So the Razzie nominations are out. I was amused (but not entirely surprised) to see the Indiana Jones film in there.
I saw the third Brendan Fraser 'Mummy' film on one of the flights in Australia. And do you know? As 'Belated sequels to old film series that no one really wanted to see resurrected' films go it's actually a better film than Indy 4. There's words I never thought I'd see myself type.
Both start from a similar premise (post-WWII, heroes work in intelligence during war, grown up son involved), and the Rachel Weisz replacement has the problem of, well, not being Rachel Weisz frankly, but where Mummy 3 has the advantage is that it doesn't look as cheap. There are parts in Indy 4, particularly the jungle scenes, which (especially on second viewing) look horribly studio-bound.
While, honestly, neither are great films by any means, but overall Mummy 3 looks less tired and more like people are having fun.
I saw the third Brendan Fraser 'Mummy' film on one of the flights in Australia. And do you know? As 'Belated sequels to old film series that no one really wanted to see resurrected' films go it's actually a better film than Indy 4. There's words I never thought I'd see myself type.
Both start from a similar premise (post-WWII, heroes work in intelligence during war, grown up son involved), and the Rachel Weisz replacement has the problem of, well, not being Rachel Weisz frankly, but where Mummy 3 has the advantage is that it doesn't look as cheap. There are parts in Indy 4, particularly the jungle scenes, which (especially on second viewing) look horribly studio-bound.
While, honestly, neither are great films by any means, but overall Mummy 3 looks less tired and more like people are having fun.