The original Universal Monster movies were a massive deal between the 1930s and 1950s. It's as if Dracula and Frankenstein movies were always being pumped out into theaters. When most audiences think of this series, images of crumbling castles, miscellaneous lab equipment, dark rolling hills, and tiny lamp-lit villages come to mind. They were quiet, chilly pictures that typically brought classic literature or mythic tales to the big screen. One of these pictures was 1932's The Mummy, directed by Karl Freund and starring Boris Karloff as the titular mummy, Prince Imhotep. While not a game changer in the series like the original Dracula or The Bride of Frankenstein, it's a reliable, shadowy, eerie entry in the Universal Monster series. The original Mummy film would spawn several sequels, spin-offs, and eventually remakes, namely the 1999 re-imagining, The Mummy, directed by Stephen Sommers. For many that grew up in the 1990s and 2000s, this movie was a huge deal. It's a messy, bloated, action-packed ride with a powerhouse performance from Brendan Fraser. Despite spawning out of a series of horror films, the 1999 take leans more into action and adventure filmmaking than it tries to modernize classic chiller tropes. They make for an interesting pair of films on opposite ends of the spectrum in the same "franchise," picking up slack where each other falters, while both being equally fun for monster movie fans everywhere.
Wearing Their Influences on Their Sleeves
The 1932 and 1999 Mummy films dually came in the wake of other vastly successful films, both highly informed by those that came before them. After the success of Universal's Dracula and Frankenstein movies, the studio was looking to dig up any potential monster idea that they could turn a profit off of, giving way for movies like The Invisible Man, The Black Cat, and The Mummy. In the case of the original Mummy film, it's a movie that does have its own individual traits and characteristics, a new and unique monster here and the occasional Egyptian backdrop there, but it also very closely resembles 1931's Dracula in particular. It's very clear that this is a film cranked out by a studio with a very particular in-house style and go-to roster of actors. If you've seen Dracula, and it's more likely that you have seen Dracula than The Mummy, then you have basically seen this film. Trade out the Transylvanian backdrop and crumbling castles for an Egyptian setting peppered with pyramids, and you've basically got the same filmic visual language. It's a Universal Monster movie, what do you expect? You've even got Edward Van Sloan in this film as Dr. Muller, a similar exposition-dumping character to his Van Helsing in Dracula. The Mummy would never reach the heights in reception or influence of the films that initially inspired it, but if you're a fan of 1930s black and white chillers, it's exactly what you want.
Although the original Mummy film has the perfect setup for an eerie monster movie, its monster-centric story has the potential to lend itself perfectly to other genres, namely the action-adventure subgenre. That's where the 1999 film comes into play, a reimagining clearly banking on the success of the Indiana Jones franchise. The classic Harrison Ford-led vehicles were globe-trotting films for sure, but they also spent a great deal of time rampaging through desert locations and handling ancient archeological objects. It has to be assumed that as the Indiana Jones series came to a temporary close with The Last Crusade, producers were looking to capitalize on what audiences might be missing in the iconic series' absence.
With the demand for more action-adventure films came the Brendan Fraser-centered romp, one that people continue celebrating to this day. It's not as well polished as the Indy films by any means, but it's so much fun. The action in 1999's film is CG-heavy and pretty goofy, a real product of the 90s, but it's all done with such a confidence that it's impossible to have a bad time with it. Fraser in particular is just on fire. There is no performance like his in the original Universal film, nothing nearly as enthusiastic or commanding of the screen in quite the same way. He's the reason everybody continues to come back to this film. Shout out to the standout comedic performances of the film from John Hannah and Kevin J. O'Connor as Jonathan Carnahan and Beni Gabor, respectively. Their stupid, stressed-out, overly-reactive characters are some of the most fun parts about revisiting the film. It's an action-adventure film first, but it isn't without its scares, either. There are enough bug-infested kills, people walking around without their eyes, and decomposed mummies to keep things spooky enough for horror hounds. In short, it's a great junk food movie. A total banger.
A Tale of Two Mummies
All of this being said, the most important piece of the puzzle that has continued to sell audiences on these movies for 90 years now is the Mummy himself. How do the two interpretations of Prince Imhotep compare? Well, in the 1932 film, there is a much greater focus on the Mummy character. Monster movie acting legend, Boris Karloff, is great in the film. He portrays a much sadder, more reserved character than the version that would come in 1999. This version of Imhotep feels like a cross between Karloff's slow creeping take on Frankenstein's monster, with the gentlemanly nature of Bela Lugosi's Dracula, all while being quieter and more unassuming than either of them. Karloff is an actor that uses his eyes better than most in the genre. He has a way of staring into the souls of everyone that he comes across, regularly putting both the characters and the audience in a hypnotic, trance-like gaze. There is a shot of Imhotep staring into the camera that is used several times in the film that perfectly displays this tool in Karloff's acting toolbox. He's easily the best part of his film, no doubt about it.
Given that the original movie has about half the runtime of its reimagining, it doesn't quite have the room to make Imhotep the menacing force that he would go on to be portrayed as in later films. In the remake, Imhotep is played by Arnold Vosloo, and he's a stupid amount of fun. In this film, there seems to be less of an ambition to make Imhotep a sympathetic character as much as there is a drive to bring the most evil, entertaining bad guy to the screen. In the original, once the Mummy is woken up, we flash forward to the following decade where he has already regenerated, giving the film more room to move along with a story solely focused on Imhotep finding his princess. In the remake, there is way more room to play around with the runtime, giving us plenty of scenes where we follow Vosloo's Imhotep around as he steals people's body parts. It's always so gross and mean spirited, but in the most fun way. The remake is a PG-13 action movie, so things can't get too nasty, but it pushes the envelope much in the way that the Indy movies had before.
So who's the better Mummy? Well, if you're looking for a more thoughtful, methodical performance, Karloff's is the way to go. He's not quite the perfect classic monster movie archetype, but he's entertaining and brings the Karloff-ian villain traits of it all as hard as he ever had before. You can't really ever go wrong with him! That being said, Vosloo's action-movie-villain-take on Imhotep with dashes of horror movie villain sprinkled in his performance make him really great in his own way. They're the same character by name and have largely the same desires, but they're told in such different ways that it really just comes down to whatever you prefer. The same could be said about the overall films in general. If you're looking for a good old black and white Universal Monster movie, you can't really go wrong with 1932's The Mummy. Is it Dracula, Frankenstein, or The Wolf Man? No, not necessarily, but it's got enough of the shadowy atmosphere that the other Universal films have with a strong performance from one of the era's best actors that if these types of movies are your thing, you'll be happy with what you get. As for the 1999 film, well, is it Indiana Jones? No, not necessarily, but if you could go for a bit of a louder, trashier, slightly more comedic take on the Indiana Jones series with some horror spices and herbs thrown in the pot, it's a fantastic watch. What's more your thing - early, black-and-white horror movies or 90s action-adventure romps? The better Mummy film is for you to decide. Much like Prince Imhotep himself, they'll always be around, never too late for you to dig them up and uncover their secrets.