if Hollywood thinks this film is old enough to be needing a reboot. This is one of those films that is so much fun to watch and rewatch. I don't think the film has aged badly to warrant a reboot. I think the cast did a fine job in this film(disregard the sequels). If anything needs a reboot then it would be the 2nd and 3rd films. Any people out there who actually think we need a reboot of the whole franchise?
-'Human intelligence' is an oxymoron-
I agree. I'm partial because I've always enjoyed this movie, but I think this movie is excellent at what it does; the dialogue is fun, the characters are engaging, and I don't think the special effects have aged all that badly in 13 years.
Also, I'm over the "gritty reboot." The Dark Knight was cool and all, but I don't see why every fun action movie has to be remade into some 3-hour philosophical depression-fest.
Fraser was great. He delivered his lines and expressions comically and perfect with the tone. I don't see how they can replace him and if they're truly going for a more serious tone then what the hell is the point of the movie. I'm sick and tired of films rebooting to seriousness after Nolan made it trendy.
-'Human intelligence' is an oxymoron-
I totally agree.
My husband and I have just been watching it as summer holiday treat and we were talking about how rare this kind of movie is becomming.
Its fun action-adventure, rather silly in a lot of ways but also extremely entertaining. And it leaves you in a good mood. I can't see anything wrong with that.
I enjoyed this movie but 60 years after the original (1932) this isn't much of an improvement, in fact the original Karloff movie is far superior to it. They should stop rebooting the Mummy (1999) and get back to the feel of the original Karloff movie, give us horror not a Saturday morning serial.
shareI like this remake better than the original movie. I've never really been able to get into the original. Its very dry and kind of boring compared to this one. 1932 Mummy is probably my least favorite out of all the original Universal monster movies.
shareI'm sorry but the 1999 version is so much more superior than the 1932 one.
Just like The Thing in the early 80s is superior to the one in the 50s, or The Fly from the 80s is superior to the 50s version, and Pacino's Scarface is superior to Muni's.
No movie needs a reboot, especially not this one since it's great and only 14 years old.
shareWell, from all I've heard, the new Mummy movie isn't going to be anything like this one. It's going to be set in modern times, in America, and is apparently going for a "Jurassic Park" type of style.
Part of what I enjoy about the 1959 and 1999 versions is that they barely qualify as remakes of the 1932 version (although they both are heavily influenced by "The Mummy's Hand" (1940). They take the basic concept, and go in a whole new direction with it. I can enjoy the existing versions on their own merits, as they are all so different. So, if the new version turns out well, and isn't much like the 1932, 1959, or 1999 versions, then there'll just be yet another Mummy movie to enjoy.
Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!
If it's Jurassic park style, all hope is lost. I hate to be a cynic, but Hollywood has ruined everything cool from our childhoods.
This was my favorite franchise until Scorpion King and the third. I just couldn't watch the third without Rachel in it...
:(
they're rebooting this??? that's BS. this movie is amazing
www.youtube.com/bernardpumpkin
them haterz cant tell me nothin
[deleted]
The time limit rule is for remakes, not reboots which are done when a franchise installment dissapoints critics, fans and general audiences. That's what happened with THE MUMMY 3. Also, the plan is to create a cinematic universe, so they're rebooting all the Universal monster movies.
share