy. Karloff and the film itself look supernatural, otherworldly. This pushes it to being a strong, effective film. 

The first three versions of The Mummy were, to my mind, enjoyable. I thought well of the original and the first one made within my lifetime. The one between them was good but not great. The most recent one, well, I guess they tried. 

And now, my ranking for the four version of The Mummy, from Best to Worst.

1932

1999

1959

2017

Thank you for joining me for this Mummy Retrospective.