Skip to Main Content
2017-09-10 01:56 am (UTC)
I expected absolute crap and was delighted by what I got. (See also:
That sounds like my experience with
(2013): I didn't expect it to be crap, but I expected it to be big and dumb and fun and mostly we just needed to stare at something for a couple of hours and what we got was big and smart and fun and currently still my favorite Guillermo del Toro,
(2015) notwithstanding. I love when movies do that. I have to say, I think you got the better end of the deal with
The Phantom Menace
is delightful. I've seen it twice now, liked it better the second time, suspect it will hold up to a third viewing.)
Rachel Weisz has all these little touches that the camera doesn't even call attention to, like after O'Connell decks Jonathan to the ground in the prison and then she steps right over her brother's prone body to go on questioning him.
Yes! I love that while she looks like the prim librarian archetype with her glasses and her shirtwaist dresses, she really isn't, even from the start. Librarian, yes. Prim, no. No one in the film is quite what they look like, which is why it works.
(On the topic of Imhotep's eyes: that was supposed to be part of why he mistook Evie for Anck-su-namun in their first encounter. But the story more or less ignores the question of his bad vision after that.)
Well, that was totally not clear. I just figured Evie was some kind of distant relative of Anck-su-namun's on her mother's side.
The script manages to pull off that thing Hollywood thinks is impossible, which is the married couple who protag together without some ham-handed attempt to inject romantic tension back into their relationship (OH MY GOD THEY'RE GONNA BREAK UP etc). It also has a kid protagonist who is, by the standards of such things, relatively non-obnoxious; he's believably the child of his parents and uses his brain, at least some of the time.
mentioned both of these aspects, which sound very attractive to me. Chances are good that I'll try it, although I'm not sure about the rest.
Though I give them props for finding an in-story reason to explain recasting Evie.
Since I don't expect ever to see it, may I ask? I can't imagine anyone but Rachel Weisz in the role.
The one thing I know about the plot of the second sequel is that it shifts the action from Egypt to China, which on some level leaves me sorry that all of the main characters—played by their original actors—did not simply star in a long-running series of international mummy movies, because there would have been so much scope for it. The Carnahan-O'Connells meet the Chinchorro mummies. The Carnahan-O'Connells meet the Pazyryk mummies. The Carnahan-O'Connells meet a bog body, albeit they just thought they were going to visit their father's cousins in Ireland. ("No, this
happen when Mother and Father took us for Christmas! Do they just
us now?") I'm not surprised at the existence of the fandom; they are all characters you want more of.
Reply to this
Thread from start
Post a comment in response:
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address.
Sign in using OpenID
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Check spelling during preview
This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.
Log in with OpenID?
Forget your password?
Site and Journal Search
Buy Dreamwidth Services
Gift a Random User
Site and Account