Skip to main content

The Dark Universe is Mummified on Arrival


          The Mummy is one of those classic monster stories that’s going to be rebooted and reshaped forever. This new film from writer turned director Alex Kurtzman and starring Tom Cruise has little in common with the 1932 Boris Karloff vehicle that began this long-running series. 
          Nick Morton (Tom Cruise), a reckless military officer, discovers an Egyptian tomb mysteriously buried in modern Iraq. When he and archaeologist Jenny Halsy (Annabelle Wallis) come upon a sarcophagus inside, they transport it back to London. But in unearthing this ancient prison they unintentionally release the cursed mummy of Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), a being determined to bring evil upon the world.
          Perhaps the most obvious problem with The Mummy is that it’s not set in Egypt. The tomb is found in Iraq and then most of the film after it takes place in England. Not only that, but there’s nothing in the films’ presentation style that suggests an Egyptian theme. It’s a very dark film, by which I mean the lighting is very low throughout. But in a way that’s fine, as this movie is trying to be at least in part, a horror film. The problem there is it’s not in the least bit frightening. Every jump scare you can see coming and even the grotesque imagery isn’t all that effective. The movie is completely lacking in suspense, and its attempts at horror aren’t helped by its’ array of comedic moments. This film has no idea what it wants its tone to be. Comedy and horror can meld well together but the comic relief here doesn’t feel natural, nor does it offset the fear factor. Also, it’s really bad comedy. Almost no jokes land and some are so corny not even Stephen Sommers would touch them. The writing just in general is very poor, with badly developed characters whose personalities are explained to us rather than shown, and plot points that have no bearing on the present story only there to set up sequels. 
          Tom Cruise’s character is a horrible person in this film, and in fairness, the filmmakers are to some degree, aware of this. They give him a temptation arc where he’s constantly in some kind of mental battle with the mummy, but it doesn’t work because there’s nothing about him you care about at this point. Say what you will about the Stephen Sommers Mummy films (I actually quite like the first one), but Brendan Fraser was likeable and charismatic. Cruise is lacking both. His love interest is a stock determined scientist with a touch of stubbornness, here played by Annabelle Wallis. Wallis is a good actress, but this character could have been played by anyone. And she’s remarkably inconsistent. In one scene she’s telling Nick how she believes a particular stone has supernatural powers and the gods are out to annihilate them, yet a few scenes later doesn’t believe Nick when he says he’s seen Ahmanet in a vision. Ahmanet (who might as well just be the actual goddess Amunet given the subject matter) is portrayed okay. Sofia Boutella definitely has the physical capabilities for the role, but isn’t allowed to make her more than just a generic evil villain. She had so much more character as a supporting role in Star Trek Beyond than as the antagonist of this film. Jake Johnson and Courtney B. Vance are essentially just playing themselves. And Russell Crowe is one of those set-up characters for a sequel.
          You see, The Mummy is the debut instalment of the Dark Universe, a cinematic universe plan that will bring together numerous monsters from classic Universal films. Many of these monsters and other characters actually began in Romantic and Victorian literature. So Crowe plays a modern incarnation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jeckyll, and while he could make for a good Hyde, he’s not a good fit for the meek doctor. But the idea is he’ll appear in a number of future movies. This film falls into the trap of putting the franchise ahead of the film, and in many instances it’s trying way too hard. The order Jeckyll is head of is clearly just a S.H.I.E.L.D. copy from the Marvel universe. And its ending is almost entirely dependant on future movies. It sets up a greater battle between humans and monsters, which with the idea of evil incarnate reminds me a lot of a show called Penny Dreadful, which essentially already did this premise -also with famous monsters. 
          There’s really not much to recommend in this movie. It has a really good plane crash scene, and the make-up on Ahmanet and her minions is pretty good; but apart from that, this is a lame start to what looks like a lame series. It both takes itself too seriously and not seriously enough. Universal already has plans to do reboots of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, The Invisible Man, Dracula, and even The Creature from the Black Lagoon as part of this Dark Universe series. And I’d rather just see a good reboot of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen instead.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...