|
|
|
The Mummy
***
Cinema
Releases - June 25, 1999
Rated on a 4-star
scale. USA. Written and directed by Stephen Sommers; from a story by Lloyd
Fonvielle, Kevin Jarre and Stephen Sommers; based upon the 1932 film "The
Mummy", written by John Balderston, from a story by Richard Schayer and Nina
Wilcox Putnam. Starring Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah, Kevin
J. O'Connor, Arnold Vosloo, Jonathan Hyde, Oded Fehr, Omid
Djalili.
I once went on holiday to the Spanish island of
Majorca. On my first day there, I decided to go for a long walk along the
local beach, which stretched for miles -- way past the village above it,
and far into the direction of the motorway. There were many types of sand
along the different areas of this great beach, and in different conditions...
fine, coarse, clean, dirty, pure, shell-ridden, wet, dry, dark and
light.
I have few memories of noticing such a lot of
sand, even from my days in India. That was until I saw "The
Mummy", where there seems to be more money spent on sand than the
rest of the sets. This is a film that loves the bright look of the substance,
and a general sun-baked atmosphere. Khaki, golden tans, ferocious blazes,
gunfire and pyramids -- these fiery images are all here.
The action opens in Ancient Egypt, where Imhotep
(Arnold Vosloo), the high priest to a pharaoh, gets cursed, tortured and
mummified alive for his assassination of the boss, and lustful designs on
his mistress. We then move to the 1920s, where gangs of explorers seek treasure
in the "lost city of the dead" where all this happened.
Our three main characters are Rick O'Connell (Brendan
Fraser), an American who was serving with the French army; his love interest,
clumsy English librarian Evelyn (Rachel Weisz); and her brother, rebellious
(and usually drunk) missionary Jonathan (John Hannah). These guys happen
to be around when some clumsy cowboys unearth the terrifying spirit of Imhotep,
which wreaks havoc in spectacular action sequences, trying to kill and enslave
a sufficient number of people to rid himself of his curse, rebuild his human
body and gain formidable power.
I don't have much recollection of the 1932 classic
that "The Mummy" was based on, and that's probably best, since I didn't have
to worry about comparing the two films. What I know for sure is that this
is what "Mask of Zorro" promised and did not deliver. Except for elements
in the denouement which go on too long, it's a powerful visual treat, with
amazing special effects, bold cinematography and booming sound. It also captures,
in an impressively lavish-yet-somehow-goofy manner, the look of old
desert-adventure comics and films from years past.
"The Mummy" knows that it's ridiculous, but that
silly fun is not created by everyone acting wacky a la "1941". The actors
perform with specific behavioural notes -- heroic, villainous, sexy, dithering,
or whatever -- and stay with their notes, knowing they're supposed to push
a specific crowd-pleasing button. It's ludicrousness on a grand, professional
scale, and once we are certain it knows what it's doing, we can go along
with it, and have fun.
Yes, genuine fun. "The Mummy" has some cheesy
laughs, but for the most part, we just smile with the cornball nature and
allow ourselves to be swept away. This is the film "Stargate" could have
been, and indeed that film's makers, Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin, could
learn a lot from "The Mummy". It's not Indiana Jones, but it's as close as
the 1990s are gonna get.
COPYRIGHT© 1999 Ian
Waldron-Mantgani
1999 Reviews
(alphabetical)
1999 Reviews (by star
rating)
Archive of all cinema reviews
(alphabetical)
Review Archive
Index
UK
Critic main page
|
|
![[Image]](http://www.ukcritic.com/posbanr2.gif)