As far as i'm aware, please correct me if i'm wrong Ramsekh, but i've not heard about any other wife of Seti I apart from Tuya. I'm sure there must have been some women as it would have been very unusual for a pharaoh not to have other wives but if he did they aren't well-known and I can't name any. I say this because I would be very surprised if movie researchers had found a secondry wife of Seti I called 'Anuk-sun-amun' that we had never heard of.
She seems to be a made-up character!

Incidentally Tut's wife was called 'Ankhesunamun' so that's probably how the character in the movie should have pronounced her name!

Welcome to the site:-) We have tonnes of fun and things get really heated sometimes:-)[/quote]

alright thanx yall.

Whenever the conversation of the recent "Mummy" movies comes up I often find myself reminding people that these movies are based on the original Universal Film "The Mummy" from 1932 starring Boris Karloff (which was remade in 1959 by Hammer Films and starred Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing).

In the original Universal Film Karloff played Imhotep and Ardeth Bey who is trying to ressurect his beloved Princess "Anckesen-Amon". Back in 1930's the "Egypt Craze" swept across the world as it was only ten years prior that Carter discovered Tut-Ankh-Amun's tomb. I believe that both names, Anckesen-Amon(1932) and Ank Su Namun (1999) are distortions of the name of Tut's wife, Ankh-es-en-Amun (say all three names fast one after the other and you will see what I mean).

I believe this because in the 1932 movie they used replicas of items from Tut's tomb such as this cartouche box:

In the movie it was found in the tomb by the archaelogist and held the "Scroll of Thoth" that when read aloud, brought the mummy Im-ho-tep back to life.

You see back in 1932, although the public beagn taking an interest in Ancient Egypt, most were still not aware of who the real Im-hotep and Ankh-es-en-Amun were so the producers of the movie could get away with using their names and most would not even question them. Keeping in the tradition of the original (since it is a remake), the 1999 version kept the same names, of course they took some liberties of changing the story line and characters a bit but it is essentially the same story.

So all this talk about trying to find a mistress of Seti's named Ankh Su Namun will certainly lead you nowhere. You must go to 1932 to find the origin of this movie character.

Is the 1932 film worth watching, Neb? They have a "Mummy" collection on DVD and I think it has lots of special features. It's only $20 so I was thinking of having my mom buy it if it's worth having.

Ramsekh,
I am a fan of old horror movies so I have a lot of the Universal Films on tape. Incidentally I also became a fan of Ancient Egypt so for me these two interests go hand in hand when it comes to the 1932 Mummy.

If I were you I would get it. Just remeber that it IS from 1932 and only about 8 years away from being a silent film! So not only is the sound quality bad but the picture quality is well. Don't expect to see big Hollywood special effects but if you want to know the origins of the recent Mummy movies it's worth picking up...plus its only 1 hr and 13 minutes long. Here check it out:

But as the Brits on this site will tell you, the of the 50's and 60's are far more beautiful and superior to Universal's film making. I would also recomend buying Hammer's slightly more violent .

Whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH Russell Mulcahy's Tale of the Mummy (1998)!!!! That is the WORST movie! The only cool thing was how the mummy got around. Other than that, I give it a 1/10 for being so stupid!

I wanna know why anyone thinks it's "one of the best mummy movies" as said on IMDB.