Who is ready for next weeks review with AVGN!!! Support this weeks charity - www.youcaring.com/tubbsfirevictimssantarosacommunity-976726 Check out James' video on the original Mummy - cinemassacre.com/2007/10/06/the-mummy/ Grab a signed IT (2017) Nostalgia Critic title card here - theawesomestore.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=30000
Maybe it is because I grew up with it, but I cannot imagine this film without Brendan Frasier. He has this perfect mixture of the handsome, charming rogue and acting goofy to lighten the mood.
I love brendan in this movie but I think the issue with him isn't that he sticks out in this movie but he doesn't seem like he's trying as hard. His delivery is funny but this doesn't seem like he's giving his all.
I totally agree. I havent even seen the the new one. I didnt like the last movie because Rachael wasnt in it. But I still watched it because Brendon was in it
@Hello!Nurd Yeah you're right... Bruce Campbell was too awesome for it, and I'm not sure about Kurt Russelll, but Brandon Fraser? Yeah, his teetering between hokey and serious acting was perfect...
"Of course, having half your crew killed and your life threatened doesn't mean you can't get smashed the exact same night" That's what I'd wanna do. Why would I want to be sober after something like that?
I guess I'm a heathen. I actually liked the third a bit better than the second one. Jonathan's funny lines felt more forced to me in the second one and the reincarnation thing with the O'Connells just came out of nowhere. I missed Rachel Weisz but still didn't hate the third one.
Andrea Miller I’m not saying that you can’t have an opinion, but I feel like Jonathan’s lines were twice as forced in the third one. But how can I say that when number three has such comedy gems and treasures like, “my ass is on fire”
Of course it doesn't hold up today, it's 20 damn years old ffs, but it doesn't look half bad for its time... His ranting about the effects is way overdone...
WELL they were hoping to do a Monster Cinematic Universe, they just... tried starting with something they should've left alone. ... Wouldn't have minded a Wolfman or Frankenstein movie, myself.
kirby march Barcena I agree, the tone for 2017s the Mummy is all over the damn place, the 1999 version is better no doubt but I treat the 2017 version as a different entity tbh, and as such I LIKE it's modernized take on the tale even if the Brendan fraiser one is the superior film.
he's probably going hard on this one because the 1932 version starring the legendary Boris Karloff was better. but that doesn't mean this was bad in any respect it was a fun indiana jones style action adventure film with some horror elements.
What I like loved about this and the Mummy Returns is both movies actually used the real Ancient Egyptian language. Granted as it is a dead language the pronunciation may not be correct but the fact they researched and had the actors using it is impressive. No they're not perfect but I enjoyed them and the music is amazing.
I love this movie. I loved it as a kid, and I still love it as an adult. I don't consider it a guilty pleasure. I consider it a legitimately good movie. The sequel, on the other hand, I do consider a guilty pleasure. The third one sucks. Hard.
Fun fact: The actor who played Mr. Henderson auditioned for the role of Rick but failed, although the director liked his acting so he created the role of Mr. Henderson for him.
The Mummy, Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade, Freddy vs Jason, Resident Evil, X-Men 2, Percy Jackson, Jupiter Ascending, The Matrix, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man (pick one), Transfomers sequel you forgot you saw. Just to name a few.
This movie jumpstarted my interest in Ancient Egypt, for that it will always be my favorite. was surprised to find that the real Imhotep was a really cool guy though.
Having the same name doesn't mean they are the same person, Imhotep lived in the 27th century BC and the mummy Imhotep lived during Seti I time in 1290-1279 BC. Imhotep is just a name like Nick or Steve or Ptahhotep or Amenhotep or Sobekhotep. By the way Imhotep means "The one who comes in peace" and in particular hotep means among others means peace.
I believe it's the same for a LOT of us 90s kids. The same way that video games of the 80s made everyone want to be a ninja, this movie made a lot of us want to visit Egypt
Lets be clear the Boris Karloff Mummy was the original Horror The Mummy, while the Brandon Frasier Version was the original action adventure The Mummy. The only thing unoriginal about the Brandon Frasier film was its name. They are completely different films in completely different genre's, and the Tom Cruise the Mummy failed spectacularly as remake or reimagining of both.
Patrick Buckley well nostalgia crtit(?) isnt wrong tho the boris one IS the orignal film the 1999 one is just a remake even if it changed everything expt the plot and name its still a remake
Yeah the Scorpion king is hot garbage, which sucks because the design is fine, though perhaps it should have been more monster and less Rock, it was the execution that was awful
I think that the 1999 "Mummy" was a really good adventure movie. Of course it is not a masterpiece but it's climatic, well acted and the soundtrack was pretty awesome too. I was impressed as a 8 years old boy when it came out. It has not aged that bad, seriously. I like some of NC reviews but I don't find this one particularly funny. Too much forced humor. He's not convincing at all.
What is Doug's beef with Brendan Fraser? He was super charming in this movie. He was purposely supposed to be the lovable rogue, and, in my opinion, he delivered. I still find the main characters in general pretty great. I love Jonathan. I love Evelyn. I love Rick. I love Ardeth. I even love Beni. The movie in general is still really enjoyable and entertaining. I've never watched this looking for a serious film. I first saw this when I was 10 and it's still a ridiculously amazing, campy, nostalgic ride. People have already complained about Doug's constant criticism of the bad graphics, which arguably is annoying. However, Doug also seems to forget what the graphics of that time were and acts like they were already great. Yeah, this was the year the Matrix came out, but it was also the year the Phantom Menace came out. Also, The Haunting came out that same exact year (which yes, did get referenced in the movie, but not really in the context that they were this close together) as well as like, Idle Hands. The graphics and the design of 1999 was kind of all over the place. Even The Matrix, arguably the best one in that list, has stuff in it that doesn't really hold up to the test of time (for example, the random ending where Neo decides to Superman out of there), but people still love it. Like, we get it, you adore the originals, and that's fine, but this review ends up feeling like you just were forced to do this remake and therefore didn't really give it much of a chance at all. This movie was never trying to be the original or even the original remake. It never made that claim. And Doug acted like he understood that, but then still insisted on comparing them. It just felt really mean spirited and bitter.
From what I've gathered, he feels like he never really goes all the way with a character. He feels like he only delivers what's needed and never really makes them his own. Besides, he has more problems with Matthew Broderick. Even in The Lion King, which he actually finds very overrated (watch his Disneycember review of it), he doesn't like him, finding him piss poor bland.
I agree that the strawman direction Doug has taken with this review acting as if anyone has ever viewed the film as an attempt to do a proper serious remake is disappointing to say the least. It's a perfectly self-aware adventure comedy, and it does an astonishing job at keeping the viewer entertained.
"SHUT UP AND WATCH SOMETHING BLACK AND WHITE!!" "NNNNNNEVERRRRRR!!!" I laughed so hard because it's like trying to get my partner to watch my favorite Vincent Price with me. It's so sad what good films he and others are missing because they can't handle no color.
It's not the lack of color... Honestly most of the actors/actresses back then are a bit too....Shatner-ish in they're line delivery and hammy acting.. then there's the ones that started the grand tradition of non acting...like Bogart I honestly can't tell his movies apart...he's ALWAYS just Humphrey Bogart,no character exists, just like Sean Connery's thankfully retired ass.
So the main criticism is that the CGI is old. So what? The movie is from the 90's and not made by Steven Spielberg. It used what it had at the time. And besides, you keep beating the CG from this movie into the ground while there are plenty of movies that came out that same year or later with visuals that looked much worse. We can watch sophisticated shit sometimes, but other times we want to enjoy a nice popcorn flick. It's far from perfect, but damn if it isn't fun.
The cgi from this one doesn't even look that bad, sure I've seen better in other films but here it looks decent. The Mummy Returns on the other hand...
I can't be the only one who thinks Rachel Weisz was so goddamn beautiful in this movie. Growing up with this movie she was one of my biggest crushes. Still is but her smarts and attractiveness in this movie...
Well, he WAS planning to do a review of "Niagara" when he went to a convention in Niagara Falls, but then the audience demanded he review the Third Animated Titanic Movie instead.
Sorry, Critic, love ya but you got it wrong on this one. This is a very good movie. It's fun and funny, and there's nothing wrong with the CGI. Fraser and Weiss are great, as is the guy who plays the brother and the funny guy who serves Imhotep. I also love the music.
@@LeonStephan The Nostalgia Critic is a critic, his job is more or less hating things. (And being serious, the guy can have his opinion and you can have yours.)
Not gonna lie this movie will always hold a special place in my heart. Brendan Fraser was my first big celebrity crush and this film is a big part of the reason why.
One of my favorite guilty pleasure movies! I have to respectfully disagree with you opinion on Fraser in this movie though, half of the reason I think I enjoy this schlockfest so much is because of Brendan's very corny delivery. HEY O'CONNELL HEY O'CONNNNEEEELLLLLLL LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE GOT ALL THE HORSES!!! HEY BENNY! LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE RIIIVERRRRRR!!!
Doug, if you like the 1932 version better, that's fine. but saying the 1999 version is bad cuz it's action adventure and not horror is just wrong and very narrow minded.
Yeah, at least in the 1999 version, it was good ol' action horror entertainment fun, unlike the reboot with Tom Cruise, despite Russell Crowe being the only saving grace of the reboot.
Yeah actually the CG still looks pretty good considering it was like 1999. I think the criticism is pretty nitpicky considering a) the sequel's CG is wayy worse, and b) the reboots CG isn't any better.
Actually, messing with ancient corpses in Egypt at the time the movie was set in (roughly 1920s) would not be that weird. Okay, perhaps those in the museum would be a different matter, but in general, before the Egyptian tourist industry began, most Egyptians wouldn’t have cared for ancient, heathen corpses. Mummies were even ground up to be used in medicine and paint (which was also exported to the West, btw).
@@antonfredricson9205 I’m using the term heathen to reflect what I consider the likely attitude of the people at the time and thus why mummies would probably not have been seen as particularly valuable in and of themselves, not as an indication of my own value judgment.
Can someone explain this joke to me...? So what about the river?? Can't they just... idk... cross it right then and there if they've just crawled out of it alive?? Never could get this :(
Cationna They crawled out of the shallow sides of the river. Most rivers, especially old, wide ones like the Nile, generally have a pretty significant dropoff a few feet from the banks and the beds can go down quite far. Without knowing exactly which part of the Nile that is, we can safely assume it's one of the deeper parts.
Cationna Part of the problem is that it's quite likely that the river they're supposed to have been in would be the Nile. Not only is that river wide but is also home to dangerous animals like hippos and crocodiles. Both are known man killers.
Cationna because horses tend to be terrified of water (an instinct thing probably, since their ancestors had to be wary of crocs). It can be hard to lead a horse through an ankle deep stream, let alone the River Nile which has actual crocs in.
I hate when critics crap on old movies for having poor special effects. For god's sake, they did a good job with the technology they had at the time. It's like crapping on the 1981 Clash Of The Titans for using stop motion animation.
Yeah but Jurassic Park was made 6 years before this film and looks way better The CGI does not ruin the fun of this film upon re-watching but it definitely looks horrible
The story and adventurous comedy is golden, the cgi is gorgeous, why does every critic want perfect realistic effects but ignore that the movie is the most fun movie made in the last couple years.
To me when I was 8 back in 1999 was terrifying and I didn't wanted to watch it until 14-15 then it become one of my favorite movies and made me want to learn even more about ancient Egypt (I was a history enthusiast even before learning to read, by having my parents narrating to me history books or watching pictures and illustrations from history books)
@@mitsvanmitsvanio6106 I first saw it at 8 years old to. I remember freaking out during Anck-su-namun’s first resurrection scene that my mom had to leave the theater with me. Today i love this movie and the second one
I think this is the first time I have really disagreed with Doug. Is it an Oscar winner? No, but what it is, is a really fun 90s film that I think really holds up in terms of effects and acting. If you wanted to review a bad movie he should have reviewed the sequels!
I've seen worse. There's one TH-cam critic called Animat (he reviewed Where The Dead Go To Die) who bashed Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, a movie I really loved as a kid and still do, though not as much, but he acted like it was worse than Jack and Jill. My thought was, "Jesus man! What's your problem?!"
I just recently saw this movie for the first time, and I really enjoyed it, yes it's kinda silly, and yes some it's effects haven't aged well, but it's still really enjoyable.
Brendan Fraser was perfection in this movie 💦the chemistry with Weisz was incredible and basically it's going to be a classic in 20 years so whatever 🤗
well.no. Actually in the 18th people had no respect for mummies. They left them in open tombs where anyone could tamper with them. So...no, actually he would not be put in prison for joking with a mummy... back then they had much less respect for artifact, unless they were jewels. unless they were creepy private mummy collectors.
I would've GLADLY watched a Bruce Campbell mummy film. Benny's actor was also in van helsing. He played Igor in it. Not that my opinion matters.. But i love Brenden Fraser. His 90s/early millennium films are all imo decent
+Jeffrey314159 I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't really call _The Mummy's Hand_ a remake of the 1932 film (even with the shameless reuse of the flashbacks, which actually felt strangely uncomfortable to watch. It felt like it was just shitting all over Karloff's legacy, which I'm positive wasn't Universal's intention, but watching those few scenes with Tom Taylor awkwardly trying to pose as Boris Karloff still felt weird to watch), but rather just _another_ Mummy film, 'cause they're so different (I mean, they're great films, don't get me wrong), with more comedy and everyone walking around with revolvers and rifles, which are, as you say, a lot more reminiscent of the Brendan Fraser films.
I keep forgetting this was a remake of the original. Totally different vibe and it's trying to be its own movie. I mean it doesn't hold a candle to the original, but doesn't seem like it's trying to.
+Psycho Magalor Except there was no practical effects in Jurassic World. The only practical effect was the brachiosaurus. Which they only put in so they could say they used practical effects.
Oh trust me, he beats on Matthew Broderick worse. Even in Ferris Bueler's Day off and The Lion King (watch the Disneycember review of it), he still doesn't really like him. He's the actor that Doug just has a personal disgust for.
Anonymous Yeah, that’s one I’ve never understood either! Most people seem to think both of them are good actors who have made a lot of bad movies, but the Critic just HATES them!
The reason the curse on Imhotep will make him the most powerful creature of the world is because the curse makes him never die completely and he is meant to be tortured for eternity
Pretty late reply, but I'm not entirely sure that's true. Another part of the curse makes it so that he keeps summoning the different plagues from the story of Moses, such as when it starts raining fire on the city they're in, and he's shown to have other weird ass magic powers, such as creating massive sandstorm and moving things with magic powers.
@@ArkhanTheMack yeah.... WE CURSE YOU WITH ETERNAL LIFE AND THE ABILITY TO BE A WALKING W.M.D., don't really seem like all that bad of a deal in the long run
@@ArkhanTheMack Could just by side effect of the main curse which was meant to torture him for eternity. Probably didn't have a long list of curses that would let you live forever. I imagined it went something like this: Guy #1 : "You sure you want this curse boss? If he ever get out he's gonna be nearly unstoppable" Guy #2 : "What other choice do we have? That's the only curse that will make sure he never die from being eaten very slowly by the bugs maaan" Guy #1 : "So about the very slowly eaten part...."
@@randomguy2518 I mean, I think the curses are supposed to prevent human interaction. I mean, would YOU want to be with a guy who can curse you with boils and plagues? The mummy will be forever hated by humanity because all he does is bring about death and destruction. Of course though, once he gets his hand on his jars and restores himself and his lover, that's a different story...
Relative to most Hollywood reboots, The Mummy is one of the smartest and most creative films ever made. They knew not to attempt a recreation and they focused on making a fun movie. The original Fraser Mummy is still one of my favorite movies. Weird how in 2017 we're still getting lazy and soulless reboots, when in 1999 some people said, "fuck it, let's have Fraser fight CGI," and it actually worked both as a film, and as a financial investment.
Jimb0 I know there is and I fully accept that, I’m just saying that most people who like this movie and are mad at Doug for criticizing it seem to just be 2000’s kids who say it’s good solely because they grew up with it
Can we just appreciate the fact that every review Doug does a charity shoutout! That is very noble of you and I feel like that doesn't get appreciated as much as it should.
I adored Ancient Egypt as a child and these were some of my favorite movies; it was cool to have an action film that focuses on Egypt, even if it's not very historical (obviously lol). I try to forget about the third one though, it ranges on a scale from meh to pretty bad depending on how judgmental I'm feeling.
The original 1930 movie is a masterpiece and the 1999 was supposed to be a remake but took much more influence from the 1930-1940 mummy sequels witch were very much like slasher films so 1999 movie is basically a remake of the campy mummy sequels but the 2017 movie is just ass
Criticising the effects of this movie seems like a far stretch to find some more flaws. The effects are actually pretty good for 1999, and hold up well enough. Besides, this movie is still a fun, entertaining action adventure.
Uhm?! Here's a quick list of movies that came out around the same period (2 years after and 2 years before) with greater CGI quality that raised the bar to a certain standard (Not necessarily good movies): Titanic (1997) The Fifth Element (1997) The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) Starship Troopers (1997) Star Wars the Phantom Menace (1999) The Matrix (1999) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone (2001) Jurassic Park III (2001) Shaolin Soccer (2001) (Yeah, I said it, lol) The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
TheDorianTube ...Would you believe that the effects were done by Industrial Light and Magic? Btw, I agree that the effects were good for the time. Nothing amazing like LOTR, but good like the Matrix.
TheDorianTube Titanic and matrix were technological masterpieces back in the day, of course they hold up. But many of the other movies on your list either have just as "bad" effects than the mummy or they came out years later, and the technology advanced pretty quickly at that time. And, like I said, the rest of the movies on your list were technical masterpieces of their time, so it's a bit unfair to compare the mummy to those movies.
The CGI isn't that bad. Yeah, those effects might be what B-movies are using *now*, but that's just because those only have the budget to use effects from 20 years ago. The effects, which were done by ILM, were actually kinda praised at the time.
Man I love when NC and AVGN get together. Mutual respect between actors, mutual disrespect between characters. Cracks me up every time. 25:36 "Here's the link!" DONT ADVERTISE YOUR CHANNEL ON MY CHANNEL!
I honestly could see sam raimi remaking the mummy in a tongue and cheek way, with bruce campbell as rick o'connell, and just like in the evil dead trilogy, raimi would have so much fun fucking with campbell
Rewatching and 3:12 when he shouts "Shut up and watch something black and white!" and Tamara responds "NEVER!" reminds me of an interaction myself and my little bro would have XD
Bro, if you had this movie and blu ray or DVD, the main title screen music scared the shit outta me. It sounded like a bass guitar being strung by a long violin stick (idk what its called) going down octaves giving off a skin crawling haunting noise. I love it now
This was the first horror film I ever saw. I don't even remember how young I was, maybe somewhere between the ages of 8-11. Anyway, I wanted to watch this movie with my friends but my dad said no. So my friends watched it without me and they loved it. I felt left out so my dad said I could watch it with him. He was worried I would have nightmares and wouldn't be able to sleep. ...and he was right. Those bugs man. I remember laying in my bed, I was too scared to close my eyes because I was afraid those bugs would crawl under my skin. I don't remember being afraid of the mummy tho. And lots went over my head. For example, when I watched this again as an adult, I realized that Beni wasn't a villain. My child mind had apparently equated him working for the bad guy, for him being a bad guy.
Fun fact: The giant hamster wheel was an early treadmill. They were originally invented as a form of punishment for prisoners until being banned for being cruel and inhumane, and being repurposed as exercise equipment for the general public
+Lucky Stampede There is no "originally" in your sentence.. ORIGINALLY they were invented as "motor" for cranes and pulley systems to move stuff, pull ships along canals and whatnot... having a wheel JUST so that prisoners can run in circles makes no sense, as Critic noted with "it is not even connected to anything"... Even the Conan horizontal thing had more thought behind it than just having a thing in the background that does nothing.
Despite all of the cons Doug points out in this movie (even the really pointless shit), none of that stops this from being one of the greatest popcorn action flicks of the past 20 years. The writing is perfectly corny and slightly self-aware, Brendan Fraser's performance alone carried this whole movie, the effects were pretty damn good for 1999, the stunt choreography is rock solid and the soundtrack is right on point for the whole movie. With all due respect Doug, this movie is fucking awesome and no amount of "BRENDAN FRASER DERP FACE LOL" can bring it down.
I agree, if this movie took itself seriously I think it would be unwatchable (but I guess nobody told Universal that when they decided to do the newest remake). It knows it's ridiculously cheesy and just rolls with it. Which also makes it the perfect movie for Brendan Fraiser. I've never seen the guy in an truly serious role, and it wouldn't suit him at all.
About the CGI. No, it's really bad. Come to think of it, Episode I released that same year, and it holds up surprisingly good, despite how bad the rest is. Actually, Critic states one good point: Ep I doesn't look like a b movie even now, while The Mummy sure does.
LobsterOfDeath The Mummy WAS a B movie. That was part of the charm. Episode I might have good visuals that have aged well, but acting-wise and story-wise, it is unwatchable, save for Duel of Fates.
The Mummy 1999 is based off the the more action packed Mummy films of the 1940's. The Mummy's Hand, The Mummy's Tomb, The Mummy's Ghost, and The Mummy's Curse.
I think I took Brendan Fraser for granted. I think a lot of people did. The guy is a genuinely good actor and has definitely entertained me over the years. Whether it's Airheads, Encino Man or George of the Jungle, with the right film and role, Fraser works well. It sucks that his career spiraled out of control with his box-office flops and his ex-wife being a terrible person taking all his money. I've read that he signed on for two new tv shows next year. Hopefully he can make a comeback. I'm going to go ahead and say it... I miss Brendan Fraser.
I'm willing to check out a lot of the well-acclaimed movies he was in. Gods and Monsters, School Ties, The Quiet American, and Crash. Hell, I'll even see "Ink Heart" and "Journey to the Center of the Earth."
When school ties came out everyone thought he would become the star. But Matt Damon did and Ben affleck who's not as good did more. Reason they played there cards right and were in great movies . Fraiser sadly took his talents to b action movies
My gosh this was supposed to be a nice quick action adventure not a monumental oscar favourite. The CGI looks totally standard for that time. I really don't get your hate against fraser, he was perfect for the role and why would you want a much older Russell play Evelins love interest. My gosh sometimes I have the feeling when you don't like a movie because it was just not your taste you try everthing to make it look bad in your review.
Every movie has flaws and the purpose of this channel is to point them out, as well as what makes it great. All the comedy is aimed at the flaws but he always gives credit where it's due.
Brenden Fraser in this movie was amazing I mean jusy gold, he had this rugged Indiana Jones Han Solo vibe. Like he KNEW a lot about the area he was in but it was more practical then bookish.
The CGI now days is very hit and miss looking back at this movie, some of it looks better than others. Still love this movie though, it's one of those good old comfort movies for me. Loved your review though. And yes, I will keep hearing Bartok from Anastasia now, dammit NC :P
There's something that some people dont seem to understand about CGI. It's literally an art form. Just like with paintings. Two artists can spend the same exact amount of money on supplies. But one will come out with a painting that looks realistic, and the other artist will have a more cartoony painting. Now add even more painters with lopsided levels of talent, and have them work on portions of ONE giant painting. Some of that painting will look great, while some of it will look like shit.
It may have it’s strange moments but it is one of my favorite childhood films that had both adventure and some good scares. It’s sequel the Mummy Returns was also really good and they definitely were what made Brendan Fraser an awesome actor.
Who is ready for next weeks review with AVGN!!!
Support this weeks charity - www.youcaring.com/tubbsfirevictimssantarosacommunity-976726
Check out James' video on the original Mummy - cinemassacre.com/2007/10/06/the-mummy/
Grab a signed IT (2017) Nostalgia Critic title card here - theawesomestore.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=30000
Channel Awesome You guys are awesome!!
Channel Awesome Spoopified! 👍🏽👻🎃💀
Channel Awesome I think the black and white version one is cool
Channel Awesome AM I RIGHT BOIS
Channel Awesome I didn’t even watch this version and the 2017 one is worse
I've gotta disagree - ONLY Brendan Frasier could and should have played that role.
I agree
Darkness Prevails Isn't Brendan Fraser banned from being in movies? 🤔
Gracie J nohe is not
hoestly... kurt russell and bruce campbell are legit great choices for that role
Bruce campbell? Yes I agree.
I don't get the thing with Brendan Fraser. Personally, I just don't see this movie working with anybody else
Zadok the Priest me too IDK it just works with Brendan Fraser Tom Cruise was just too serious
Maybe it is because I grew up with it, but I cannot imagine this film without Brendan Frasier. He has this perfect mixture of the handsome, charming rogue and acting goofy to lighten the mood.
Have John Carpenter Direct and Get Kurt Russell in it. Do a kind of Big Trouble in Little China thing with it. Would've been pretty cool I think :p
bruce canbell would have been a natural fit as well
I love brendan in this movie but I think the issue with him isn't that he sticks out in this movie but he doesn't seem like he's trying as hard. His delivery is funny but this doesn't seem like he's giving his all.
I don't care what anyone says, nobody but Brendon Frasier could've pulled off this role. Not even Bruce Cambell/Kurt Russell.
I totally agree. I havent even seen the the new one. I didnt like the last movie because Rachael wasnt in it. But I still watched it because Brendon was in it
yeah no one dose
ash's persona is basically what they modeled fraiser character im sure bruce would have done just as the role justice.
@Hello!Nurd
Yeah you're right... Bruce Campbell was too awesome for it, and I'm not sure about Kurt Russelll, but Brandon Fraser? Yeah, his teetering between hokey and serious acting was perfect...
Campbell would be awesome but to goofy for it
Fun fact: during the hanging scene, Fraiser actually did do the stunt, something went wrong, and he was nearly killed and revived because the failure
Same in Back To Future 3 with Mike J Fox. Also a Universal film!
@@kryptism I honestly forgot about that! Michael J Fox needed extra pay for that
@@kryptism so they should avoid that kind of scenes for their movies. It seems like they was cursed or something.
Hangings seem to be very dangerous to fake.
@@Blokewood3 indeed
"Of course, having half your crew killed and your life threatened doesn't mean you can't get smashed the exact same night" That's what I'd wanna do. Why would I want to be sober after something like that?
Having a fire are close by also comes in handy.
The Mummy 1: A great adventure film
The Mummy 2: A good adventure film
The rest: wew lad...
Yeah, Dragon Emperor and Mummy 17 were just awful.
I guess I'm a heathen. I actually liked the third a bit better than the second one. Jonathan's funny lines felt more forced to me in the second one and the reincarnation thing with the O'Connells just came out of nowhere. I missed Rachel Weisz but still didn't hate the third one.
what about Scorpion King?
None of them beat the 1932 mummy
Andrea Miller I’m not saying that you can’t have an opinion, but I feel like Jonathan’s lines were twice as forced in the third one. But how can I say that when number three has such comedy gems and treasures like, “my ass is on fire”
LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE RIVERRR!
looks like we have all the horses... wait this is in reverse.
... Bye Benny.
So much hatred about the CGI yet for the time it was pretty damn good, and this film is a fun film overall, I still love watching it whenever it’s on
Seriously? 80s have much better effects
for the time but now it's hot fucking garbage
@TheUmbrellaCorpX7[エヴ] this shity ass CGI does not hold up in any way.
This is one of the few movies I can see myself never tiring of!
Of course it doesn't hold up today, it's 20 damn years old ffs, but it doesn't look half bad for its time... His ranting about the effects is way overdone...
Brushing aside the cgi,this one's got a better storyline than the new 2017 movie remake that no one asked for.
kirby march Barcena except studio executives.
WELL they were hoping to do a Monster Cinematic Universe, they just... tried starting with something they should've left alone.
... Wouldn't have minded a Wolfman or Frankenstein movie, myself.
There was no storyline to the 2017 movie. It was just hyping up the other movies that will never happen.
kirby march Barcena I agree, the tone for 2017s the Mummy is all over the damn place, the 1999 version is better no doubt but I treat the 2017 version as a different entity tbh, and as such I LIKE it's modernized take on the tale even if the Brendan fraiser one is the superior film.
he's probably going hard on this one because the 1932 version starring the legendary Boris Karloff was better. but that doesn't mean this was bad in any respect it was a fun indiana jones style action adventure film with some horror elements.
What I like loved about this and the Mummy Returns is both movies actually used the real Ancient Egyptian language. Granted as it is a dead language the pronunciation may not be correct but the fact they researched and had the actors using it is impressive.
No they're not perfect but I enjoyed them and the music is amazing.
Brendan Fraser is a national treasure
Chandasouk no, Thats nicolas cage...
His 90s bod was a national treasure 😒
Chandasouk He is Hollywood's walking punchline
I'm sorry, but you've seem to misspell "Chris Pratt".
Lets Pretend, Oh thank you so much for that. I was hoping someone had said that.
Rachel Weisz is adorable in the first film and stunningly beautiful in the 2nd.
Richard_22_ And non-existent in the third film.
the mummy 3 was horrific without her..i said what i said
Very true.
She was also useless in the second film.
@@frankforttheorangee2produc110 I dunno... Her and her Brother make those Enfield's work in the pigmy scene
I love this movie. I loved it as a kid, and I still love it as an adult. I don't consider it a guilty pleasure. I consider it a legitimately good movie. The sequel, on the other hand, I do consider a guilty pleasure. The third one sucks. Hard.
Which third one? The Scorpion King or Tomb of the Dragon Emperor?
ReveiwKing999 the scorpion king isn't a prequel nor a sequel it's it's own film
Gage Peruti There's a third film?
ReveiwKing999 Dragon Emperor. I don't remember Scorpion King that well, but I remember liking it.
Really I like the third one
Current Brendan Fraser just breaks my heart. Can someone just give that poor man a hug?
*cuphead is the new dark souls of bloodborne*
Flame of Udun NO! Herb, you ding dong...
Lol why do you say that? Whats wrong with him?
Nathaniel Strangman breaks my heart can we just give him a cyberhug?
Has he reached the 'Crazy' stage of the disease known as 'Celebrity' yet?
My theory is that Brendan Fraiser fooled around with Nostalgia Critics girlfriend at some point...
critic has a girlfriend??
@@achikahola that makes sense
if the angry video game nerd can have a wife and child then it's possible the nostalgia critic has a girlfriend.
Andrew Viewtieful Tachibana Critic is married
She probably just forgot te wipe her browser history....."Brendan fraser,loincloth" "Brendan fraser abs", "Brendan fraser pumping hips GIF" ....that kinda thing
Fun fact: The actor who played Mr. Henderson auditioned for the role of Rick but failed, although the director liked his acting so he created the role of Mr. Henderson for him.
Like Vaas is Far Cry 3.
The brother is one of my favourite characters, he cracks me up! I've watched this film easily hundreds of times, and I still enjoy it.
KlairedelysArt Omg! You watch Nostalgia Critic.
Remeber the scene from returns when he got the Bus after breaking the key. lol Epic.
Watched it "hundreds of times" but still dont know that his name is Jonathan. Seems legit....
"Hundreds of times"? Too much spare time much?
He plays batiatus the only reason I watched Spartacus in the first place. He is a really good actor imo
Rachel Weisz was my first major crush.
Colin Martin same here. Shame she wasn’t in the third one but judging how bad it was, she made the right decision.
Ayep
The Eagle which movie?
Same here
Arnold Vosloo was mine
Fun fact this franchise made dwayne the rock johnsons career as an actor.
xD
@Guy Incognito ok boomer
@Guy Incognito you have not power here
And Black Adam may have killed it
"If you did your job well, we wouldn't have a movie."
Oh, man, the list of movies that line applies to is endless.
The Mummy, Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade, Freddy vs Jason, Resident Evil, X-Men 2, Percy Jackson, Jupiter Ascending, The Matrix, Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man (pick one), Transfomers sequel you forgot you saw. Just to name a few.
This movie jumpstarted my interest in Ancient Egypt, for that it will always be my favorite.
was surprised to find that the real Imhotep was a really cool guy though.
Having the same name doesn't mean they are the same person, Imhotep lived in the 27th century BC and the mummy Imhotep lived during Seti I time in 1290-1279 BC. Imhotep is just a name like Nick or Steve or Ptahhotep or Amenhotep or Sobekhotep. By the way Imhotep means "The one who comes in peace" and in particular hotep means among others means peace.
I believe it's the same for a LOT of us 90s kids. The same way that video games of the 80s made everyone want to be a ninja, this movie made a lot of us want to visit Egypt
The real Imhotep was even deified after his death, which was extremely rare for a non-royal.
I agree Imhotep was a interesting dude back then.
Lets be clear the Boris Karloff Mummy was the original Horror The Mummy, while the Brandon Frasier Version was the original action adventure The Mummy. The only thing unoriginal about the Brandon Frasier film was its name. They are completely different films in completely different genre's, and the Tom Cruise the Mummy failed spectacularly as remake or reimagining of both.
well said
I mean, they both have the same plot, other than the reincarnated princess thing, which the sequel used.
Nope, This is the Second remake, With the Karloff Version, the Hand of the mummy series, then Frazier version
Patrick Buckley i heard the 2017 version was complete ass
Patrick Buckley well nostalgia crtit(?) isnt wrong tho the boris one IS the orignal film the 1999 one is just a remake even if it changed everything expt the plot and name its still a remake
When Benny started preying in every single religion and he used that funny voice,I just laughed my ass off.
Sammy Lane I still love that part
Sammy Lane its actually really clever showing what a bullshiter he is.
Sammy Lane I think the joke is that he never tried preying in Kemeticism (Egyptian Paganism), which likely would have worked at least somewhat.
Benny's obviously one of these New Age nuts wit decals to a dozen different religions and a "Coexist" bumper sticker!
i keep replaying that part
Brendan is amazing for this role. He gives it his own additions. He is great and i love these movies and i love him
I personally don’t think the CGI is THAT bad. It’s not great, but it’s not horrible either.
Maybe, but the Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns... dear god that stuff was worse than Catwoman
Ben Wasserman I agree
No...and surprisingly it holds up relatively well, not all the time but just enough so it's not totally dated like some other CGI
Oh no, that reward goes to the mummy returns.
Yeah the Scorpion king is hot garbage, which sucks because the design is fine, though perhaps it should have been more monster and less Rock, it was the execution that was awful
I think that the 1999 "Mummy" was a really good adventure movie. Of course it is not a masterpiece but it's climatic, well acted and the soundtrack was pretty awesome too. I was impressed as a 8 years old boy when it came out. It has not aged that bad, seriously. I like some of NC reviews but I don't find this one particularly funny. Too much forced humor. He's not convincing at all.
What is Doug's beef with Brendan Fraser? He was super charming in this movie. He was purposely supposed to be the lovable rogue, and, in my opinion, he delivered. I still find the main characters in general pretty great. I love Jonathan. I love Evelyn. I love Rick. I love Ardeth. I even love Beni. The movie in general is still really enjoyable and entertaining. I've never watched this looking for a serious film. I first saw this when I was 10 and it's still a ridiculously amazing, campy, nostalgic ride.
People have already complained about Doug's constant criticism of the bad graphics, which arguably is annoying. However, Doug also seems to forget what the graphics of that time were and acts like they were already great. Yeah, this was the year the Matrix came out, but it was also the year the Phantom Menace came out. Also, The Haunting came out that same exact year (which yes, did get referenced in the movie, but not really in the context that they were this close together) as well as like, Idle Hands. The graphics and the design of 1999 was kind of all over the place. Even The Matrix, arguably the best one in that list, has stuff in it that doesn't really hold up to the test of time (for example, the random ending where Neo decides to Superman out of there), but people still love it.
Like, we get it, you adore the originals, and that's fine, but this review ends up feeling like you just were forced to do this remake and therefore didn't really give it much of a chance at all. This movie was never trying to be the original or even the original remake. It never made that claim. And Doug acted like he understood that, but then still insisted on comparing them. It just felt really mean spirited and bitter.
From what I've gathered, he feels like he never really goes all the way with a character. He feels like he only delivers what's needed and never really makes them his own. Besides, he has more problems with Matthew Broderick. Even in The Lion King, which he actually finds very overrated (watch his Disneycember review of it), he doesn't like him, finding him piss poor bland.
Gi don't think Brendan Fraser has ever been charmnf
+TheWahMaster Keep your stupid comments in your pocket.
NishaWinchester And scumbags like you don’t respect people’s opinions
I agree that the strawman direction Doug has taken with this review acting as if anyone has ever viewed the film as an attempt to do a proper serious remake is disappointing to say the least. It's a perfectly self-aware adventure comedy, and it does an astonishing job at keeping the viewer entertained.
"SHUT UP AND WATCH SOMETHING BLACK AND WHITE!!"
"NNNNNNEVERRRRRR!!!"
I laughed so hard because it's like trying to get my partner to watch my favorite Vincent Price with me. It's so sad what good films he and others are missing because they can't handle no color.
Hey, if you want them to see Vincent Price, he's in Edward Scissorhands
that made me crack up too
Ooo! Which Vincent Price is your favorite?
House of Wax and House on Haunted Hill are my favorites of his horror movies
But I also love him in Laura
@@3katfox I personally love House on Haunted Hill. It holds a special place in my heart since it's the first Vincent Price horror my mom showed me
It's not the lack of color... Honestly most of the actors/actresses back then are a bit too....Shatner-ish in they're line delivery and hammy acting.. then there's the ones that started the grand tradition of non acting...like Bogart I honestly can't tell his movies apart...he's ALWAYS just Humphrey Bogart,no character exists, just like Sean Connery's thankfully retired ass.
So the main criticism is that the CGI is old. So what? The movie is from the 90's and not made by Steven Spielberg. It used what it had at the time. And besides, you keep beating the CG from this movie into the ground while there are plenty of movies that came out that same year or later with visuals that looked much worse. We can watch sophisticated shit sometimes, but other times we want to enjoy a nice popcorn flick. It's far from perfect, but damn if it isn't fun.
Spaghetti-Spider I love that you act like Spielberg doesn't count, because he does.
An old film have old CGI effects.
Who could have ever guess?
A movie that have effects from the time the movie was made! 🤔
seriously the phantom menace came out the same year and in comparison The Mummy's effects look like the tiger in Life of Pi
The cgi from this one doesn't even look that bad, sure I've seen better in other films but here it looks decent. The Mummy Returns on the other hand...
I can't be the only one who thinks Rachel Weisz was so goddamn beautiful in this movie. Growing up with this movie she was one of my biggest crushes. Still is but her smarts and attractiveness in this movie...
I actually think it would be really interesting if Nostalgia Critic actually did review some older black and white films.
I think that you would enjoy his review of Reefer Madness
Kindred Scribbler Id love that too!!
Well, he WAS planning to do a review of "Niagara" when he went to a convention in Niagara Falls, but then the audience demanded he review the Third Animated Titanic Movie instead.
I wanna see him cover more pre-90’s stuff in general. I’d love to see NC do movies like Earthquake and When Time Ran Out.
That would be fun to do for a month like he does with Disneycember and such. ...Maybe "black history month"? XD
To be honest, the mummy was some of the first CGI I ever saw and it convinced me for years he was real.
The fact that I had nightmares as a kid about the mummy because of these movies should show you how well they convinced me, at least as a kid
Man, you must have been one dumb child.
dude these effects were so ahead of its time in 1999, they made their own cgi sand program.
i think the effects still look pretty awesome
I don't understand, he should know this. He is like 35 right?
He does say that the CGI is pretty.
In a sarcastic they're-bad-but-pretty sense.
This movie is pop corn fest of fun. It's a good kind a cheese.
Sorry, Critic, love ya but you got it wrong on this one. This is a very good movie. It's fun and funny, and there's nothing wrong with the CGI. Fraser and Weiss are great, as is the guy who plays the brother and the funny guy who serves Imhotep. I also love the music.
Doug hates everything in an attempt to seem smart.
@@LeonStephan The Nostalgia Critic is a critic, his job is more or less hating things.
(And being serious, the guy can have his opinion and you can have yours.)
@@runefaustblack not only that, the Critic is a character.
Weight Training Guide no just no
@Sinjin Smyth the movie was shit in 1999 and it's shit now
Not gonna lie this movie will always hold a special place in my heart. Brendan Fraser was my first big celebrity crush and this film is a big part of the reason why.
Great choice for a first celebrity crush. Underrated leading man!
One of my favorite guilty pleasure movies! I have to respectfully disagree with you opinion on Fraser in this movie though, half of the reason I think I enjoy this schlockfest so much is because of Brendan's very corny delivery.
HEY O'CONNELL
HEY O'CONNNNEEEELLLLLLL
LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE GOT ALL THE HORSES!!!
HEY BENNY!
LOOKS TO ME LIKE YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE RIIIVERRRRRR!!!
I won't even call it a "guilty pleasure". I like it. It's a fun movie.
Doug, if you like the 1932 version better, that's fine.
but saying the 1999 version is bad cuz it's action adventure and not horror is just wrong and very narrow minded.
Yeah, at least in the 1999 version, it was good ol' action horror entertainment fun, unlike the reboot with Tom Cruise, despite Russell Crowe being the only saving grace of the reboot.
Also saying the 1999 one is the original is quite equally narrow minded
@@theonlyweasle1999 What do you mean by "equally narrow minded"? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
@Mad Maxwell Oh, I see it now. Thanks. :)
@Mad Maxwell Opinion masquerading as fact
Not sure if this criticism is forced or intentional. It was a cool action movie, and as for the effects, there were much worse things in the 1990s.
Yea like mortal kombat even though I love that movie
Yeah actually the CG still looks pretty good considering it was like 1999. I think the criticism is pretty nitpicky considering a) the sequel's CG is wayy worse, and b) the reboots CG isn't any better.
Actually, messing with ancient corpses in Egypt at the time the movie was set in (roughly 1920s) would not be that weird. Okay, perhaps those in the museum would be a different matter, but in general, before the Egyptian tourist industry began, most Egyptians wouldn’t have cared for ancient, heathen corpses. Mummies were even ground up to be used in medicine and paint (which was also exported to the West, btw).
Great comment but please do not Call Them heathen corpses
@@antonfredricson9205 I’m using the term heathen to reflect what I consider the likely attitude of the people at the time and thus why mummies would probably not have been seen as particularly valuable in and of themselves, not as an indication of my own value judgment.
@@DebatingWombat Ah ok
Before that people used grounded mummy flesh as a cure-all. I die a little inside whenever I think of that.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Hey O'Connell looks like we've got all the horses!!
Hey Bennie, looks like you're on the wrong side of the river!
Can someone explain this joke to me...? So what about the river?? Can't they just... idk... cross it right then and there if they've just crawled out of it alive?? Never could get this :(
No doubt my favorite part. RIP Brendan Frasers acting career.
Cationna
They crawled out of the shallow sides of the river. Most rivers, especially old, wide ones like the Nile, generally have a pretty significant dropoff a few feet from the banks and the beds can go down quite far. Without knowing exactly which part of the Nile that is, we can safely assume it's one of the deeper parts.
Cationna Part of the problem is that it's quite likely that the river they're supposed to have been in would be the Nile. Not only is that river wide but is also home to dangerous animals like hippos and crocodiles. Both are known man killers.
Cationna because horses tend to be terrified of water (an instinct thing probably, since their ancestors had to be wary of crocs). It can be hard to lead a horse through an ankle deep stream, let alone the River Nile which has actual crocs in.
The mummy: Good movie
The mummy returns: interesting for what it was
Third mummy: No
2017 mummy: Not even gonna say anything.
Then why did you say something
2nd Mummy with Dwayne Johnson
3rd Mummy with Chinese
Would still watch Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (a guilty pleasure of mine) rather than the 2017 reboot.
@@apollorock3r244 same
The mummy and mummy returns were both amazing movies. The trequel and the 2017 reboot HELL TO THE NO TO THE NO NO NO
Nostalgia Critic goes full CinemaSins on this one.
Emil Georgiev not really
I agree. forced shitty humor and nitpicking.
@@kevrayne what a sh*tty critic. I am not going to call it a masterpiece, but this guy can't bring up any constructive criticism
I hate when critics crap on old movies for having poor special effects. For god's sake, they did a good job with the technology they had at the time.
It's like crapping on the 1981 Clash Of The Titans for using stop motion animation.
Even a technical Marvel like Jurassic Park has it's bugs.
Or wizard of Oz for using Very Obvious painted stages
Yeah but Jurassic Park was made 6 years before this film and looks way better
The CGI does not ruin the fun of this film upon re-watching but it definitely looks horrible
Regardless of whether it looks bad now, it was a stepping stone for creating more realistic effects now as mows visual effects will be for the future.
The story and adventurous comedy is golden, the cgi is gorgeous, why does every critic want perfect realistic effects but ignore that the movie is the most fun movie made in the last couple years.
That "...Man" and "Ya know" joke fell flatter than a pancake without baking powder
Greywarden5129 Agreed. Like, wtf Doug? You couldn't find something better to mock other than Fraser even existing or a man with a particular accent??
Agreed it's one of Doug's worst and laziest jokes
This movie to a 13 year old me was both scary and hilarious. And I still really like it. Granted, it's not perfect, but no film is.
To me when I was 8 back in 1999 was terrifying and I didn't wanted to watch it until 14-15 then it become one of my favorite movies and made me want to learn even more about ancient Egypt (I was a history enthusiast even before learning to read, by having my parents narrating to me history books or watching pictures and illustrations from history books)
@@mitsvanmitsvanio6106 I first saw it at 8 years old to. I remember freaking out during Anck-su-namun’s first resurrection scene that my mom had to leave the theater with me. Today i love this movie and the second one
I think this is the first time I have really disagreed with Doug. Is it an Oscar winner? No, but what it is, is a really fun 90s film that I think really holds up in terms of effects and acting. If you wanted to review a bad movie he should have reviewed the sequels!
I've seen worse. There's one TH-cam critic called Animat (he reviewed Where The Dead Go To Die) who bashed Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, a movie I really loved as a kid and still do, though not as much, but he acted like it was worse than Jack and Jill. My thought was, "Jesus man! What's your problem?!"
Lmao this film is fantastic. He just dislikes the effects.
To be fair the Mummy Returns was watchable and is still better than the cringy 2017 remake. The other sequels are still better than Twilight!!!
Yes this film's cgi was actually brilliant. The Mummy was first fully cgi character with full human anatomical details.
@@hackman669 if you compare every shitty movie with Twilight, they all become not so shitty
I just recently saw this movie for the first time, and I really enjoyed it, yes it's kinda silly, and yes some it's effects haven't aged well, but it's still really enjoyable.
Honestly, this movies was just fun to watch. It didn't need to be serious.
Brendan Fraser was perfection in this movie 💦the chemistry with Weisz was incredible and basically it's going to be a classic in 20 years so whatever 🤗
The pacing and plot isn't nearly as good as Indiana Jones. It felt like a poor Indiana Jones substitute to be honest.
Hasn't it been 20 years now?
Bruce Canpbell is another actor who i think was perfect for a film like this. Brendan Fraser is awesome though.
@Sinjin Smyth Indian Jones? Lol
Agreed. The lack of that chemistry is what brought down the third movie, IMO. Not that it was BAD per se, just... missing something.
well.no. Actually in the 18th people had no respect for mummies. They left them in open tombs where anyone could tamper with them. So...no, actually he would not be put in prison for joking with a mummy... back then they had much less respect for artifact, unless they were jewels. unless they were creepy private mummy collectors.
Not to mention that mummies were once used for a variety of things such as paint ingredients, firewood, medicine, etc. It was pretty much an industry.
I would've GLADLY watched a Bruce Campbell mummy film.
Benny's actor was also in van helsing. He played Igor in it.
Not that my opinion matters..
But i love Brenden Fraser.
His 90s/early millennium films are all imo decent
What happened to our homie Brendan Fraser?
A Random soul from Chicago Illinois i
He's directing stuff now.
He died
A Random soul from Chicago Illinois Alimony happened
fucked over by another woman
This reboot is not a masterpiece. But compared to the Tom Cruise one, it is.
At least had heart
This The Mummy from 1999 was based on the 1940's remake and its sequels, which ripped material from the 1932 original
The movie was good fun. Which is what I was aiming for at least. The current one, I felt the arrogance of it so much that it left a very sour taste
+Jeffrey314159 I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't really call _The Mummy's Hand_ a remake of the 1932 film (even with the shameless reuse of the flashbacks, which actually felt strangely uncomfortable to watch. It felt like it was just shitting all over Karloff's legacy, which I'm positive wasn't Universal's intention, but watching those few scenes with Tom Taylor awkwardly trying to pose as Boris Karloff still felt weird to watch), but rather just _another_ Mummy film, 'cause they're so different (I mean, they're great films, don't get me wrong), with more comedy and everyone walking around with revolvers and rifles, which are, as you say, a lot more reminiscent of the Brendan Fraser films.
I keep forgetting this was a remake of the original. Totally different vibe and it's trying to be its own movie. I mean it doesn't hold a candle to the original, but doesn't seem like it's trying to.
Kinda of sad to see the opening scene CGI be bashed as a complete cartoon when in fact it was a mix of practical models and CG.
+Psycho Magalor
Except there was no practical effects in Jurassic World. The only practical effect was the brachiosaurus. Which they only put in so they could say they used practical effects.
I love the Boris Karloff movie to the point where even Doug Walker's reenactment of it gives me chills.
19:46 "Faster." "Patience is a virtue." "Not Right now it isn't."
I'm I the only one who liked that line.
No the movie is great. Doug is just venting I reckon.
My favorite movie quote of all time
It's a fantastic line. This movie is a solid film
You’re definitely not the only one. Personally I love this movie!
I liked that line too and the movie itself, it's a fun time!
This is a lot of fun, but I honestly don't get Doug's beef with Brendan Fraser.
Oh trust me, he beats on Matthew Broderick worse. Even in Ferris Bueler's Day off and The Lion King (watch the Disneycember review of it), he still doesn't really like him. He's the actor that Doug just has a personal disgust for.
Anonymous Yeah, that’s one I’ve never understood either! Most people seem to think both of them are good actors who have made a lot of bad movies, but the Critic just HATES them!
I still love the Brendan Fraser's version.
The reason the curse on Imhotep will make him the most powerful creature of the world is because the curse makes him never die completely and he is meant to be tortured for eternity
Pretty late reply, but I'm not entirely sure that's true. Another part of the curse makes it so that he keeps summoning the different plagues from the story of Moses, such as when it starts raining fire on the city they're in, and he's shown to have other weird ass magic powers, such as creating massive sandstorm and moving things with magic powers.
@@ArkhanTheMack yeah.... WE CURSE YOU WITH ETERNAL LIFE AND THE ABILITY TO BE A WALKING W.M.D., don't really seem like all that bad of a deal in the long run
@@ArkhanTheMack Could just by side effect of the main curse which was meant to torture him for eternity. Probably didn't have a long list of curses that would let you live forever. I imagined it went something like this:
Guy #1 : "You sure you want this curse boss? If he ever get out he's gonna be nearly unstoppable"
Guy #2 : "What other choice do we have? That's the only curse that will make sure he never die from being eaten very slowly by the bugs maaan"
Guy #1 : "So about the very slowly eaten part...."
@@randomguy2518 I mean, I think the curses are supposed to prevent human interaction. I mean, would YOU want to be with a guy who can curse you with boils and plagues? The mummy will be forever hated by humanity because all he does is bring about death and destruction. Of course though, once he gets his hand on his jars and restores himself and his lover, that's a different story...
Should we tell him there's a sequel?
Toku Nation but that means seeing the Scorpion Rock. No one deserves that pain.
There are two and about 3 or 4 spinoff movies.
nah let's save that for next year
He'll find out in due time.
Should we tell him about the Scorpion King movies?
Relative to most Hollywood reboots, The Mummy is one of the smartest and most creative films ever made. They knew not to attempt a recreation and they focused on making a fun movie. The original Fraser Mummy is still one of my favorite movies.
Weird how in 2017 we're still getting lazy and soulless reboots, when in 1999 some people said, "fuck it, let's have Fraser fight CGI," and it actually worked both as a film, and as a financial investment.
Man, I'm sorry, but this movie is fantastic.
Nope
Leo B
He’s probably just another 2000’s kid
Jimb0
I know there is and I fully accept that, I’m just saying that most people who like this movie and are mad at Doug for criticizing it seem to just be 2000’s kids who say it’s good solely because they grew up with it
The opening shot wasn't CGI.
It's a miniature, ergo, practical effects.
Whoops.
Can we just appreciate the fact that every review Doug does a charity shoutout! That is very noble of you and I feel like that doesn't get appreciated as much as it should.
Don't lie. I can't be the only person who watched this movie series a lot growing up.
I adored Ancient Egypt as a child and these were some of my favorite movies; it was cool to have an action film that focuses on Egypt, even if it's not very historical (obviously lol). I try to forget about the third one though, it ranges on a scale from meh to pretty bad depending on how judgmental I'm feeling.
Yeah this movie and the 2nd were both solid IMO, I enjoyed them both a lot growing up.
Me too !!! I will love forever this movie!!! I fallen in.love with history.and Egypt thanks this
At least we can all agree that the "original" 1999 film is better than the 2017 remake.
owlstag awn yes we can good sir
owlstag awn agreed
The original 1930 movie is a masterpiece and the 1999 was supposed to be a remake but took much more influence from the 1930-1940 mummy sequels witch were very much like slasher films so 1999 movie is basically a remake of the campy mummy sequels but the 2017 movie is just ass
The 2017 tom cruise one has a different plot in places
Easily.
Sorry Doug, but I couldn’t disagree with you more on this one. I think it works great as an action adventure film personally 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
It's almost like his channel does comedy.
Criticising the effects of this movie seems like a far stretch to find some more flaws. The effects are actually pretty good for 1999, and hold up well enough. Besides, this movie is still a fun, entertaining action adventure.
Uhm?! Here's a quick list of movies that came out around the same period (2 years after and 2 years before) with greater CGI quality that raised the bar to a certain standard (Not necessarily good movies):
Titanic (1997)
The Fifth Element (1997)
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
Starship Troopers (1997)
Star Wars the Phantom Menace (1999)
The Matrix (1999)
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer Stone (2001)
Jurassic Park III (2001)
Shaolin Soccer (2001) (Yeah, I said it, lol)
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Jurassic Park
TheDorianTube ...Would you believe that the effects were done by Industrial Light and Magic? Btw, I agree that the effects were good for the time. Nothing amazing like LOTR, but good like the Matrix.
Jurassic Park
TheDorianTube Titanic and matrix were technological masterpieces back in the day, of course they hold up. But many of the other movies on your list either have just as "bad" effects than the mummy or they came out years later, and the technology advanced pretty quickly at that time. And, like I said, the rest of the movies on your list were technical masterpieces of their time, so it's a bit unfair to compare the mummy to those movies.
The cgi is only had by today's standards. If Doug were to ever review the original then, he'd have to bring those same criticisms with him.
I don't know what NC's talking about, the CGI really isn't that bad.
The CGI isn't that bad. Yeah, those effects might be what B-movies are using *now*, but that's just because those only have the budget to use effects from 20 years ago. The effects, which were done by ILM, were actually kinda praised at the time.
which is a bad argument considering this movie was made in the 90s and was considered top of the line at the time until matrix hit
Love this movie. It is one of my childhood movies
Raptorus77 Same. This and Jurassic Park, and Terminator 2.
Yes
Raptorus77 yeah but it's not the 1932 movie but it's way better than the 2017 movie
I still watch it every now and then.
Thats some good engrish
Man I love when NC and AVGN get together. Mutual respect between actors, mutual disrespect between characters. Cracks me up every time.
25:36 "Here's the link!"
DONT ADVERTISE YOUR CHANNEL ON MY CHANNEL!
Nope Bruce Cambell, Kurt Russel and even goddamn Orson Welles would've sucked as Rick O'connell. *Brendan Frasier is the best choice.*
I would have Kurt Russell play the mummy just so I can hear him say, "HELL'S COMING WITH ME YOU HEAR! HELL'S COMING WITH ME!"
Frasier was fantastic, I loved his character when I first saw it 15 years ago and I still do today.
HOW DARE YOU SURRY THE GOOD NAME OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR BRUCE CAMPBELL!!!!!!! Who TF do you think you are......
Orson Welles was long dead
I honestly could see sam raimi remaking the mummy in a tongue and cheek way, with bruce campbell as rick o'connell, and just like in the evil dead trilogy, raimi would have so much fun fucking with campbell
For someone who complains about outdated cgi and bad comic relief, he sure loves using outdated memes and forced humor
*Insists THOSE DARN KIDS!!!* - uses Rick and Morty cancer to try to win kids back -
Shit was pathetic.
ikr , what's up with the cartoon clip , the're not funny at all.
I smell Fraser fans
when is the rick and morty cancer
oh! someone hit a nerve, lol!
The Mummy's Soundtrack is just so Awsome!!
Sirdavitian it is an incredible soundtrack. My favorite Jerry Goldsmith score.
Is the best!! I used to ride horses in Colombian fields listening this music...
The sequel's score by Alan Silvestri is also awesome.
Undeniably
You know NC is unfairly bashing the movie when he doesn't mention the soundtrack once.
Rewatching and 3:12 when he shouts "Shut up and watch something black and white!" and Tamara responds "NEVER!" reminds me of an interaction myself and my little bro would have XD
the effects are NOT that bad, specially for the time
but its the EASIEST joke he can reach for, so of course he goes for it every time.
I remember this terrifying me as a kid for some reason
Bro, if you had this movie and blu ray or DVD, the main title screen music scared the shit outta me. It sounded like a bass guitar being strung by a long violin stick (idk what its called) going down octaves giving off a skin crawling haunting noise. I love it now
This was the first horror film I ever saw. I don't even remember how young I was, maybe somewhere between the ages of 8-11.
Anyway, I wanted to watch this movie with my friends but my dad said no. So my friends watched it without me and they loved it. I felt left out so my dad said I could watch it with him. He was worried I would have nightmares and wouldn't be able to sleep.
...and he was right. Those bugs man. I remember laying in my bed, I was too scared to close my eyes because I was afraid those bugs would crawl under my skin.
I don't remember being afraid of the mummy tho. And lots went over my head. For example, when I watched this again as an adult, I realized that Beni wasn't a villain. My child mind had apparently equated him working for the bad guy, for him being a bad guy.
Me too. I loved it at the same time.
The Prince of Egypt was my childhood. So to see that tiny joke made my day.
Brendan’s “derp” makes this movie pure gold.
Fun fact: The giant hamster wheel was an early treadmill. They were originally invented as a form of punishment for prisoners until being banned for being cruel and inhumane, and being repurposed as exercise equipment for the general public
Lucky Stampede , seems fitting.
+Lucky Stampede
There is no "originally" in your sentence.. ORIGINALLY they were invented as "motor" for cranes and pulley systems to move stuff, pull ships along canals and whatnot... having a wheel JUST so that prisoners can run in circles makes no sense, as Critic noted with "it is not even connected to anything"... Even the Conan horizontal thing had more thought behind it than just having a thing in the background that does nothing.
I've watched this movie as a kid and i loved every second of it. I actually think effects are still looking good..
Sky1ceb3rg SAME i loved this movie as a kid
I agree, I think Doug is comparing them to modem day graphics, which might not be fair, but makes for some good jokes
Agreed
Preach!
"Well if it aint my little buddy Benny..." I love this movie so much.
I think kill you*pulls out a gun*
Who came back after watching him win best actor so we can say to the critic
“That’s academy award winning Brendan Fraser to you!!!”
At least The Mummy (1999) makes a kick ass ride at Universal Studios!
ensm2121 at least it will stay in universal...instead of the amazing DARK UNIVERSE version.
When he says “This is all a cartoon!” I just want to say, “That’s why we love it!!”
Since the CG is so bad. He should show us that he could do better since he is ripping on it so bad. Lol
@@travishughes7221 his job is to be a critic.. don’t like it? Don’t watch
@@bloodarcher7841 You mean character, not job, xD
@@gameplaysolotheblade No, it's his job.
@@travishughes7221He probably could.
REVIEW THE SEQUELS! REVIEW THE SEQUELS! REVIEW! THE! SEQUELS!
shhh wait for sequel month: the... threequel idk
I think there should be a Brendan Fraser Month. Between this, Monkeybone, and a few other movies I can think of, there's certainly enough material.
Yeah, like The Mummy Returns, and The Mummy: The Third One
and.... yeah
THE. ANIMATED. SERIES.
yeah that too whoops
"I'm a stuntman! Have you seen those Mummy movies? I'm in them more than Brendan Frasier is."
Despite all of the cons Doug points out in this movie (even the really pointless shit), none of that stops this from being one of the greatest popcorn action flicks of the past 20 years. The writing is perfectly corny and slightly self-aware, Brendan Fraser's performance alone carried this whole movie, the effects were pretty damn good for 1999, the stunt choreography is rock solid and the soundtrack is right on point for the whole movie. With all due respect Doug, this movie is fucking awesome and no amount of "BRENDAN FRASER DERP FACE LOL" can bring it down.
That's an opinion you stated, not a fact.
Yeah the Derp face lines are great because of how he delivers them. It's basically the nicer version of "Oh fuck me."
I agree, if this movie took itself seriously I think it would be unwatchable (but I guess nobody told Universal that when they decided to do the newest remake). It knows it's ridiculously cheesy and just rolls with it. Which also makes it the perfect movie for Brendan Fraiser. I've never seen the guy in an truly serious role, and it wouldn't suit him at all.
About the CGI. No, it's really bad. Come to think of it, Episode I released that same year, and it holds up surprisingly good, despite how bad the rest is. Actually, Critic states one good point: Ep I doesn't look like a b movie even now, while The Mummy sure does.
LobsterOfDeath The Mummy WAS a B movie. That was part of the charm.
Episode I might have good visuals that have aged well, but acting-wise and story-wise, it is unwatchable, save for Duel of Fates.
The Mummy 1999 is based off the the more action packed Mummy films of the 1940's. The Mummy's Hand, The Mummy's Tomb, The Mummy's Ghost, and The Mummy's Curse.
I think I took Brendan Fraser for granted. I think a lot of people did. The guy is a genuinely good actor and has definitely entertained me over the years. Whether it's Airheads, Encino Man or George of the Jungle, with the right film and role, Fraser works well. It sucks that his career spiraled out of control with his box-office flops and his ex-wife being a terrible person taking all his money. I've read that he signed on for two new tv shows next year. Hopefully he can make a comeback. I'm going to go ahead and say it... I miss Brendan Fraser.
We all do man. We all do. We need a Fraser in our life.
I'm willing to check out a lot of the well-acclaimed movies he was in. Gods and Monsters, School Ties, The Quiet American, and Crash. Hell, I'll even see "Ink Heart" and "Journey to the Center of the Earth."
When school ties came out everyone thought he would become the star. But Matt Damon did and Ben affleck who's not as good did more. Reason they played there cards right and were in great movies . Fraiser sadly took his talents to b action movies
Honestly I love this movie. It's fun and sometimes that's all you really need.
My gosh this was supposed to be a nice quick action adventure not a monumental oscar favourite. The CGI looks totally standard for that time. I really don't get your hate against fraser, he was perfect for the role and why would you want a much older Russell play Evelins love interest. My gosh sometimes I have the feeling when you don't like a movie because it was just not your taste you try everthing to make it look bad in your review.
Opinions
@@alfa01spotivo yeah opinion that was majority in the comments, that totally don't show how lazy this review was.
Royles Pika So standard. I mean, it’s not like there was a film 90% CGI that would blow it out of the water oh wait Star Wars Episode 1.
Every movie has flaws and the purpose of this channel is to point them out, as well as what makes it great. All the comedy is aimed at the flaws but he always gives credit where it's due.
The mummy CGI was quite spectacular for the time.
11:18 scared me shitless as a kid. I thought all bugs could do that...
Brenden Fraser in this movie was amazing I mean jusy gold, he had this rugged Indiana Jones Han Solo vibe. Like he KNEW a lot about the area he was in but it was more practical then bookish.
The CGI now days is very hit and miss looking back at this movie, some of it looks better than others. Still love this movie though, it's one of those good old comfort movies for me. Loved your review though.
And yes, I will keep hearing Bartok from Anastasia now, dammit NC :P
Lol same
There's something that some people dont seem to understand about CGI. It's literally an art form. Just like with paintings. Two artists can spend the same exact amount of money on supplies. But one will come out with a painting that looks realistic, and the other artist will have a more cartoony painting. Now add even more painters with lopsided levels of talent, and have them work on portions of ONE giant painting. Some of that painting will look great, while some of it will look like shit.
It may have it’s strange moments but it is one of my favorite childhood films that had both adventure and some good scares. It’s sequel the Mummy Returns was also really good and they definitely were what made Brendan Fraser an awesome actor.
I agree, I love these 2 movies
Ahahahahaha I love Brendan Frasier, I miss him. I love that this movie is more of a comedy than horror.
Brendan fraser was amazing for his role, that's why the series got 2 sequels, a spin off and a tv series
And a kick butt universal studios ride!
And a kick butt universal studios ride!