ROTTEN TOMATOES: Brendan Fraser In For "Mummy 3" Sequel

Brendan Fraser In For "Mummy 3" Sequel

by Jen Yamato | September 11, 2006

Word on the web says Brendan Fraser is on board for a second sequel to 1999's "The Mummy," to be filmed sometime next year -- with new writers, an unsigned director, and no sign yet of co-stars Rachel Weisz and Oded Fehr.

Reports from sites like TMZ.com have Fraser locked down to reprise his brash adventurer Rick O'Connell in Universal's "Mummy 3," which could begin shooting as early as next spring.

However, this time around "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" writer-helmer Stephen Sommers is MIA; the new script -- reportedly a "re-imagining" of the first two films -- is penned by "Smallville" duo Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. An offer to direct has reportedly been extended to "Jurassic Park III" helmer Joe Johnston.

Fraser to do battle again in "Mummy 3" -- "The Mummy Returns Again??"

Snagged at a film festival by EcranLarge.com, Weisz was asked whether or not she'll be returning to "Mummy 3" as Rick O'Connell's lady love, Evelyn. EcranLarge.com is a French site; thus, the folks over at MovieHole.net seem to have translated her response into this:

"I know there's a new script but I haven't read it yet. Nothing's definite yet and should the film be done, it's probably going to happen next summer. And if so, I would definitely like to be in it."

Another fan fave from the first two "Mummy" films, Oded Fehr, has not yet been grilled on the subject by any enterprising web journos.

Related Items

Movie:	The Mummy Returns
Celeb:	Brendan Fraser
	Rachel Weisz
	Joe Johnston
	Stephen Sommers
	Alfred Gough
	Miles Millar
	Oded Fehr

(1-20 of 27 posts) | Reply

Prosper761 writes:
on Sep 11 2006 10:33 AM

I suppose that since the original was the closest Fraser has come to actual movie success, he's desperate enough to attempt a second sequel. Too bad...

(Reply to this)

elziard writes:
on Sep 11 2006 10:42 AM

agreed.
he needs something as his star is fading.
i'm all for a reimagining as the first was tolerable, the second downright laughable.
i saw it for free and even then i wanted some restitution from the theater for allowing me to see that!

it could only get better, right? right?

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Sep 11 2006 11:22 AM

there was a post awhile back saying that Fehr really wanted to do another mummy movie, although he wasn't sure if he'd be in it. He said that the next film would be a prequel of sorts. I guess that's not the case now, which is good, cause Fehr friggin ruled in those movies.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Sep 11 2006 11:44 AM

In reply to this comment (#844047)
What did you expect when you decided to see the Mummy; Citizen Kane? Like the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, The Mummy movies weren't meant to be anything more than fun summertime escapism popcorn movies loaded up with noisy FX�s and that's exactly what they were.

(Reply to this)

blorenze writes:
on Sep 11 2006 12:21 PM

Brendan Fraser has his a niche... films like this and George of the Jungle are where he works well as a leading man. He is too goofy to be artistic or even serious, but I think he knows that. He can pop into a serious role as a minor player ( as with Crash) but he is what he is. This is a little nit-picky, but he seemed neither spry nor fit in the Mummy Returns. An action movie with a stiff led doesn't work... I hope he's hitting the gym for this. George of the Jungle rocks.

(Reply to this)

synergyred writes:
on Sep 11 2006 12:46 PM

Ugh. The Mummy was a fun popcorn flick but The Mummy Returns really feel into the "bad sequel" sterotype. I'm not looking foreward to this. I'm a little confused as to what they mean by a re-imagining of the first two movies. Does this mean that they are going to re-tell the story of the first two movies? I don't really see the point in that.

(Reply to this)

Circe Prankster writes:
on Sep 11 2006 01:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#844050)
I disagree. What about "Gods and Monsters" and "The Quiet American"? He was excellent in those. He does have a bland all-American nitwit kind of look to him, but that can work to his advantage in a serious film where he's playing a good-looking innocent or a smooth operator who gets caught up in something out of his depth.

(Reply to this)

Ashron writes:
on Sep 11 2006 01:59 PM

In reply to this comment (#844049)
The key word there is "fun," which The Mummy was not. It was just a bland rip-off of almost every other adventure movie made.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Sep 11 2006 02:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#844053)
What isn't a "rip-off" nowadays? I don't remember who said it, but there's a quote that goes something like this: "There are no original ideas anymore."

And though it may have been a rip-off, there hadn't been anything like it in awhile, so it was a nice change of pace for some.

Novelty doesn't mean quality, nor does repitition mean lack thereof necessarily.

If you like something, you like it, if not, it doesn't mean it was bad -- it was just bad to you.

Oh well, not sure where I was going with this -- as Emerson would most surely say to my pontificating ass: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

(Reply to this)

TheAnswerMVP2001 writes:
on Sep 11 2006 02:53 PM

I enjoyed them both and even the spin-off film with the Rock. As long as they leave the kid out of the 3rd film I'll be happy, I thougt he was the worst part of the 2nd film.

(Reply to this)

RoadDogXVIII writes:
on Sep 11 2006 03:26 PM

As long as they get a good director, I'm all for "Mummy 3". David R. Ellis had me giddy with "Snakes on a Plane." Gore Verbinski was able to strike up some fun with the "Pirates of the Carribean" movies (I don't know about you guys, but I loved "Pirates 2"). As far as I'm concerned, just keep the bad directors away (i.e. Shawn Levy, Peter Hyams, or music video directors), and maybe we could have a fun movie.

(Reply to this)

taran72 writes:
on Sep 11 2006 04:50 PM

I agree...just keep the bad directors away. Having Sommers MIA is a good start.

(Reply to this)

Kid_Ikarus writes:
on Sep 12 2006 09:56 AM

Hey now.... he was pretty good in School Ties.

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Sep 12 2006 10:22 AM

I enjoyed both films, so I would be happy with a 3rd. I've heard rumblings about a 3rd one ever since the 2nd one did well.

(Reply to this)

bijibadness writes:
on Sep 12 2006 02:31 PM

you kids take your movies so ###ing seriously. Very few of you appear to have a CLUE of what people actually want to see. PEOPLE being the general public, you know, normal folk. I'm a young guy, and everybody I asked loved "Dead Man's chest". Friends, random people on the street, it was virtually all very positive. These people aren't stupid, they just don't give a damn about some movie set in space called "Firefly", or some dorky sequel to a movie they never even heard of called "Clerks 2". I can appreciate serious cinema as much as the next guy, and I too feel sick watching some of previews for the new stuff coming out of Hollywood these days ("Flyboys" anyone?) I just see so much of this hating on the big "dumb" movies pile 'Pirates' and 'Mummy', when in reality they were fine, well made flicks.

I'm talking to deaf ears though, methink.

(Reply to this)

killermonkey8822 writes:
on Sep 12 2006 05:43 PM

the first one was pretty good,the second one was okay but it was kindof cheesy, i don't know about this one though, smallville is a horrible show and jurassic park 3 was a pretty corny movie

(Reply to this)

Hitbfbus writes:
on Sep 14 2006 12:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#844050)
Blorenze, with all due respect, I couldn�t agree with you less. Take it from one who knows�like h*ll is Brendan Fraser �too goofy to be artistic or even serious�!! What a myth. He is one of our most versatile actors, he�s a heck of a lot more than just the Mummy films and George of the Jungle--he�s not the least bit goofy in Gods and Monsters, Twilight of the Golds, With Honors, Passion of Darkly Noon, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (on the stage)--I could go on--and he carries all these major dramatic roles with the utmost professionalism and seriousness. Jeez. He�s as much a dramatic actor as comedic, dammit. �He is what he is�� my *ss!

(And now, rant over�thank you for your time.)

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Sep 17 2006 08:29 AM

He should steal William Shatners hairpiece and make the sequel to Encino Man. I'm sure he and Paully Shore would have a lot to discuss.

(Reply to this)

Jbourne37 writes:
on Sep 18 2006 12:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#844060)
It's a forum on a movie website, I think that means we're serious about movies. Not all movies, just quality ones. A movie can be dumb and good, just look at Crank. It's probably the dumbest action flick to come out this summer, and it was fantastic. Just because a movie is dumb, it doesn't mean it can get away with being a piece of shit. If you and your friends want to go out and see every shitty movie that has a big budget and the favorite actor of the month, go ahead. But don't think that every movie you don't go to see is a failure. Firefly had a large enough fanbase to get a movie made out of a cancelled tv show, I think that means a few people gave a damn. And Clerks 2 was the sequel to one of the most popular independent films of the 90's, and I'm pretty sure a couple of people have seen the original Clerks. It's dvd sales are outstanding. People do give a damn about intelligent, high-quality films. Just because you'll see any terrible movie that everyone else is going to see doesn't mean we need to abandon good films and embrace the shit. Methinks you're not talking to deaf ears, methinks you're talking to educated people who enjoy quality films, regardless of budget, f/x, or box office numbers.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Mummy

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links