Rating: 
Summary: Cheap Version of 'The Mummy' Legend
Review: As if to cash in on 'The Mummy' franchise, this 'Mummy' was released with the name of Louis Gossett Jr. on top. And it claims that it was based on Bram 'Dracula' Stoker's lesser novel 'The Jewel of the Seven Stars.' Forget these things now, and see 'Blood from the Mummy's Tomb' (1971) or 'The Awakening' (1980), both of which are based on the same novel.
Amy Locane plays Margaret, the daughter of an eminent Egyptologist who was found in a coma. On his body are found seven fresh scars, and the perplexed daughter calls in a help from her ex-sweetheart Robert (Eric Lutes). Then the things get out of control, for Margaret starts to see weird things (ala Rachel Weisz in 'The Mummy Returns'), and so one guy Corbeck (Gossett Jr.) is also called in, who is last seen in some institute (not again, please).
While the snail-paced story attempts to scare us with various familiar tricks, we know exactly what will happen next, well, because the film is called 'Mummmy' after all and you will see some poor guy wrapped in dirty brown bandage will resurrect from the dead, in this case in the dismal basement room of the sun-shining West Coast residence.
By chaging the location to America, and the time to the present-day, the film lost almost all the good things about the original Stoker novel, which belonged to the time of Sherlock Holmes and Dracula. Now, adding to this already criminal deed, the filmmaker seems to have been very reluctant to prepare enough budget. Consequently, the 'Mummy' here is no better than an extra in ragged cloth, which looks so cheap, yes, a cheap mummy you can buy for your kids.
Plus, acting ranges from so-so to terrible. Maybe I shouldn't name names, but you may remember the sad fact that Louis Gossett Jr. is actually an Oscar-winner who must be now living down the memories of doing this film. We want to forget this film, and that fact about Oscar, as much as he does.
Final verdict. Avoid at any cost.
Rating: 
Summary: THIS BRAM STOKER MOVIE DELIVERS...........
Review: BRAM STOKER'S THE MUMMY delivers much more than any other MUMMY movie released. The 1999 MUMMY movie had excellent special effects, but over all the movie's plot stunk skunks to death. Starring Academy Award winner Louis Gossett, Jr. (JAWS III) and a very strong cast. The acting is straight, never stupid. I did minus one star for having a very slow begining, but heck once you got into it, say a half an hour in the movie began to role. Based upon the novel THE JEWEL OF SEVEN STARS by BRAM STOKER.
Rating: 
Summary: Third Time's (Almost) A Charm
Review: Faithful third film adaptation of Bram Stoker's The Jewel Of Seven Stars (following Blood From the Mummy's Tomb and The Awakening) doesn't deliver all it promises, but it delivers enough to be worth watching.Archaeologist Lloyd Bochner is attacked in his locked study, and has left very specific instructions about how he is to be guarded while unconscious - the attack plainly did not surprise him too much, and police inspector Mark Lindsey Chapman wants to know why. Chapman thinks Bochner's estranged daughter, Amy Locane, had something to do with it. His suspicions aren't helped any when other people in the household begin suffering accidents, and Locane always just happens to be the only one nearby. Locane and her Egyptology student boyfriend seek out Bochner's old colleague Louis Gosset, Jr., presently an outpatient at the local asylum. Gosset was with Bochner when he made his most stupendous find in Egypt, the tomb of Tara, a sorceress queen so feared that her name was erased from history. He knows - as does Bochner - that the attack was somehow engineered by Tara's ancient black magic, and that there's more where that came from... The production on this movie is really quite handsome. It's dark and rich and colorful, with a wonderfully atmospheric music score. The sets and set pieces seem more authentic than usual for this kind of film. The performances range from good to adequate. The script is actually pretty decent, and the style refreshingly low-key (though there are a couple of splashy special-effects lapses). It's rather slow, and stretches credibility a bit, but you have to expect that in a movie with dusty mummies walking around strangling people - and the mummy is pretty creepy, at that. All three versions of this story are pretty good. This isn't the best, but it's imminently watchable and attractively packaged throughout.
Rating:
Summary: Bad Movie, never again
Review: first and for-most Bram Stocker did not write the mummy, so this is not his story. This is just a ploy to get you to watch this if you liked the Dracula title. This is a crappy way to get people to watch a movie. Maybe they should have called the move, "A Crappy Ploy to Rip Off the Ignorant" Bad movie, nothing origional. Donot waste your money.
Rating:
Summary: Terrible!
Review: First, I would like to say to who ever said that Bram Stoker did not write The Mummy is wrong! Bram Stoker did write the Mummy, I finished reading it in January of 1997! And this, although faithful to the book, is lame, and violent, with bad acting. Whoever made this was trying to copy the brilliance of Bram Stoker's Dracula (which is indeed "brilliant"), but did a poor job. If they wanted a good movie, the director should have been Francis-Ford Coppola, the director of Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Rating:
Summary: There was a mummy in this mummy movie??????
Review: I am probably one of the world's foremost biggest fans of the Mummy genre. I have damn near every one available on VHS and even a few recorded off of that old show Saturday Night Dead. But this film was the biggest waste of money, time and energy I have ever encountered. I guess they thought that if they marketed it as 'Bram Stoker's Mummy' that it might have the same shelf appeal as the Dracula re-release. It doesn't. It is trash. The actors are trash. The script is trash. The special effects would have been trash too if the production crew had decided to pool a few bucks together to give the film any. Read what others have to say and take it to heart. Rent Howling V instead, you'll be much happier, you know what I'm saying?
Rating: 
Summary: go ahead and watch at if you like mummys
Review: I havent seen this one I saw the newest one they came out with in 1999 It was great to so I must say if you like stuff with mummys and supense you MUST watch it. It is a very intresting movie I tried to get my mom and father to go see it but my dads not a mummy type of movie but go waste the money and watch the newest one that came out in 1999
Rating:
Summary: WHAT CAN I SAY????
Review: I'll explaine the movie in one sentence: Go see the 1999 Universal remake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now the rest. An okay movie with a tired premise. The same thing with the new MUMMY, but Stephen Sommers completely re-invented the mummy myth. This HBO/direct to video movie uses the same Karloff/Lee formula from the 30's in the 90's, but tries to make it EXITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rating:
Summary: A "B" movie for the '90s...
Review: If you're looking for a classic tale of horror and suspense, and life beyond the grave, pick up "The Mummy". You know, the one with Boris Karloff. Universal Studios, 1931. If, however, you fancy yourself a fan of incredibly chessey "B" horror movies, then this is a good one to see. Particularly if you like to watch the old Hammer movies. This is along the same lines.
Rating:
Summary: A "B" movie for the '90s...
Review: If you're looking for a classic tale of horror and suspense, and life beyond the grave, pick up "The Mummy". You know, the one with Boris Karloff. Universal Studios, 1931. If, however, you fancy yourself a fan of incredibly chessey "B" horror movies, then this is a good one to see. Particularly if you like to watch the old Hammer movies. This is along the same lines.
|
