@A-Dubya said:

I rewatched it again. Yes, it still holds up well with its humor and action sequences. I do not have any desire to watch 2 or Scorpion King. I haven’t seen the 2017 Tom Cruise film, but heard it was awful.

The second is fun too (the 3rd one was awful, (The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor). It takes place about 20 years after the second one. The kid is all grown up & no Rachael Weisz as Evie.

The Scorpion King is just awful. Other than the 'scorpion king', it doesn't have any of the characters from the original movies.

loved the original mummy and mummy returns my 2 favorite movies!

Great movie. Admittedly I prefered The Return but that was only because Evie was more of a bad a$$ and not quite so bookwormish. I did not care for The Dragon's Tomb. Mainly because of being set in China and the change of several actors. The first two films were fun. Brendan Fraser have always been one of my favourite actors and Rachel Weisz-Craig was both lovely and brilliant. Like many I will watch the films when on television.

Always favourite for a rewatch.

I see a lot of negative things about it when I watch it. I'm glad it's popular with so many other people though.

It feels very low budget to me. I don't like the ancient Egypt opening scene- I'm more interested in "adventure" than a love story (of the priest and harem). I didn't like the introduction of the woman in the library- I don't really want to see incompetence. I remember the CGI being noticeably bad in many scenes (not just the monster CGI, but I guess backdrops). I think too much of the movie took place indoors- it felt cheap and boring or claustrophobic. And it felt like it was not shot on location- which was a real missed opportunity imo.

And the acting is bad.

I wish it was shot mostly outdoors, and at least in an Egypt-like location. I want to like it, but I can't look past the detractions when I watch it. I might like the 2nd one more, I only remember the train scene though.

Also, the pilot (played by Wilford Brimley or whatever), is introduced, and dies, all in like 3 minutes- and the audience is supposed to feel remorseful. I think that's true, I think it's like 3-4 minutes. Kind of sums up the movie for me- acts like Indiana Jones but doesn't do what's required to get there.

@issnce said:

It feels very low budget to me. I don't like the ancient Egypt opening scene- I'm more interested in "adventure" than a love story (of the priest and harem). I didn't like the introduction of the woman in the library- I don't really want to see incompetence. I remember the CGI being noticeably bad in many scenes (not just the monster CGI, but I guess backdrops). I think too much of the movie took place indoors- it felt cheap and boring or claustrophobic. And it felt like it was not shot on location- which was a real missed opportunity imo.

And the acting is bad.

The movie was actually shot in Morocco, which is a neighbour of Egypt. There's desert and North-African architecture everywhere in the movie. It totally looks like it's shot on location. And there's NO WAY you can portray ancient and 1920s Egypt by just shooting outdoors. Thank god they built actual (gorgeous!) sets to recreate that instead of relying on CGI like they do nowadays (and save for a few moments, the CGI wasn't bad at all, especially compared to today). It also reminds us of the old Universal monster movies it was inspired by.

Nothing wrong with the acting, these are very capable actors.

The movie was expensive, I honestly have no clue how it looks "low budget".😐

Thanks for the education about being filmed in Morocco. I don't think the woman is a good actor (especially in the sequels?). Nor Benny(maybe he's supposed to act like that?). (I'll go either way on Brendan Fraser). I don't think the Americans can be called good actors(?). And the monster is CGI.

Maybe the feeling I'm getting is "fake" or phony (like, where Indiana Jones takes place in our world, The Mummy takes place in fantasy land). And interior shots (especially dark ones) say cheap to me, like, lazily filmed in a studio. Especially when they're generic Egyptian hieroglyphs carved in styrofoam rocks, and torches. Like a paycheck, rather than people with love for their craft or focused on innovative movie-making. If the movie gets cheaped out on, so that they can hire the Rock and CGI him onto a scorpion.. I mean 99% of the movie is still going to feel "cheap" to me- I'd rather have that money spent on the adventure scenes. I want to see Brendan Fraser chase a tank on horseback, or fight a mummy in front of a plane, or travel from Egypt to Iraq, etc.

I skipped through, but in order of events:

• larger than life ancient Egypt (opens on CGI). We're inside for the cheating scene
• Exciting outdoor scene with the horsemen attacking. More action than adventure IMO.
• Still shot setting the next scene . Indoor scene with klutzy librarian.
• Fun saving Fraser scene. Then we're in a dark riverboat. And we're mostly in the dark/tomb. From, like 40:00- 1:13:00
• CGI scene setting again (asteroids raining down on exterior pyramids)
• We're still pretty much in the hotel / at night in the dark until 1:30:00
• 1:30:00 fun exterior Wilford Brimley plane ride. We have to watch the mummy force-control the sandstorm, but who cares, we're having fun outside in the sun baby. 1:30:28 - 1:35:13 RIP hero.
• 1:36 back underground to 1:54:30

I don't mind the CGI bugs and mummy and stuff. I think the CGI scene-setting kills it for me; I can't get into it. Maybe adding captions with details of the scene/setting would help for me, idk. Or, stick the camera up on a helicopter and show me the world this movie takes place in please (the villages, pyramids, etc.). It kind of reminds me of like a 1940's-1950's movie where they spend 1 minute saying they're in Nairobi, then film the rest of the movie in a Hollywood studio.

I want a cool adventure movie. I'm already bounded inside a dark movie theater.

That's what I mean by missed opportunity. So much cool stuff can happen outside in Egypt, but instead, we get stuck indoors in the dark. Maybe that's why the sequel with the train ride has a better memory for me.

If they'd given me 2 more Brimley plane rides a la High Road to China I think I'd be happy.

@issnce said:

Thanks for the education about being filmed in Morocco. I don't think the woman is a good actor (especially in the sequels?). Nor Benny(maybe he's supposed to act like that?). (I'll go either way on Brendan Fraser). I don't think the Americans can be called good actors(?). And the monster is CGI.

Maybe the feeling I'm getting is "fake" or phony (like, where Indiana Jones takes place in our word, The Mummy takes place in fantasy land). And interior shots (especially dark ones) say cheap to me, like, lazily filmed in a studio. Especially when they're generic Egyptian hieroglyphs carved in styrofoam rocks, and torches. Like a paycheck, rather than people with love for their craft or focused on innovative movie-making. If the movie gets cheaped out on, so that they can hire the Rock and CGI him onto a scorpion.. I mean 99% of the movie is still going to feel "cheap" to me- I'd rather have the money spent on the adventure scenes.

I skipped through, but in order of events:

• larger than life ancient Egypt (opens on CGI). We're inside for the cheating scene
• Exciting outdoor scene with the horsemen attacking. More action than adventure IMO.
• Still shot setting the next scene . Indoor scene with klutzy librarian.
• Fun saving Fraser scene. Then we're in a dark riverboat. And we're mostly in the dark/tomb. From, like 40:00- 1:13:00
• CGI scene setting again (asteroids raining down on exterior pyramids)
• We're still pretty much in the hotel / at night in the dark until 1:30:00
• 1:30:00 fun exterior Wilford Brimley plane ride. We have to watch the mummy force-control the sandstorm, but who cares, we're having fun outside in the sun baby. 1:30:28 - 1:35:13 RIP hero.
• 1:36 back underground to 1:54:30

I don't mind the CGI bugs and mummy and stuff. I think the CGI scene-setting kills it for me; I can't get into it. Maybe adding captions with details of the scene/setting would help for me, idk. Or, stick the camera up on a helicopter and show me the world this movie takes place in please (the villages, pyramids, etc.).

I want a cool adventure movie. I'm already bounded inside a dark movie theater.

That's what I mean by missed opportunity. So much cool stuff can happen outside in Egypt, but instead, we get stuck indoors in the dark. Maybe that's why the sequel with the train ride has a better memory for me.

If they'd given me 2 more Brimley plane rides a la High Road to China I think I'd be happy.

The pilot was played by the Welsh actor Bernard Fox! The scorpion king (The Rock/Dwayne Johnson) WAS NOT in the first movie!

I know, I'm teasing a bit & making allusions(:

I'll ask everyone who likes the movie, what genre would you describe it as? And what parts of the movie do you connect to that genre?

@issnce said:

I don't think the woman is a good actor (especially in the sequels?). Nor Benny(maybe he's supposed to act like that?). (I'll go either way on Brendan Fraser). I don't think the Americans can be called good actors(?). And the monster is CGI.

Rachel Weisz has won an Oscar, she's a good actress and I don't see how she gives a bad performance here. Benny is mostly comedic relief and does a fine job at that. As for the side characters, why do you expect Oscar performances from them in a popcorn flick? You mention Indiana Jones, but the supporting actors in those movies also ham it up incredibly.

Maybe the feeling I'm getting is "fake" or phony (like, where Indiana Jones takes place in our world, The Mummy takes place in fantasy land).

That's nonsense, both resemble our own world with paranormal elements. There's hardly any difference.

And interior shots (especially dark ones) say cheap to me, like, lazily filmed in a studio. Especially when they're generic Egyptian hieroglyphs carved in styrofoam rocks, and torches. Like a paycheck, rather than people with love for their craft or focused on innovative movie-making. If the movie gets cheaped out on, so that they can hire the Rock and CGI him onto a scorpion..

That's the sequel, not this movie. I'm sorry, but you have to be blind not to see the details of the sets. You honestly expect them to film in real pyramids or something?

I mean 99% of the movie is still going to feel "cheap" to me- I'd rather have that money spent on the adventure scenes. I want to see Brendan Fraser chase a tank on horseback, or fight a mummy in front of a plane, or travel from Egypt to Iraq, etc.

Trolling much? That has nothing to do with mummies in ancient and 1920s Egypt. I do NOT want to see something like that whatsoever. There are plenty of fighting and chase scenes.

I think the CGI scene-setting kills it for me; I can't get into it.

What a way too exaggerate. Except for Hamunaptra in the beginning, all scene-settings are non-CGI.

Or, stick the camera up on a helicopter and show me the world this movie takes place in please (the villages, pyramids, etc.).

And where are they supposed to find those in real-life and modern-day Egypt?

It kind of reminds me of like a 1940's-1950's movie.

Good, that was the idea.

I want a cool adventure movie. I'm already bounded inside a dark movie theater.

It's a HORROR adventure movie, allright. The dark is supposed to be scary because you never know what's creeping around.

That's what I mean by missed opportunity. So much cool stuff can happen outside in Egypt,

In modern-day Egypt it can't...

Hey man- it's a subjective opinion about a movie. If anyone wonders why people may not like the movie, I think I listed some reasons. I'm happy for the people who like it.

@issnce said:

Hey man- it's a subjective opinion about a movie. If anyone wonders why people may not like the movie, I think I listed some reasons. I'm happy for the people who like it.

Hey man, I can't help it that some of your "opinion" is wrong.

The reasons you gave are definitely not the reasons most people give.

🙄 Seems like you're the one trolling. It's right there on the screen, listed in order of appearance. AFAIK it was never considered a "good" movie- it was a low-end movie which became a cult favorite of a minority. From Roger Ebert in 1999: "Look, art this isn't. Great trash, it isn't. Good trash, it is. It's not quite up there with "Anaconda," but it's as much fun as "Congo" and "The Relic," and it's better than "Species." If those four titles are not intimately familiar to you, "The Mummy" might not be the place to start." To all the other Mummy fans reading this, I'm glad you like it. There are unique "bad" movies we all like. I know some of you aren't silly enough to argue that The Mummy is a "great" movie, regardless of your personal love for it. I wish you all continue to love it & find other movies you find as much enjoyment in as well.

It's a great thing to be able to observe multiple opinions and continue to enjoy and reflect on the stuff we like & dislike without berating other people. Find something else to do with your time Stratego.

Did you even understand what Ebert was saying? No one ever implied this was Oscar worthy, but UNLIKE YOU, even he thought it was "good" for what it intends to be, a popcorn adventure horror movie. You don't see him complain about bad acting, too much CGI , too little scenes shot on location or too many shot on cheap studio sets or too little action.

I don't berate other people for disliking something, it's not even about the fact that you don't like it (and not once did I argue the movie was "great"). I'm simply constructively criticising your arguments that are based on wrong assertions. Did you see me say anything about the British pilot character? No, because I actually think you have a point there.

My advice to you: before you write a review, take some time to actually think about it.