Now We Know Why Rachel Weisz Didn't Want To Be In The Mummy 3
May 7, 2008 AT 08:55 am 
"I got a very angry phone from her agent, saying she'll never play the mother of a 21-year-old. I said, "OK, good, fine, bye.'"Which makes more sense? Being away from her son? Or not liking playing a character with a 21 year old son?
That shines a light on the way men in Hollywood and elsewhere think.
Rachel was born in 1971, so she must have started out very young, like Jamie Lynn young. Only men can come up with such idiotic concepts.
Rob Cohen is lying though his teeth and i can prove it because he himself said in his blog that he never met or talked to Rachel and that she left the series after the Mummy returns. So why would Rachel's agent call him about the sons age in the film if she was not apart of the film in the first place?
Here is the link that contradicts his comments in Entertainment Weekly:
http://www.robcohenthemummy.com/2007/09/up_and_running.php#comments
"A few of you have inquired about Rachel Weisz and this deserves a response. Rachel decided to leave the franchise many years ago, after "The Mummy 2" finished shooting. We all had hopes that she would change her mind but I never had the opportunity to meet her or talk to her."
What you are hearing is sour grapes from a director who is trying to get publicity for his film by bashing an actress who left the production because she did not like the script, a script that has been bash in certain circles by those who have read it.
This link not only reviews the script but has an insider in the production of Mummy 3 that explains why Rachel left the film.
"http://iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2327&Itemid=99"
"Kudos to Rachel Weisz for jumping ship on this ancient turd in the making, really well done. So while the official word has been that her schedule would not allow her to return to the third film, sources close to actress have said that the script was the real reason why she did not come back"
And here are more sources that confirmed Rachel leaving because of the script
From Eonline: http://www.eonline.com/gossip/awful/index.jsp?uuid=be7b5f63-7f05-4c2c-a6...
Mum's the Word?
Remember those fun Mummy movies with Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz? The first installment was happening, the second one not so much, but both made some pretty big bank. Enough so that Universal was hopin' to squeeze a third flick out of the franchise.
"Course, there's been talk of this Egyptian redo stuff for some time. First, it was reported early last year that both Brendan and Rach wouldn't reprise their roles. Then there were mouthings in September that B.F. had signed back on. And now I'm hearing there are more back-'n'-forth machinations regarding the mummified redo attempts.
Rachel Weisz
According to inside busybody beetles on the project, both stars are on the verge of walking off from discussions...but for different reasons. The Oscar-winning Rach is reportedly less than thrilled with the script.
"It's basically a very bad repeat of the first two films but without the charm or wit," say loose-lipped insiders unafraid of big-studio voodoo curses for blabbers.
And I'm told Brendan - ”on the other cash-siphoning hand - ”wants a bigger paycheck and more back-end profits than Universal is willing to offer.
And here are more that confirmed that story:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Rachel-Weisz-Leaves-Mummy-3-4912.html
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Mummy-3-May-Be-In-Trouble-4419.html
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo
seriously,isn't being away from your child for 5 months isn't a good enough reason?! As a mother you should understand that!
5 months is a looong time
I'm not sure if I can stand leaving my children for 5 months...that's almost half a year.
Good one Fred!!! We always want to believe the worst don't we? Plus I don't think she would care about playing a 21 year olds mom. Angelina did it and was still sexy - and Charlize Theron certainly pushes the envelope of playing 'out of character' characters and she is still hot stuff too. That guy is a jerk.
oh wait -- Fred posted it already. read above
THANKS!
please do a fashion find I love the shift dress with that red belt
She could have brought her kid and a nanny with her. Thats what most actresses of small children do. In the movie business thats the nature of the beast. So given that, I am leaning more toward the hissy fit reason. She doesn't want to be portrayed as an old mother. In this business you have to appear young whether you are or not. Maybe she thought she it would be career ending.
Sorry Amy but my post alone proves you're wrong.
To play a mother of a 21 yr old she could be 40 or less. How old is this woman anyway? That reason doesnt make sense to me. As for the kid, thats a cop out too. So many people bring their kids along or they do have these things called planes that can actually fly across the ocean, maybe shes heard of them ? She could come home once a month or more. Lots of business people travel often so its not unheard of, even for long distances. If it was because of a bad script then kudos for her to not just give in and create a P.O.S. movie.
I loved The Mummy and was excited about the The Mummy Returns. However, the sequel was a STINKER!! It was awful and if I were Rachel, I'd have dropped out after that dud as well. I'd have been more shocked if she had agreed to be in this one.
the mummy is way beneath her as an actress. she did it a while ago, before she started getting really good, decent roles that let her really act. she was nominated for the constant gardener best supporting actress oscar, wasnt she? shes lucky it hasnt stalled her career like it did brendan's. he hasnt managed to get himself any real acting job since these bombs. she knows this role is beneath her and she is getting good advice from her agent/manager to stay away from these lame films.
In her new yet-to-be-released movie "The lovely Bones" she is playing the mother of two teenage daughers, one who is murdered, the other who grows into her twenties in the film....So...Yeah, she would play the mother of a 21 year old.....
my mom was born in 1971 and i'll turn 21 at the end of this month.
so there's my 2 cents.
the storyline does not support a 16 year old having a child. That where the script does not make sense. Rachel would have to be at least 10 years older than she is for it to fall into place.
There's no drama here. She chose not to do a sequel. Whatever her reasons.
Unlike some others, I did enjoy both Mummy movies. I know writers and directors are probably not prone to listening to actors input, but if Rachel was reluctant to do a third movie because of the script then maybe someone should have paid attention. Either way, they have lost my patronage.
Terribly disappointed about Rachel. Probably won't bother to see it.
watched the movie, the script and everything else was kind of lame in a way...its the third time a mummy was brought back to life, what else can they come up with aside from what already happened in the first and second film? 1. it WOULD have been better if rachel played the role 2. it was probably best if she didnt and 3. although these kind of films dont get you oscars, they do really give entertainment to people (first time around)
I have a habit of not reading any internet spoilers or anything on a film, especially one that i ADORE, so when i sat down and that new woman was there i was like... ugh! I was excited and fully expecting to see Rachel, lol. I was muttering annoyed at the screen along with all my other movie patrons.. Needless to say that woman just did NOT pull it off. Brendan seemed lackluster when he looked at her.. you didnt believe they were in love at all. Not in the slightest. I dont know about the rest of you, but i put that woman to the test by trying to get her to say "Beat that Cambridge Scholars!" In my head. -- She failed.. miserably. I'll agree that the movie wasnt the greatest. It was a doover of something they'd already done, and they kinda made fun of that with the use of Jonathan -- So if she jumped ship because the script was lacking, i wont hold a grudge, but.. on the same token... I'll say this. I MISSED HER! Actively throughout the whole film i was wincing slightly and was distracted by the new Evelyn. She took away from scenes that may have very well been charming with Rachel, but with her it was like she was trying to step in where there was too much prior chemistry and past and play it off for her own. Bah i dont know.. i'll stop ranting now and end with a Booooo Cohen, booooo!! :))
I saw this piece of s+++ the other day, and frankly, I can't blame Rachel for passing on that "script." If you put together the two earlier reasons, one, not liking the script, and two, that she didn't want to play the mother of a twenty one year old, the real reason is clear: Given the time frame of the earlier films, having a grown son that looked more like Brendan’s kid brother than his son was just not believable. This really jumped off the screen at me as a cheap plot device to introduce another grown hero. Lame. Really, really lame.
All i can say is boo to Cohen, has a stick up his ass, just because an actress doesn't like his script has to bad mouth her, thank god for people like Fred setting the record straight. Good for Rachel for not acting for this 3rd movie, she's a wonderful actress and will continue to watch her in other films.
I loved the Mummy and I loved the Mummy Returns even more. Rachel was such a pivotal character in the films though..... it's just not the same without her. Mummy 3 was just not the same. I was disappointed. The first two had such a fun cast and the third just didn't come through... Also, I do think Mummy 3 was way below Rachel as at actress at this point. Maybe if Stephen Sommers was still the writer and the script was still goofy and witty it would've worked.....
Post new comment