“The Mummy” (1999) [PG-13]

     “The Mummy” is certainly one of the more intriguing movies of the past fifteen years. It draws viewers in with an interesting screenplay, many connections to Egyptian mythology, and attention-getting visuals. Considering the date and the underdeveloped computer effects that were available when this movie was made, there aren’t any bad things to find in this movie except that it doesn’t stand up to the original “Mummy” of 1932.

     One of the most important things to look for in a film is its screenplay and this movie has an interesting one. The screenplay shows an amazing combination of drama, action, horror, and even romance. Few movies combine so many different genres and styles, and the creators of the screenplay have succeeded in doing exactly that. Its screenplay isn’t the only noteworthy factor of this film, either.

     The creators of “The Mummy” threw in many connections to actual Egyptian mythology. They used several real locations of Egypt including ones with great mythological ties in their history. Dialogue also includes more than a few mentions to Ancient Egyptian mythological names. The references made in this film shows that its creators studied up some on the myths of Ancient Egypt.

     Another thing the creators of this movie used to further enhance the viewers’ experience is their use of computer effects and visuals. This means even more than what it sounds like because of the more restricted and underdeveloped computer effects of the time. As many commendable things in this movie as there are, the one underlying truth is that it simply does not stand up to the original 1932 version. The original “Mummy” will always be the better one, although the newer version isn’t all that bad.

          My overall rating: 3.5 out of 5

“G.I. Joe” (2009) [PG-13]

     The 2009 “G.I. Joe” live-action remake has its high points and its low points. Much like original “G.I. Joe” cartoons, it is full of overly dramatic plotting villains and incredibly futuristic gadgets. However, those are the only thing it has in common with the cartoons. The movie itself is great for a summer movie, especially if the viewer doesn’t know much about the original cartoon. The lower points to this film is that it doesn’t follow close to any of the original stories and Channing Tatum who played Duke seemed too much like a boy-band singer to play the normally heroic character.

     There are only two things the movie shares with the cartoon version. One is the portrayal of the plotting villains known as “Cobra.” In the cartoons they are terrorists seeking global domination. The movie does a good job on portraying Cobra in that very same way. The other similarity between the two is the factor of futuristic gadgets. However, none of the technologies in the movie are anything like the ones in the cartoon. These are the only connections between the cartoon and the live-action remake.

     If viewers are looking for a good summer action film, they will find one in this movie. It’s enjoyable for a summer flick and is meant to be pure action, nothing else. It does a great job of entertaining simply with nonstop action. Because it has nearly nothing in common with the cartoons viewers are better off with this movie if they don’t know much about the cartoon. This live action reboot makes an exciting movie if the viewer is looking for something filled with action.

     For what few good things there are in this movie, there are bad things that go with them. First of all, most big fans of the original cartoon usually won’t enjoy this movie too much. It strays too far from the original cartoon and barely does justice for it. In addition, Channing Tatum, who played Duke, was the worst possible choice the makers of this movie could have picked. He was too much like the “pretty-boy” type to play the courageous hero Duke. There’s not much enjoyment to be found in this movie for true die-hard “G.I. Joe” fans.

          My overall rating: 2 out of 5