cB391 Decided to write a review after seeing all three films today. Quite happy with the first one after seeing the other "masterpieces". This film definitely had it all, people killing for no reason, evil triumphing over good, the true love that the mummy has being not developed properly (at least until the second film). The acting is as you would expect, which means that it was bad. The story is as comical as any. The inability to harm the major characters fits with the culture.In conclusion, if you go into this expecting anything other than some good cinematography, you are an idiot. If you enjoyed it, don't watch the next two films. Be happy that you saw the best in the series and end it there. If you can turn off your brain for a while, this might be fun. On the other hand, YouTube has tons of conspiracy theory videos on ancient Egypt, which might be better.

driftboyvj I remember seeing this movie in the early 2000's on rented DVD. Movie is a complete entertainer in terms of action and adventure. There is non stop action till the very end. The story line and plot are mildly interesting if you are into ancient Egypt and mummy sorts of things. Acting have done their job very pretty well. CGI are at par with that time. You can watch it one fine evening if you are in mood for a India Jones type movie.

TheOneManBoxOffice The original version of "The Mummy" from 1932 was one of a series of monster movies made famous by Universal Pictures. Directed by Karl Freund, and following in the footsteps of the likes of Todd Browning's "Dracula" (1931) and James Whale's "Frankenstein" (1931), it was a horror classic about a mummified Egyptian priest called Imhotep who was inadvertently brought back to life after an archaeologist reads an ancient spell, and then prowls the city of Cairo intending to revive his lover, the Princess Ankh-es-en-amon. It was a hit, and it became one of several movies that make up the Universal Monsters franchise.65 years later, because the revivals of different movie monsters were becoming hits in the '90s, the studio decided to remake the original 1932 film, only instead of having it a straight-up horror movie, they take the Indiana Jones route and made it a swashbuckling adventure movie. As a result, we have a movie that's more of an original work than a direct remake of a black and white movie from the 1930s.3,000 years ago, the high priest Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) suffers a fate worse than death as punishment after desecrating the tomb of Anck-Su Namun (Patricia Velásquez), wife of Pharaoh Seti I and Imhotep's lover. The punishment: live mummification and the worst of all Egyptian curses where, if brought back to life, would unleash hell upon all of the land, plagues and all. Unfortunately, 3,000 years later, two teams of treasure hunters set up a digging site in the lost city of Hamunaptra and come across Imhotep's sarcophagus, and the book of the dead (not to be confused with the one in the "Evil Dead" trilogy). One night, one of the treasure hunters, a librarian named Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) decides to give said book a read. Bad idea, as the book contains the passage that brings Imhotep back to life. Imhotep's revived, he still wants to bring back his lover Ankh-Su Namun, and everyone's screwed. So it's up to our ragtag team of heroes, which include Evelyn, her brother Jonathan (John Hannah), and Rick O'Connell (Brendan Fraser) to reverse the curse and save the world.Whether you think the history behind Ancient Egypt or figures like Ankh-Su Namun or Imhotep are accurate or not (fun fact: it's not even close) is irrelevant for a movie like this. What matters is that this is is an adventure flick done in the style of Spielberg and Lucas' "Indiana Jones" franchise. Yes, the plot can get pretty silly at times and the main hero of the picture, Rick, is more of a wisecracking jackass best suited for an action comedy. That's also not to mention that some of the CGI hasn't really aged that well since the movie's release in 1999. However, for your standard adventure movie fare, "The Mummy" is a fun movie in its own right, and a lot of the effects seen in the movie were groundbreaking for the time, so I gotta give credit where credit is due.The movie reached #1 at the box office upon release, and the director of the film, Stephen Sommers, has stated in an interview that a day after the movie was released in theatres, Universal Pictures contacted him over the phone and said "We need another one!". Thus, the film spawned two sequels: "The Mummy Returns" in 2001, and "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" in 2008. A video game would also be made and published by Konami in 2000, and yes, even an animated television series would be released. As for the movie itself, it's still a fun romp to watch, and with the new re-imagining already released in theatres this year starring Tom Cruise, it would definitely be worth seeing this film again before going to see that one, and even if the newer one sucks, at least you have this one and the original 1932 film to keep you company.

Anssi Vartiainen Let's face it. No one's going to claim this is a good movie. Its plot is clichéd, the characters are stereotypes - and quite often racially insensitive - the villain is one-dimensional and the acting can be hokey. But let's also not forget that it's fun. It's tremendous fun!And that comes largely from the fact that the movie knows it had no chance of being great. So it takes its premise and runs with it. It has fun along the way and that translates to the audience as well. You can clearly see that the actors are enjoying making this film, so why not join in on the fun.The end result is an enjoyable romp through Egyptian deserts, tombs and bazaars. Plus, the special effects have aged surprisingly well. The Mummy is obviously CG, but in a way that blends well with the colourful set designs.I hadn't seen this film in years, but I still enjoyed it immensely even in this modern day. It's a classic 90s adventure film and well worth a watch.