You've done a lot of small-scale British films. How do they compare to "The Mummy" and its sequel?
The main difference with "The Mummy" was that it was huge sets which would take ages to light, and we would be sitting in our trailers reading papers and playing cards. When you actually go on set, you still have to step up to the plate and do what you have to do, as it were. With a lower-budget film you just have to do it more often in the day.
Did you enjoy this Hollywood experience?
Oh, yeah. It was amazing. The whole scale is quite phenomenal and intimidating. As I say, it took a while...we were on it for 18 weeks. I kept thinking if this was a British film, I could've done four of them by now! Just getting yourself down to focus on what you do and what you contribute, I kept thinking about a big orchestra, and you were hitting the cymbals, or whatever it is you do in that orchestra. Not really being in control of the whole. But what was amazing was that Steve Sommers, the writer-director, was such a brilliant guy at making you feel essential to everything. It was brilliantly organised. And it has to be when you're spending that much more.
You just played William Wordsworth in Julian Temple's "Pandemonium". Will it displease the scholars?
I think being Julian's project, it's very clearly partisan, and Julian's obviously come off the fence as far as the issues of Wordsworth are concerned. He's taken a bold step, and I'm sure that will ruffle a few feathers, and knock some people out of their ivory towers. But that's no bad thing!
Read our review of "The Mummy Returns".
