|
Post by jonesjxd on Sept 13, 2020 11:19:30 GMT
1999
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Sept 13, 2020 12:42:26 GMT
Well.....actually....I'm rather partial to 1959. Haven't seen 2017 yet. I take it you know that according to Peter Cushing, this poster motivated him to ask for the addition of the 'spear-impale-through' scene, because he learned the film would never show such a hollowness as the poster described, and he felt something similar had to be done for the film so not to cheat the audience.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 13, 2020 14:07:47 GMT
Arnold Vosloo in the 1999 film. He was cool and menacing.
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Sept 13, 2020 14:23:56 GMT
The screenwriter for the 1932 film had been working on a treatment for Haggard's She and you can see the influence. That's where we get the tale of doomed lovers reuniting and parting in cycles of reincarnation.
She was made in the 1930s, but from a different script, different writer.
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Sept 13, 2020 14:32:55 GMT
There were also elements of DRACULA added in as well (John Balderston wrote the Broadway version and the 1931 film) EXCEPT for the reincarnated love theme. Once Dan Curtis used it for DARK SHADOWS the plot point became integral to vampire films.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 13, 2020 18:35:15 GMT
1932, undeniably. Movies like THE MUMMY work best in stark sets and without much fanfare, without a lot of special effects.
The special effects give a lot of these modern age movies a goofy "arcade" look that make normal people moan.
I do like the modern mummy movies, but they just have zero atmosphere.
The best, of course, is CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB, where the mummy becomes the good guy at the end, and we get lots of character development, notably with Fred Clark's semi comic character.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Sept 13, 2020 19:41:24 GMT
I'm partial to the 1999 movie. The Universal and Hammer ones are a bit dry, and I skipped the 2017 one.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Sept 13, 2020 20:02:25 GMT
99 32 59 17
|
|