It seems that everyone is using Indiana Jones as their inspiration these days. Listen to directors on both Doctor Who and Supernatural describe specific seasons of either show as “our Raiders of the Lost Ark,” or the myriad of filmmakers who bump it to the top of their lists of films that affected them as children, the ones that mattered most in their development into mature movie-type people. Now there’s a plan to reboot the whole thing because we can never really get enough of the famed archaeologist.
But who stacks up against Spielberg’s classics on film? (Do not say National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets.) In other media realms? There’s much to be said for the Lara Crofts and Daniel Jacksons of the world, but they seem to miss out on the key notes that Indy hit.
So I’m nominating The Mummy.
What makes The Mummy my top contender against other potential usurpers? After all, many types of entertainment have tried to bank on an Indy-like niche…
Jones-alikes are aplenty in media, either by character or circumstance. Lara Croft was the most obvious inheritor, and while the Tomb Raider games are still popular, the film series they launched was dismal at best. The studio relied on Angelina Jolie’s sex appeal at the expense of building Croft’s character (unless she was crying to her real-life daddy, Jon Voigt, who is a poor replacement for Sean Connery). Set in the modern day with modern action, the retro gleam that Indy provided was nowhere to be seen—it was all semi-automatics and hanging from marble ceilings. National Treasure was similar in that regard, with a distinct lack of globe-trotting due to being primarily concerned with U.S. history, and we all know that Nicolas Cage—special snowflake that he is—is no Harrison Ford.
Science fiction films like Stargate might have fit the bill with their pacing and style of action. But even with the ancient history angle filling that archaeological niche, Stargate was oddly too serious to become the next Indy heir. It’s humor was entirely circumstantial, and none of the characters fit an Indiana-like mold—Kurt Russell’s version of Jack O’Neil and James Spader’s Daniel Jackson were arguably pieces of Jones’ character split between two people. Stargate worked as a sci-fi epic, but lacked that rollicking quality that Raiders possessed. The Fifth Element had the humor and Bruce Willis’ Korben Dallas could have played as a future-time Indy, but it lacked the historical vantage point beyond its opening scene, and was built more as a single myth than a serial.
Outside of film, more and more media draws on Indiana Jones for inspiration, and video games seem to be the place to go by and large. From Tomb Raider to La-Mulana, even goofy little app games like Temple Run, everyone is drawing on that familiar vein of storytelling. But regardless of how much fun it is to be the avatar of a similar character, it’s not the same as enjoying the wit and wonder of an Indiana Jones film.
Which brings me back to my point about The Mummy and how excellent it is, and how I will fight to defend its honor—preferably with a saber.
We can safely say that director/screenwriter Stephen Sommers was not aiming anywhere remotely highbrow with his not-even-really-a-remake of The Mummy. His other projects, from Van Helsing to G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, don’t even scrape to middlebrow. It is doubtful that he, like so many current writers/directors/showrunners took his particular treatment of the old Universal classic and thought, I’m gonna do right by Spielberg, though he did mean for his film to bear a resemblance to Jones. Yet regardless of intention, it’s fair to say that this movie—more than your average successor—managed to capture the “spirit” of the Indiana Jones mythos better than anyone. How?
To start, of course, you need the right leading fella to play your quippy action man, Rick O’Connell. Brendan Fraser is nothing like Harrison Ford in terms of his path as an actor—his career has jumped all over the place, and that seems to have suited him. But what Fraser did have that was essential to any Indiana analog (say that five times fast) was the perfect balance of swagger, charm, and silliness. Fraser is goofier than Ford, yes, but he’s rugged enough, willing to get dirty enough, as-good-with-a-sword-as-he-is-with-a-smile enough. And because he was perhaps a more light-hearted incarnation of the type, his counterpart in this journey—Rachel Weisz’s Evelyn Carnahan—was similarly sweetened, a bumbling and eager Egyptologist looking for recognition in a field where women are rarely accepted.
And I’m going to say something that’s going to probably upset a lot of people now; I kind of prefer Evelyn to Marion. Thing is, while Marion is wonderfully no-nonsense and a total hell raiser, her personal stake in Raiders revolves around her having a piece of jewelry that her dad left behind after being a pretty terrible parent. She regards her presence alongside Jones as insurance on her investment in his search for the Ark. But mostly… there are still feelings there and she can’t ignore them. On the flip side, Evelyn is actually the foreword momentum of the story in The Mummy; she’s there because of her expertise, and she is the one who possesses the knowledge to make their expedition successful. Her curiosity is what eggs the plot on, and while Rick is certainly the hero, he’s also technically just her muscle. He’s there to fetch and carry, glare at the rival expedition when they get too entitled, and boggle at her when she puts their lives in danger because, what, reading the Book of the Dead sounds like a great idea, obviously.
The fact that the film has a villain who is bound to the artifacts is a great angle to play when your story hinges on archaeological discovery. The titular mummy could have come off too hokey for a modern audience, and there are very specific reasons why it didn’t turn out that way. In part, the special effects actually did their job in this film—they delivered something new, but didn’t detract from the story or make the character seem secondary to the flashy CGI. In addition, actor Arnold Vosloo only agreed to take the role of Imhotep if he could cut out the camp on his end; he felt the mummy would be a better baddie if he played it straight, allowing the tragic love story to motivate him rather than magical curse juice. It ties him back to his old Universal black-and-white counterpart, but this Mummy is capable of showing just how far he must go for a woman he’s already died for once.
For all that the story was a goofy romp, it bounced back on moments of levity. It never got quite as serious as Jones perhaps, but even the camp turned on emotional blows—like the death of Captain Winston Havlock, the steady and methodical assimilation of the American treasure hunters, and Imhotep’s genuine pain at losing Anck-Su-Namun for a second time. And rather than making the male hero the only important central figure with a bunch of occasional sidekicks, The Mummy put together a great ensemble of people who all felt important to the core of the narrative. Rick O’Connell is the fighting man on the team, but it’s Evey’s quest, which is prompted by her brother Jonathan’s meddling, and the whole gang would be incapable of making it out alive without the only person who really understands what’s going on, Ardeth Bay. It’s a group effort, which could have easily been an improvement on Indy’s girl-of-the-month and sidekick-per-country style in the long run.
Still, the film is far from perfect and mirrors many of Indy’s blunders, including cringeworthy racial stereotypes, not-even-remotely-accurate history, and ladies getting randomly stuck in their nightgowns during the film’s final act. But if anyone was looking for a movie that offers the same sorts of laughs, thrills, and early 20th century treks into the desert, this is definitely where it’s at.
It’s a shame that the sequels and spin-offs created afterward abandoned most of the strengths of the first film because it would have been a joy to watch a series that stayed true to the tone of The Mummy. (And they should have given Ardeth Bey his own spin-off.) There are certain movies that have tried to establish a similar brand with a twist; in a way, Pirates of the Caribbean is an Indy-style series that features pirates instead of archaeologists. And there’s talk of a reboot, of course, as there always is. But I’ll always miss the potential that The Mummy represented.
Emmet Asher-Perrin quotes this film a lot, and no one ever knows what she’s talking about. You can bug her on Twitter and Tumblr, and read more of her work here and elsewhere.
Stargate wasn’t an heir to the Indiana Jones legacy because Stargate was actually an heir to the H. Rider Haggard lost race adventure (e.g. She or King Solomon’s Mines; put out of your mind any movies that actually bore those names).
I did like Mummy Returns well enough. But everything after that has been … well …
The Mummy is a good film (although I have shunned it because of Fraser’s connection with the godawful remake of Bedazzled).
I would also consider a film left off your list of Raiders wannabees which I have always liked, not least because the focus is on the mousy-girl-transformed-into-action-hero-but-not-turning-into-conan-the-meathead: Romancing the Stone, which like certain other great films was betrayed by it’s sequel…
“We don’t need the map, I’m the map” is a line I still trot out from time to time.
I will also nominate TNT’s “The Librarian” series of movies. Like Indy, we have a protagonist who is a professional archeologist (among other things), there are different love interests per movie, and powerful magical artifacts at the center of each story.
Like many other Indiana Jones-lookalikes, they did split Indy’s brains and brawn into 2 characters, and added the twist where the fighter in the pair is the female character.
Not to mention, the movies have Excalibur, who is just the best artifact sword there can be :)
P.S. Splitting the “Indiana” character into seems to be a theme in such movies/tv series (Mummy, Librarian, Stargate, Warehouse 13…). I guess, you have to have at least 2 characters to match Ford’s Indy. (Nicolas Cage being a special case)
I’m fond of using “You’re on the wrong side of the river”, which no one gets and so they just give me strange looks.
Thanks for the great article. I loved this movie, for all the reasons you gave (and more). It was fun, it told a good story, had memorable characters and yes, gave us plenty of one-liners.
Mummy Returns does a decent job of going with a Husband and Wife Archaeology team. Their child…well, the less said the better. But I liked Evie, Rick and Jonathan’s dynamic.
The Mummy is great. It’s one of those films I can watch over and over again and not get bored with it. It’s fun, with just the right amount of camp and chills. Pity the sequels weren’t able to capture the essence.
No mention of Relic Hunter? I loved Relic Hunter!
Also, I just now realized how much Chris Pratt’s current career arc reminds me of Brendan Fraser’s from 15 years ago.
Hear! Hear!
Plus this is the movie that introduced most of to Oded Fehr.
I even like the sequel.
My only issue with The Mummy was that the ads were misleading. I went in expecting to see a horror movie and walked out sorely disappointed. I had to watch it again later to actually see it, and then I loved it, and agree that it coulda/shoulda been Indiana Jones 4.
I’ve also just head-canoned that Korben Dallas is Indy’s great-great-great-great-grandson.
So you give lip service to video games but do not mention Uncharted? That is the true heir to the Indy throne.
ENOTI, don’t forget to put Ricks sing-song voice, when you’re on the “wrong side of the riivverr”. Lol. Still use it all the time. I watched ” Raiders” in the theater ever Friday night a 8pm, for the entire summer. Didn’t go to “The Mummy”, because I don’t like horror movies. When I saw it on video, I wished I could take it all back. The main problem I had with the sequels, if they couldn’t have the real Evie, they should have let her die. THAT could have made a good RIF story between father and son.
I actually really like Mummy Returns. It’s the third one that should be obliterated from memory.
Yeeeeessss I really love The Mummy, but I can’t quite convince the husband to watch it because I very stupidly made him watch Mummy 3 when it came out and that was beyond awful. (I really thought it would be awesome because Mummy+Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh??? COME ON.) He’ll watch it begrudingly eventually, much like he did with the Princess Bride (he thought that was a serious movie beforehand lol), and he’ll love it. :P
@Aeryl: YES. DOUBLE YES. Everything with the hotness that is Oded Fehr!
I have always thought of The Mummy as what would have happened if PG Wodehouse had ever taken to writing horror/adventure stories. Evie and Jonathan are straight out of Wodehouse–the plucky, small girl with the dissipated brother who gets everyone into trouble. Plus, I adore Brendan Fraser doing goofy action. I more or less ignore the sequels and just revel in the first one at every chance possible.
Anyone else here seen The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec?
It’s Indiana Jones with the humor/dress-up gags of the RDJ Sherlock Holmes. I’d recommend watching it in French, not dubbed.
I loved the Mummy and the Mummy Returns but not quite as much, and also didn’t care for the third one.
I have always had a problem with the whole approach and characters are such riff off of Amelia Peabody books by Elizabeth Peters a pen name for a very respecteed Egyptologist originally a professor at the University of Chicago. Dynamic, humor, eventual marriage and son, there is nothing that is not from those books except the over the top supernatural which was a little more subtle in the books. Anyway, anyone who loves the movie of The Mummy will undoubtedly enjoy the books. http://www.ameliapeabody.com/ as Barba Mertz she wrote two non-fiction Egyptology books Temples Tombs and Heiroglyphs and Red Land Black Land, and as Barbara Michaels she wrote a huge list of horror/supernatural thrillers among others.
Loved The Mummy, and I love Elizabeth Peters’ Peabody Mysteries as well. They are certainly similar, but I don’t think they are rip-offs… I’m highly doubtful that the writer of The Mummy had read those books. Its just a common trope.
Movies like The Mummy, Indiana Jones, Romancing the Stone… I love the combination of the camp, melodrama, humor, but all balanced and intentional and with taste. Those movies remind me of a good stir-fry.
No mention of Sahara? Yeah, it wasn’t very good.
I missed the Mummy in theaters, largely because I thought it was a horror remake, and at that point, couldn’t visualize Brendan Fraser as an action hero. But when I saw it on TV, I was more than pleasantly surprised, it was a darn good movie, well structured, exciting, and most of all, fun. The sequels were OK, but lost a little quality each time they appeared.
“A good stir-fry,” says Anthony above, and I find that an apt phrase–a good mix of all the stuff I like in a movie. Thanks for reminding me of this overlooked little gem, Emily; I may just haul out the disc and watch it again!
Really enjoyed the first couple of Mummy films. Loved Stargate, of course. And Sahara was a lot of fun (some audiences are just too damn serious for their own good).
Pratt’s name cropping up is the first time I’ve cared about an Indy reboot. If it’s done right, he could be the one. Lotta ifs, though.
@11 JackOfMidworld: that could well be because, according to a radio interview I heard with Omid Djalili, until very late in the day the producers weren’t really sure whether they wanted the film to be a pure horror, a straightforward action film, or what we eventually got, a light-hearted adventure romp with some horror tropes. They shot several scenes in multiple versions, so they could make up their minds later on exactly what tone to take and just use the appropriate version.
Look, I like Chris Pratt. He was perfect for Guardians. But an Indiana Jones played by Chris Pratt will be far more like Rick O’Connell than anything Harrison Ford thought of doing.
Let’s be honest. It may be fun, and thrilling, but Harrison Ford played Indiana straight. It was everyone else around him that played up the camp. Nothing Chris Pratt has ever done convinces me that he can play the straight man. Harrison Ford elevated Indiana Jones, the same way he elevated Han Solo. I don’t think Chris Pratt can do that. If Disney moves forward with this, it will be a different kind of movie. And that’s OK. But there is no way that they could fit Chris Pratt in to the existing narrative, in a new time frame. It will need to be a hard reset.
I saw this at the theatre when it first came out in 1999. It was sold out on opening night. I enjoyed the movie greatly but I think part of its popularity at the time was we were all chomping at the bit to see Episode I (i.e. The Phantom Menace), which came out just a few weeks afterwards.
That’s not to take anything away from it, just noting that we (the movie crowd at the time) were wanting good old-fashioned Spielberg/Lucas-type blockbuster movies. The Mummy fit that bill fairly well.
I liked both of the first Mummy movies, but never watched the third because I was disappointed by the recasting of Rachel Weisz’s character. She was perfect in the first two movies…
Someday I’ll get around to it.
@26, It would have been better to just stuff Evie in a fridge than for them to do what they did.
there were more Mummy movies after ‘Mummy’ and ‘Returns’?
@28, I can’t tell if that’s a joke or serious! If it was a joke, HILARIOUS
If not, there was a movie, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emporer, that starred Brenden Fraser and Jet Li. Evie is recast, played by Maria Bello(who I like, but SRSLY), but John Hannah still plays Jonathan(though I can never look at the character the same way after watching Hannah on Spartacus).
Tomb of the Dragon Empire pretty much lost me when they recast Evie. I could’ve handled it if Not-Rachel was playing Not-Evie (maybe with a throwaway line to explain why she wasn’t there), but Maria Bello is just so different from Rachel Weisz that I couldn’t wrap my head around it.
And there was also the soap opera thing where the child aged like 16 years while the parents apparently didn’t age at all.
Don’t forget (or, well, maybe …) the Scorpion King movies. The first one tried to take the Rock and put him in the equivalent of a Kevin Sorbo Kull movie (while kind of ignoring almost everything they said about him in Mummy Returns); since then, there have been a number of direct-to-video non-Rock-starring sequels that I’ve assiduously avoided.
@30, I love that Scorpion King movie, nonsense and all. It hit a lot of the same beats as The Mummy.
Plus, Godsmack did the soundtrack, and that’s my favorite band.
I liked the first Scorpion King movie, even if it made me gnash my teeth to see gunpowder being invented before writing. I watched the second one once and wondered why people bothered.
I may have been a wee bit harsh towards the first Scorpion King movie — it’s certainly in my collection, and will be included next time I rewatch the Mummy movies.
(Then again, this weekend, of my own volition I watched all three Matrix movies, so my judgment might be suspect.)
Stargate the movie may not have worked as an Indy successor, but you can make the case for the TV show that spun off it being one…
—Keith R.A. DeCandido
I just watched The Librarian last night, because I heard the TV Show was worth watching. Maybe it is, I haven’t srtarted watching yet. The movie was most definitely NOT worth watching, nor was it in any way shape or form a worthy successor to Indy. Talk about unsubtle. I felt like I’d been bludgeoned over the head for 90 minutes.
I watched the Scorpion King on DVD and looked at all the deleted scenes. It actually made a more coherent movie. If you are watching it for the first time, check out those deleted scenes. They give motive for the action. This won’t make it a great movies, but will make it a little less mindless.
Yes, yes, a million times! I was 10 years old when The Mummy came out in a theaters. I remember my mom and dad taking me, and then my mother taking me back at least two more times when I begged and begged. When it came out on video, I memorized practically the entire movie. I even got to meet Brendan Fraser once, and he was just a lovely person to such an awkward kid. It also made me start reading The Amelia Peabody series, a series that continues to be one of my absolute favorites to this day. That movie is the reason I became an Anthropology major, and probably the reason I have never loved anything as much as Ancient Egypt.
I think I may need to watch it again tonight, in fact…!
Best line of the movie: “I AM A LIBRARIAN!”
I think the reason that The Mummy was such a sucessful heir of Indiana Jones is that Sommers is an expert in the adventure films of the 1930s. These were the wellspring from which Indiana Jones came and so it isn’t so surprising that, starting from the same point, he came closer to Raiders than did others who started from Raiders itself.
@mantelli. The best line of the movie, “I…Am…A…Librarian!” Followed by Evie passing out drunk.
@34 Yes!
You could definitely argue for Stargate SG1 as a successor to Indy (at least the earlier seasons). Especially since Richard Dean Anderson and Michael Shanks added a lot of sarcasm and humor to Jack and Daniel, which made them more fun than their movie counterparts. :)
I love how the tropes are lampshades in the first one. I.e Evie reads out loud a portentous section, and a freak gust of wind almost blows out the fire and Rick notes “that *keeps* happening around here…”
At least the sequels still had Johnathan. “No diamond is worth risking your life for!” “Have you *seen* the size of this diamond?!” From the second movie, and from the third “Right, off to somewhere that doesn’t have Mummies. Peru!” And the caption on the screen just states Mummies are discovered in Peru in three weeks time… :)
A note on The Mummy Returns and the reasons why it’s not my favorite, despite still being generally fun:
The problem with this movie is straight up a writing problem. It was admitted by the production team that when the first Mummy was created, they had too many ideas for one script. So they split off half of their ideas and shoved them into the second movie. Problematically, this results in a film that doesn’t feel like a sequel–it feels like another first film.
Which is why we’re burdened with all this weird info that should not suddenly get revealed on a second run; Evie is a reincarnated Egyptian princess! (Really. Really.) Rick is a warrior for god sent to protect her! We only didn’t see that tattoo in the last movie because his armband covered it! All the married stuff is super cute, but dampened by Evie’s sudden transformation into action herione. I have no problem with her learning stuff from Rick that ocassionally comes in handy, but morphing her into a stock Strong Female Character–she’s suddenly the best fighter and the ultimate badass!–took away so much of her adorable uniqueness.
Also, dismantling the love story between Imhotep and Ancksunamun (making it clear that she never really loved him all that much) kind of destroys the stakes of the previous film. It’s hard to root for Imhotep–as much as you ever root for a villain–in the first movie when you know the poor bastard’s relationship is a sham. It’s also lowers the complexity of Ancksunamun’s character; she becomes a nasty opportunist, instead of a woman who actively chose to defy a powerful pharaoh because he claimed ownership over her body. If the point was that she only got into bed with Imhotep because she knew he could ressurect her and free her from subservience to men altogether, that would be fine… but she’s not painted that way. She’s just cold and cruel.
I don’t dislike the movie altogether; I still find it fun to watch sometimes, and there are parts that I love. But it will never be “canon” in my brain. There are too many things that bug me about it.
I don’t agree that they paint the relationship as a sham, more just that they show she wasn’t as devoted to him as he was to her, which was heartbreaking, IMO, and makes the first movie more poignant.
Note to self: never watch both Mummy movies back to back. I’d never seen the two of them close enough together to see the problems that @45 described. I’ve always been able to treat them as separate stories.
I’m just here to second @17’s recommendation of The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec. It’s Indy (and The Mummy) as done by a French woman around the turn of the century. Fabulous.
I agree, really a fun movie, part what makes it great is you get swept up in it and forget the historical inaccuracy a etc. it’s pure entertainment. One thing I’d like to point out is Benny in this movie is a real creep and a good actor you really despise him.
Well, if you remove the genre elements and raise the target age of your audience about five to 10 years, you get Romancing the Stone. It certainly felt like it was spinning off of Raiders when it came out.
I recall reading some wear the mummy was in fact saposta to be a nother indy movie but harrsion ford just didnt wana do it (somthing but not wanting to go back to old chareters) this was before he repraised his role has indy in crsytal skull and solo in force awakens, witch i guess explains why it feels and plays out like an indy movie