Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7874928" data-attributes="member: 996">Anyone who hasn't forced themselves to sit through the classic Universal monster-movie version of The Mummy, with Boris Karloff, should really make another attempt. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  It is plodding by modern standards, with unthinking sexism built in, because it's from the 30s, but it's still an interesting thing to take in.  If you've also paid attention to the classic Universal version of Dracula, with Bella Lugosi, you just might feel the first Mummy movie was rather derivative of, that, as well.  Universal did several sequels, and the mummy became more and more the do-not-place-near-open-flames, staggering, groaning monster that eventually made it into D&D.Then, of course, there was the Brendan Frazier version in 1999, which should really be the Arnold Vosloo version, since he played the title role, and wasn't just wrapped in bandages the whole time. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  But it did get back to the original, with the Mummy walking about as a person, wielding magical powers, just, with a lot more F/X.</blockquote>

Verification