Skip to main content

The Mistaken Identity of Lee Cronin’s The Mummy

I think director Lee Cronin was way more interested in making an exorcism movie than a mummy movie, and the resulting attempt to pound a square peg into a round hole is not a very enthralling version of either. Lee Cronin’s The Mummy -a title choice it should be made clear came from the producers- seems to have a largely passive interest in mummification, ancient Egypt, and the other typical aspects of mummy horror stories -and that is by design. Cronin thought the notion of an average, relatable character being mummified was more frightening than just the mummy itself being a monster that stalks the protagonists. And that is a fair point and a curious place to come at a new version of The Mummy from. But the creativity to both the story and the horror mostly stops at that point.
The titular Mummy of this film is more of a possessing spirit than an entity in its own right, sustained through generations via a sacrificial host. We first meet it in the basement of an Egyptian family, tasked with its caretaking, and subsequently the matriarch kidnaps Katie, the daughter of an American TV reporter Charlie (Jack Reynor) and his wife Larissa (Laia Costa) living in Aswan. Several years later in an accident, a sarcophagus containing Katie is found and she, in a traumatic, malformed, feral state, is brought back to her family in Albuquerque. There of course, free of captivity, her violent powers start to take shape while Charlie with the aid of an Egyptian detective Zaki (May Calamawy) investigates what actually happened to his daughter.
This mystery component is probably the most interesting aspect of the movie, tying as much into themes of human trafficking as the occult and to its credit utilizing real Egyptian actors and more authentic Egyptian ephemera than is common of Mummy movies -although its mythologizing leaves a lot to be desired. Zaki is a likeable character to follow through portions of the movie and the clues that Charlie uncovers, such as the script from the wrappings impressed on Katie's skin (and which is in some parts peeled off), are creative and curious. But while the question of what happened to Katie is modestly compelling, Katie herself is not.
Katie, played under heavy prosthetics by newcomer Natalie Grace, is by and large just another demonic child archetype -creepy, disgusting, self-harming, and violent. She of course bears a particular resemblance in both role and thematic function to Regan from The Exorcist, and Cronin seems to consciously hearken back to that film in his emotional attention towards the parents' desperate love for her amidst this situation. And it is a really intense premise to grapple with -the differing degrees of loss presented by both losing a child and then having that child returned years later but as someone unrecognizable.
Yet for as much as Cronin intends that theme of grief to resonate (the filming of this movie was a healing process for him after the death of a parent), the seriousness of that theme takes a backseat to the shock horror elements. While Charlie is very much disturbed and troubled throughout the rehabilitation of Katie, Larissa is in denial for a substantial portion of the story -what she is going through is never fully explored. In the meantime, Katie exerts more influence on her siblings -especially a little sister who was born after she disappeared- and engages in visceral activities like stabbing through her own foot and eating bugs. All of it is textbook exorcism cliché, down to the real Katie on the inside communicating with her dad through a creative use of Morse Code, and conversely, using her demonic powers to toss a caretaker out a window. And despite some of the gross and gruesome imagery -especially at a funeral scene- it’s not nearly as interesting or compelling as better movies using such tropes more honest about what they are.
Cronin owns all of this, explicitly so given the movie's title -which implies a very particular or distinct vision unlike other versions of The Mummy that we have seen. But much like the last Blumhouse attempt at revamping one of the classic movie monsters, Wolf Man, there is very little that is new or compelling about this interpretation. This is a better film than that one, and is more clear in its attempt at actual thematic integrity, but the horror supplementing it is mundane. There are some moments that are disturbing in an elementary way -the bug-eating and self mutilation- but these don't leave an impression. And the assault on one character up to (and then after) their death is overdone to the point of being corny rather than scary. There are just three scenes that are legitimately creepy -one conversation between the sisters across a closed door, an 'undressing' sequence that is decently unsettling (if nowhere comparable to an equivalent beat from 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple), and the contents of a video tape -setting aside the movie's digital era time-frame- effective primarily due to its use of human trafficking imagery.
The movie wraps up ultimately in a thoroughly mediocre way -for both the storytelling and the metaphor (and the Exorcist playbook), it is entirely obvious. That’s not to say it isn’t right in its way, just underwhelming. And certainly the endnote that actually concludes the film is far less organic, a tacked-on second ending that endeavours to correct the first and suggest a happy resolution after all. It is one of the points of the film that feels the most blatantly personal in nature -a catharsis that is better for Cronin than his story. There’s an echo in the sentiment of the choices of better directors like Steven Spielberg and Jordan Peele, who have likewise made this move. It is just done in a manner so naked and distracting, it feels like undercutting more than anything else.
As far as re-imaginings of The Mummy go, I can’t believe it but I would recommend more the failed Dark Universe version from 2017, which at least had its insane corny universe-building going for it. Lee Cronin’s take feels positively empty by comparison -a movie that could switch out the mummy for any one of a dozen other types of monsters and lose nothing. There are some noble themes that Cronin on some level clearly wants his film to examine, but they get too bogged down in dreary horror habits that they lose their capacity to engage meaningfully. There is no unique vision for this footnote of a monster movie. Return it to its tomb.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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....
1 comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more