|
It is probably important to know that I really disliked the first
installment of Brendan Fraser’s "The Mummy". There were a few reasons I disliked it.
First, being familiar with the 1940’s mummy movies, I was
expecting more of a suspense thriller with the killer mummy slowly
but surely taking its victims.
So when it turned out to be basically a special effects
showcase with a Superman-like Mummy, well it threw me off.
If they gave it a different name, I may have enjoyed it a
lot more, I guess I just thought it was going to be an updated
version of the earlier films I enjoyed so much as a kid.
The second reason I did not like the first installment was
that the film seemed unsure of itself, for example Rick (the hero
played by Brendan Fraser) was serious in the beginning and then
turned into a fairly silly cartoonish character.
No it was not much of a surprise that Fraser played the
part like a cartoon character, as that apparently is his take on
most roles, but I was disappointed.
So this time around, I pretty much knew what to expect – a lot
of special effects, creatures and monsters that are plentiful and
super fast, and a hero who is taking it all very lightly. And I liked it. It
gave me all I was expecting this time.
Lots and lots of it in fact.
There were a few dull moments, but I almost needed them to
catch my breath. The
film does provide lots of action and fun from start to finish.
The
plot? Um.
Let me see, was there a plot?
I guess so. Let
me break it down to the simplest human components, ‘cause all
the supernatural and historical plot lines are kind of fuzzy.
Rick and Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) have married since the last
film and now have a brilliant son, who is about 10 years old and
very much involved with their anthropology work. The boy gets kidnapped (of course) and the good guys go off
on a number of adventures to save him.
Yeah, I know. I
rolled my eyes too. I
am sure that plot line is even older than the 1940’s movies.
But while the kid is not a very good actor, he worked well
off some of the bad
guys and his goofy Uncle Jonathon (John Hannah).
If you are more attentive that I you may be able to follow
the complex plot lines involving sold souls, bringing people back
to life, supernatural curses, reincarnations, etc.
While those plot lines are there, I honestly do not think
they are too important.
Though I have some criticism of them , I do think the special
effects were way better than the first movie, and in fact way
better than Episode 1 of "Star Wars".
I mention "Star Wars" though, because I think you
will see a lot of the same elements in the special effects –
particularly with battling armies.
However,
yeah there’s always a “however”, a few things bugged me with
the special effects. Getting
back to the 1940’s version of the Mummy – that slow, lumbering
creature who would pop out when you least expected him.
I think that single creature (really just an actor wrapped
in rags) was a lot more interesting that the zillions (and I
literally mean zillions) of creatures in "The Mummy
Returns". Just
about every creature in the movie is multiplied by 1,000,000 and
is 10 times faster than a human.
It kind of takes the suspense out of it.
Imagine "Halloween" with 10,000 super fast
Michael Myers chasing Jamie Lee Curtis around her small home, or
"Alien" with millions of Aliens totally infesting the
spaceship, or even the Scream movies with zillions of creepy
killers. Just because
the folks at ILM (Industrial Light and Magic) can create a
creature, and then cut and paste him a billion times, doesn’t
mean they HAVE to do it all the time.
I wish they would use some restraint.
It really gets boring after awhile to be constantly
overwhelmed by speed and numbers.
And another thing, yeah there’s always “another thing”,
a movie like "The Mummy Returns" uses so many
special effects, it is almost on the verge of being a cartoon.
Especially when the effects don’t work out well, like the
Scorpion King’s (The Rock) final scenes – very hokey.
And though the technology is amazing, so many of the scenes
are obviously special effects creations that we can’t truly buy
into the reality, and that takes away from it making us realize we
are watching a movie rather than living it in our imaginations. Don’t get me wrong, the effects look great, the computer
generated scenery is beautiful, but yet we know it’s not real
somehow. I think we
know it is fake because
it is all too perfect. I
can’t quite put my finger on it, but all the ILM effects seem
homogenized – like we’ve seen them all before somewhere, and
that takes away from it too.
It is like they just keep using the same software and
plugging in different objects (creatures, buildings, landscapes).
So, was the story great? Nah.
The acting? Not
really. The special
effects? They were
great, but they were clearly effects.
Did I thoroughly enjoy the movie?
I sure did, and for a summer escape adventure film, I guess
that’s all that
really matters.
-- Pappy
( 3 out of 4 pops )
Talk
about this film with other Popkorn Junkies |
