Long time fan of the movie, but a few things always rankle me

Rating: 10/10 (18 February 2020)

It is borne of the Indiana Jones type of old-fashioned adventure. Some think 1920s/30s style adventure tales don't translate well into today's movie-making, or even back when this movie came out. There's room for all styles. It is a mix of reality and fantasy with humour and even cartoonish elements. That said, such adventure yarns, however improbable they may seem, need to be grounded in as much reality as possible. But how much is enough? A good balance is represented in this story of a cursed being resurrected but eventually defeated, by supernatural elements.
Before proceeding further here are the things that always rankle me whenever I watch the movie. Trivial perhaps, but it's usually the little things that have such an effect. I must note that these things may have been discussed in a review already but I have not tried to go through all of them, or were perhaps a part of the old discussion board, so excuse me if I repeat old points.
First of all, the name, which is not just about this movie but more striking here. We have accepted these tales for a long time as being about a mummy. But it is really about a bandaged corpse because Imhotep was never mummified. So why is he chasing canopic jars of organs for regeneration if he was buried alive? Was he mummified later? This is never explained or even postulated, and seems unlikely if they found a 'juicy' corpse, with little evidence of wrappings remaining, compared to old movie depictions..
Secondly, it has always bothered me when you see Rick drop from the platform with the rope around his neck. Not because of the implied violence, but from the suggestion that despite the full weight of his body being jerked by the rope around his neck, he suffered no injury or even after effects of what is really a type of body trauma, usually fatal, far worse than being tossed around later by resurrected priests/bodyguards of Imhotep, but the cartoonish element makes more sense with the latter type of violence. This spoils efforts at some reality credibility early on. It would have made more sense, and even logic, if not suspense and excitement, for Evy to have had him cut loose just before the platform lever was pulled.
Thirdly, it is made clear that Evy can both read hieroglyphics and understand the ancient Egyptian tongue spoken by Imhotep, even to the point of correcting a translation by Beni. So how come she never spoke directly to Imhotep when given the chance, such as at their first encounter? Maybe fear at the beginning but what about later?
Lastly, see, only a few trivial things, but these can be annoying at times, we come to Winston. An old war vet suffering from survivor guilt and now an alcoholic hanging out in a remote outpost is a great cliche for this type of movie. But, remember this is 1926, not 1966, so why does an ex-RFC pilot from World War I in 1926, only eight years, not forty years, after the war ended, look like someone's lovable grandpa who would have been too old to fly a decade earlier. He really should have been played by someone in their late 20s/early 30s, but the cliche and poignancy of his sacrifice would be lost. The imagery works in the movie but makes no sense in terms of the historicity of the time period used.
So it's only a few little things and many movies have these, with some dismissed as plot holes. But these are obviously the types of little things that could/should have been done differently, although one can only presume decisions were made for the story purposes. As for 'mummy' vs. 'bandaged corpse', this is a matter of semantics beyond this movie and making them synonymous can be accepted as part of pop culture. But does it seem odd nevertheless? So, was Imhotep mummified later? He must have been in order to explain organs in canopic jars, but the punishment and scratches on the lid of the sarcophagus suggest other wise. So, do we treat anything in a sarcophagus in ancient Egypt as a 'mummy'?
Beyond these minor points the story is fast paced and holds up as a great tale of adventure being one of the best to come out of Hollywood in a long time and certainly up there with Indiana. After all, we have too few such movies for the adventure loving viewer.
Finally, with another comparison to Indiana Jones there is a classic cliche that too often strains credibility but will ever be with us. Take the fourth Indiana Jones as an example, Near the end we have our heroic survivors stranded in a remote place reached after great risk to life and limb, and facing a very dangerous journey back. However, like so many such movies the return journey is always assumed to be easy and simple and never depicted. We then inevitably find our heroes safe and sound back home. It seems all adventure movies have dangerous journeys to destinations but never from. At least here with The Mummy we end with them setting out on their return journey, suggesting it will go smoothly, but not knowing for sure until the sequel that they are safe.
Well, after 20+ years I finally got those things out. As before, despite such minor annoyances, inherent in most movies anyway, we have an adventure classic that will be in the top ten of adventure movies for a long time to come.