--- title: "The Mummy (1932)" subtitle: "The original" author: Seth publish_date: 2025-06-02 08:00 date: 2025-06-02 08:00 hero_classes: text-light title-h1h2 overlay-dark-gradient hero-large parallax hero_image: film-1600x800.webp show_sidebar: true show_breadcrumbs: true show_pagination: true taxonomy: category: culture tag: [ movie, cinema, horror, review ] --- In an effort to keep better track of what movies I've seen, I'm taking notes on what I watch. This post contains some major spoilers about **The Mummy** (1932). The short version of the post is this: It's an OK movie, but mostly because it's historical and it still amazes me that we can see and hear performances from when they were recorded 90 years ago. As monster movies go, this isn't exactly amazing but if you're a fan of the Mummy series, then you have to watch the original. I only watched **The Mummy** (1932) because I wanted to see how drastically different it was from the [1999 remake](https://mixedsignals.ml/games/blog/culture_movie-the-mummy-1999). Well, it's different but not quite as distant as I'd expected. ## Plot As you may recall, in the remake archaeologists find a mummy of an Egyptian high priest named Imhotep. Strangely the mummy doesn't seem to have been properly mummified, and it's clear that in fact Imhotep had been buried alive in a cursed coffin. Imhotep is determined to resurrect the princess Anck-es-en-Amun, and believes he has found her reincarnation in a historian working with the archaeologists. Imhotep dominates the mind of a local man to retrieve the powerful scroll that has the power to destroy him and his plans, and then hypnotises the historian to lure her into a trap. For Anck-es-en-Amun to be resurrected, the historian must be mummified herself (I guess you can't be resurrected without dying first). A quick prayer to Isis resolves everything, Imhotep is destroyed, and Helen is free to go romance one of the archaeologists. No wait, I lied. That's not the summary of the plot of the 1999 remake, it's the 1932 original plot. But even if you've seen the 1999 remake, I'll bet you didn't notice the switcheroo. Why? While the implementations differs drastically, the plots are basically identical. ## The differences The 1932 version is old, black and white, and set almost entirely indoors on maybe 5 sets. Helen isn't half as charming as Evelyn, Frank isn't half as charismatic as Rick, and Jonathan isn't even in the 1932 version. Instead of gaining a whole host of mindless followers as he does in the 1999 remake, the Mummy has just the one servant in the original. The 1999 remake has a whole heck of a lot of set changes, globe trotting, boats, planes, camels, gun fights, scarabs, and much more. The 1932 orginal really leans into Boris Karloff acting kind of creepy, and the idea that old-stuff-from-the-far-East can be spooky. The differences aren't surprising. The language, to say nothing of the technology, of cinema changed a lot in 67 years, so the way the movies told the story also changed. What surprised me was that the story was so similar. Call it inspiration or respect or just a remake, but the 1999 version is very much an iteration upon the original. ## OK mummy movie As a movie taken on its own, **The Mummy** (1932) is OK. I like old movies, I like the subject matter, but it's not terribly suspenseful and there were definitely better monster movies coming out before and after **The Mummy**. As pleased as I was to see the common threads between the two films, I have to admit that for me the 1999 remake version is the superiour movie. I was raised on old movies, I went to film school, I've sat in film theory classes, so the age of the original doesn't bother me. It wouldn't exist without the original paving the way, but the remake does tell a more compelling story, it's got superiour characters, and a punchier script. An interesting movie to see, especially for fans of horror, adventure movies, and Imhotep.

Lead photo by Anika De Klerk on Unsplash