The Mummy (1932) VS The Mummy (1999)

Being an 80s baby, I saw the 1999 version of The Mummy first and fell in love with Brendan Fraser as a teen. There is no doubt his perfection for the role, given his sass, acting abilities, and impecable delivery. I saw this many times before even approaching the original. I fell in love with classic film around this time as well, but didn’t see the original Mummy film until the last few years (and then revisited it for this article).

I was curious to see how the 1932 version with Boris Karloff compared. When I first saw it, I was blown away to find how different it is. I knew it would be the case, but I didn’t know by how much.

Both films have their considerable merits and because of how different they are, it makes it hard to choose one as the “better” film. They were simply made in very different times. So it’s not really a matter of one being better than the other, but which is the more enjoyable.

If you choose to buy these films, I may earn a commission as an Amazon affiliate. Grab the original here on DVD or Bluray, and the remake here on DVD or Bluray!

Synopsis

Both films involve the awakening of an ancient high priest/sorcerer named Imhotep. He is awakened by someone reading aloud–depending on the version–either a book or a scroll with a spell. In Ancient Egypt, the man had to endure being buried alive as punishment for trying to resurrect his lover, Anck Su Namun, who died.

Once awakened, Imhotep seeks out a woman to use to bring her back, much to the chagrin of the man who loves her in her current body/soul. They must find a way to send this mummy back to where he belongs and save the girl.

Things that are Different

Despite the basic premise being the same, there are several key differences between the films.

The Run Time

The first thing is the overall run time. I’ve noticed that many films from the 1930s end around the 70-75-minute mark, and the original is no exception. Given its shorter run time, there seems to be a lack of character development and story depth. They did what they could with the time they had, but in the remake, we get much more about the backstory of all of the characters, not just Anck and Imhotep which get a flashback in each film.

We know virtually nothing about Helen and Frank in the original while Rick and Evelyn are fully formed characters who both have a history before they fall in love.

For Frank in the original, it’s love at first sight while Helen seems unconvinced–as was I. With Rick and Evie, we get some great tension and a progression to them falling in love that’s simply not possible to do in such a short horror film in the original. The love story is more thrown in and just feels like something to motivate Frank to help her.

Anck dies in Different Ways/Relationship with the Pharaoh

In the original, Anck dies from disease and is a princess, so I assume she’s the pharaoh’s daughter. It’s sad but not all that dramatic of a way to go.

In the remake, they up the stakes by making her his mistress, whose outside affair with Imhotep is discovered. She kills herself and tells Imhotep that he needs to resurrect her. So she’s all onboard with the resurrection from the beginning. This is different from Helen in the original who, upon learning who she is, doesn’t want to complete the ritual because she already has a body.

There is no separate Ardath Bey/Ardeth Bay character in the original.

That is merely the name that Imhotep takes on when he enters himself into society. He can’t exactly call himself by his original name in the modern world.

In the remake, there’s no need for him to have an alias since he isn’t in hiding.

In the original, Helen is the reincarnation of the princess.

While this isn’t fully fleshed out in the remake, we do find out in The Mummy Returns that Evelyn is not the reincarnation of Anck like Helen is in the first film. The original is even a bit darker knowing this though because Imhotep is fully prepared to kill her so he can then bring her back to life again, undead, like he is.

In the remake, he wants to use Evelyn’s body to put her soul into instead. I don’t think this Imhotep would actually hurt Anck like the one in the original.

Imhotep’s Manner of Violence/Regeneration/Timeline

In the original, Imhotep wakes up completely whole. He doesn’t need to murder others to regenerate into a human existence like he does in the remake. This also makes it possible for him to hold down a job at a museum for 10 years.

The original is much more patient than the one in the remake. Although, I suppose the woman that Anck was reincarnated to in the original would have only been like 10 when he came back…so that wouldn’t have worked from that perspective.

There was also a montage that got cut that showed her other lives. Zita, who played Helen, was upset it was taken out. That would have been an interesting addition to flesh out the character a bit more. I’m sorry that we didn’t get to see that.

The Differing Genres

The original was intended to be a horror movie and is played as such. Imhotep is serious as are the situtations the characters are in. It is not funny because it was not designed to be.

The remake, on the other hand, is more like a dark comedy. There are freaky scenes to it to be sure, but it is not a straight-up horror film. There are plenty moments of comedy (“Hey, Beni, looks to me like you’re on the wrong side of the river!” along with many other lines come to mind).

These moments endear the entire movie to many. The original doesn’t have quite the same feel or lasting power, even though it was made in the classic film era.

The director of the remake, Stephen Sommer, said that he was inspried by the 1932 version. He first saw it when he was eight, and his intent with the remake was to pull the things he liked about the original but on a larger scale.

The Ending

****Spoiler****

In the 1999 remake, we get a happy ending. Rick and Evie are together and safe and in love. But the ending of the 1932 film is confusing and leaves us on an unknown. Frank tries to wake up Helen. She awakens, but we have no idea which personality she will be exhibiting. Is she still Anck or has she reverted back to Helen?

****End Spoiler****

The Players

Imhotep – Boris Karloff vs Arnold Vosloo

The biggest difference between these two actors playing Imhotep is that Boris Karloff is not in any way sexy, where as Arnold Vosloo is. In fact, a scene was filmed where Evie was supposed to say, “He’s gorgeous” upon seeing him whole for the first time, but they cut it. The director also told him to watch Yul Brynner in The Ten Commandments to help him prepare for the role. Now that I know that, I can see it. Yul had this standoffish sexiness as Ramses that Arnold possesses as well. Maybe that’s why I like him so much!

These two are simply different kinds of Imhotep…

Karloff played him as more quietly dangerous. He’s more like Dracula where he’s alluring but not sexy. Vosloo is more passionate and gives us his emotions about his lost love. His heartbreak is more in your face and makes him a more complex character because of it.

Leading Woman – Zita Johann (Helen) VS Rachel Weisz (Evelyn)

By now, you can tell that my prefence is skewing toward the 1999 version, but I did find Zita to be a very interesting presence in the original. She was beautiful and intriguing to watch.

That said, the way Rachel plays Evie is magnetic. She has this innocence about her, and the first scene with her as a complete klutz endears her to us. Her line delivery and portrayal of the character are so on point.

Leading Man – David Manners (Frank) VS Brendan Fraser (Rick)

Frank comes on really strong to Helen, but doesn’t have much substance beyond that. His fast burn romance comes across as too fast, where as although Rick does kiss Evelyn upon meeting her, that’s sexy instead…especially with the reveal of him cleaned up afterwards.

Rick is a complex character and the length of the film gives him a chance to show us this and see his character growth. Frank really doesn’t have any. Brendan plays this lovable scoundrel with such ease and wit that you can’t help but love him.

Background Trivia

1932

Boris didn’t love this…

This makeup took 8 hours to do and is such a short part of the film. Despite that, this image has such lasting power. The look is also based on Seti II’s appearance.

It was made more difficult for him since he was completely encassed..meaning he couldn’t use the bathroom. As he said to the makeup designer and the guy who designed this (Jack P. Pierce), “Well, you’ve done a wonderful job, but you forgot to give me a fly!” He also said that the makeup was even more uncomfortable than what he wore in Frankenstein as the creature.

The Director Gave Zita a Hard Time

She said that director Karl Freund was super nasty to her because he needed a scapegoat in case he didn’t come in on schedule. It was his first time as a director.

They strongly disliked each other, and it seems like he just tried to make her life harder. In one of the cut reincarnation scenes, he put her into an arena with lions. She was the only one left unprotected as he and the crew were secured inside cages.

He also told her that for one scene, she’d have to appear nude from the waist up. She saw through his goading and has said, “‘Well, it’s all right with me if you can get it past the censors’–knowing very well that the cenors of the time were very strict. So I had him there.”

The Name Imhotep was from an Actual Ancient Egyptian

The real Imtotep was an architect and designed the pyramids. His name lives in infamy from these films, but he was respected in real life and not at all a sinister presence. Given his contribution to society, he was the only person other than the pharaohs who was thought to have descended from the gods.

Inspired by King Tut

When King Tut’s tomb was discovered in 1922, it was a big deal. This is also the year that the film is set to begin before Imhotep just hangs around for 10 years. This discovery and the curse that went along with it inspired Universal to make this movie.

In the film’s earlist stages, it was just intended as a horror film for Boris, but the screenwriter (John L. Balderston) was a foreign correspondent covering the opening of King Tut’s tomb, so he drew on that to write this film.

1999

Arnold hated this so much..

He had to be in these wrappings for four hours to film these scenes. I don’t blame him for being freaked out…just watching him makes me claustrophobic. Also, see the look in his eyes in this shot. They are so glossy as if he’s going to cry.

This Makeup Took Four Hours

Patricia Velasquez had to endure four hours of makeup application to get this body paint drawn on. Besides the loin cloth, pasties, and jewelry, she is naked.

Brendan has George of the Jungle to Thank for Casting

I can definitely see the resemblance to his look in George of the Jungle to this picture here. The hair is pretty much exactly the same. Due to the success of that film, they thought that he would be great as the Errol Flynn-type character of Rick.

Brendan nearly died..

During this scene, he stopped breathing and had to be resusitated. This filming could have quickly turned into tragedy. It is a reminder just how dangerous things actors do can be some of the time.

The Library Scene was done in one take

They must have been extremely lucky and well prepared for this scene to go perfectly in a single take. If that had not been the case, it would have taken an entire day to set back up again and reshoot.

What if…?

Rick had been played by Leonardo Dicaprio

Leonardo was coming off the success of Titanic and was interested in the role of Rick for the adventure and humor. But, he had already committed to the film, The Beach. He asked if that film could be delayed so he could do this, but the producers told him no. What’s funny is that The Beach ended up being delayed anyway.

While I like Leo, I don’t think he would have been as great as Brendan, who did a lot of stunts. Leonardo didn’t have quite the physique that Brendan did at this time, so I’m not sure he would have done as well with these pieces.

If I had to Choose…

Honestly, if I had to choose one of these to watch, I’d pick the remake (don’t hate me! I swear I love classic films!) for its nostalgic factor (it came out when I was 14), Brendan Fraser’s sass and handsome face, the fact that it’s funny, and for the complexity of the story.

That said, it couldn’t have been done without building on the original, so we need to make sure to give props to the original for that. And while I do enjoy Boris Karloff, he doesn’t quite evoke the same feeling as the sexy leading men in the remake. However, Karloff does what he does best. He’s creepy…so the original is definitely still worth watching to see him in his element.