Movie question: why The Mummy remake is not able to win over the orig. from 1932!
Question: Iam sure my Bava loyalist - Fright Film fan knows the reply.
Answers: Iam sure my Bava loyalist - Fright Film fan knows the reply.
Lots of reasons why the 1932 film is still the best mummy film out there:
1. Director Karl Freund's incredible black-and-white cinematography. Basic, dreamlike, unforgettable.
2. A literate and no-nonsense script, which not only ties in with the (then) recent tomb discoveries in Egypt, the curses rumored to be guarding the tombs, but reincarnation as well.
3. A chilling and underplayed performance by Boris Karloff as Im-Ho-Tep, together with Jack Pierce's awesome makeups.
4. Deliberate pacing, plenty of mystery, some very good chills and some great scenes.
--------
The modern remake (and its sequel)(not to mention the goofoid "Van Helsing") are essentially special-effects extravaganzas, combined with scripts that play like Indiana Jones knockoffs and characters cribbed from 1970's comic-books---there's really nothing scary there, on any kind of human level. A couple of badly timed shock moments at the most--the rest is all sandy fluff and noise, and not worth the ticket or rental price, if you're looking for classic fear films.
I LOVE "The Mummy" and watched it twice more tonight! I love the sequel even more!
"The Mummy" with Boris Karloff does have more in common with Stephen Sommers' film than Hammer's "The Mummy" does. While the Karloff film always will hold a place in my heart, I'm hopeless when it comes to Mr. Sommers' works! After all, he obviously has great affection for the Universal monster movies. His father also was fond of them, which is why "Van Helsing" is dedicated to his father and those classic films.
Don't tempt me with both in the same night because I might just end up watching Jack, Evie and the rest instead of the original Imhotep. I must admit that I have both films videotaped.
As for Hammer's "The Mummy": I'm a Cushing/Lee fan to the heart, but I'm not all that fond of this film, mainly because it's more like those Universal sequels in which he lurches around in wrappings. Universal's sequels to "The Mummy" left him under wraps and meandering about either killing or attempting to retrieve his lady love. They have their own charm, but you can't say they're much like the original.
NOTE: I know exactly which film I'm praising. "The Mummy" was released in 1999, was directed by Stephen Sommers, and stars Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, Arnold Vosloo, Oded Fehr, and John Hannah, along with other great character actors. I felt that the Hammer film deserves a mention, too. Actually, I would recommend all of them for viewing though I probably list the Nineties films the most.
That fact is nearly true for all remakes. Today you have the possibility to use special effects true as life but without that you have to create the atmosphere of the scene and for that you have to include the fantasy of the audience. That means you need yourself a lot of imagination when you make a film.
Today everything is possible, there are no limits. That makes it too easy for the director and there is no room for the audience left.
Films, which are not remakes, are not exposed to that comparison.