WARNING: This Review May Contain Spoilers
I completely understand the idea of travelling to Egypt and investigating the tombs of long dead pharaohs but resurrecting one? Even if it’s by accident? Well, I guess Forrest Gump said it best; ‘Stupid is as stupid does.’ It would of course be misleading of me if I did not mention that the 1999 version of The Mummy is actually based on the 1932 film, but unfortunately I was unable to get hold of it. So, I went for the next best thing, the Hammer Horror version.
No Harm Ever Came From Reading
I think Evie would be doing her best to take those words back as soon as she read from the Book of The Dead. Unfortunately it is doing exactly that, reading, that causes the problems for both Evie’s team and the Bennings in the 1959 film. Mr Benning also awakens a mummy by reading from the scroll of life.
Dead Ringer for Love
Now I will admit, it’s a little unclear in the 1999 version of The Mummy if Imhotep is drawn to Evie because she actually looks like Anck-su-namun or if it is because she is the first woman he has seen in 3,000 years. On the other hand, it is actually mentioned by John Benning in the 1959 version that his wife Isabel is a spitting image of Princess Ananka. This is also noticed by the Mummy itself when she tries to stop it from killing John the first time. So much so that they deliberately use this to their advantage at the end of the film to save John’s life. The Mummy even kills the man that has been controlling him all along when he attempts to murder Isabel, and then takes her away with him.
A Different Style of Story
I’m sure it’s pretty obvious that the film made in 1959 is going to take on a darker vibe than the 1999 remake as it is made by Hammer Horror. If I’m honest however, there are times that it comes across as a bit more of a murder mystery than a horror film. The remake on the other hand, has a much more comedic nature to it. This comes as no surprise when you have actors like Brendan Fraser and John Hannah named in the cast.
Even In Death, Love Goes On
This is actually the main place that the two films are similar. In both adaptions, the high priest, be it Khaser or Imhotep, is in love with a woman that is out of his reach. In Imhotep’s case however, he literally gets his hands on Anck-su-namun which is how their relationship is discovered. Unfortunately for both of these men, their muse dies and they have to resort to resurrecting her. This does however, end badly for both of them.
Murderous Mission
Now we circle back to a part of plot where the films differ, the motive of the mummy. As I mentioned already, in the 1959 version the Mummy, or priest Khaser, is actually being controlled by an Egyptian man who had warned the Bennings not to enter the tomb of Princess Ananka. He does this in order to take revenge on the men that had desecrated her tomb then uses the mummy to murder them one by one. In the 1999 version of The Mummy, however, Imhotep not only kills the men in order to regain his canopic jars but also uses them to regenerate himself – the same thing he plans to (and fails to) do with Evie in the climax of the film in order to resurrect Anck-su-namun.
In Conclusion
Obviously I feel this would have been a better review if I had been able to get hold of the original of The Mummy, but you have to work with what you’ve got. For me, Hammer Horror did not exactly do what it says on the tin but it is a good film nonetheless. Truthfully, there is no real comparison between these two films as they are coming at the same style of story from two very different angles and I can see how they would appeal to different demographics. So for those of you reading this who have only watched one of these (and I’m not going to make any assumptions), broaden your horizons and watch the other one.
