Both are very similar in various ways: 1) American adventurer (wearing leather) 2) mostly in Egypt, 3) dealing with a supernatural threat, 4) during the pulp era (20s-30s. Not exactly the same, but close enough.) Of course, the supernatural was more the McGuffin in Raiders where it was more overtly the actual threat in The Mummy, but still—the rough similarities are very striking. No doubt that's on purpose; Raiders was a huge hit, and The Mummy, even though it came the better part of 15-20 years later, was signaling to audiences that it was the same kind of movie.
But of course, in other ways, it wasn't at all. Notably:
1) Rachel Weisz's character is orders of magnitude more likeable, more feminine, and more "cute" than Marion. She's just a delight to have on screen, whereas Karen Allen's Marion always drags the movie down, and she's never likeable.
2) The tone of The Mummy is both more horror and also more slapstick and silly at the same time. It's a bit more extreme on both ends than Raiders, which is more of a playin' it straight (with admittedly some subtle gags) action thriller. Even the supernatural element (the ark) is downplayed, and doesn't do very much that's supernatural until the very end. Meanwhile, Brendan Frasier is constantly dealing with literal undead monsters.
3) Even the rivals in The Mummy are actually sympathetic rather than enemies, and they end up joining forces at the end (except for Beni, who betrays them all.) Fighting Nazis on the other hand, comes across as significantly more grounded and serious. The climatic fight scene near the end of The Mummy almost completely surrenders to this and doesn't even try to go for a horror tone anymore; it's just superficial horror icons in an over-the-top and gag-filled action sequence. Raiders doesn't have a climatic action scene; it has what is essentially a climatic horror scene. Normally, however, the degree of horror tone vs action tone in the movie is reversed, but at the end, they kind of flip-flop.
3) Both action icons are good at their role, but Frasier comes off as a bit more vulnerable emotionally. Ford's Indiana Jones may be vulnerable physically—compared to James Bond, for instance, which is a comparison both Lucas and Spielberg did in fact make—but he's always hard and serious about it. Even his "romance" with Marion comes across as kind of forced by the screenplay rather than real. Which is probably fine, because then he's not with her again in the next two movies, of course.
4) Imhotep is more a force of (super)nature rather than a villain. Belloq, on the other hand, is an absolutely fantastic villain. Sala is likeable, although kind of minor. In a way, the only really major character who's likeable in Raiders is Indiana Jones himself, and Belloq is a great villain. The Mummy has a different paradigm where Imhotep is an OK villain—sometimes—and other times just a horror icon that's kind of superficial, but the supporting cast is full of likeable figures. Evie is a super likeable love interest, her brother Jonathan is great as comic relief and a foil, of sorts, the rival adventuring group has some great moments, the prison warden is interesting (although, again, mostly comic relief, and to build up tension with his death), and even Oded Fehr's character is interesting in his own way.
5) The practical effects and paint-on-cell effects from Raiders still look pretty good, even though the movie is over 40 years old. The CGI in The Mummy doesn't look that great anymore, and it's just under 25 years old. Some of that isn't necessarily the quality of the CGI, though—some of the CGI mummies look bad because that was the visual design of them. They might even be practical at times, and they still look a little funky. They tried too hard to let them have emotional skull-faces. It just looks fake and cartoony in retrospect. To be fair; this issue isn't a movie-breaking issue, but it's noticeable, especially after all these years. It just doesn't look even as good as Raiders does, done many years earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment