I would love, simply love, to see more than one good movie this summer. "Wonder Woman" was an absolute delight, there's no denying that. However, besides that, all I've seen are the decidedly average "King Arthur" and "Alien" movies, and the horrific "Baywatch". Is it so much too ask that I see more than one at least competently put together movie, with decent characters and story, and, where necessary, good action? Universal seems to think so with the arrival of their latest effort "The Mummy", meant to be the third (yes, the THIRD) attempt to kick off a cinematic universe for their classic monster franchises. Now boringly titled the "Dark Universe", "The Mummy" was clearly intended to be a new vehicle for Tom Cruise as the leading man of the franchise and therefore needed to be successful. However, the movie is a drab affair that accomplishes very little other than making it very difficult for me to get past the notion that this is yet another series (ironically) dead on arrival.
The movie sets the tone for what you are about to watch quite definitively right off the bat. It opens with an insane amount of exposition from Russell Crowe (I won't tell you who he plays as some reviews have because it might be considered a spoiler), as he explains the history of our villain, Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella). In any other movie, that wouldn't be too much of a problem as we do need to know this information. However, they constantly flashback to the same scenes (literally unchanged in anyway) throughout the movie as Tom Cruise's Nick Morton discover her backstory for himself. Discovering her story along with Cruise would have been a much more interesting way to find out this information, rather than receive a colossal information dump immediately. So we're three minutes in and I'm already annoyed. Perfect. The action of course kicks off when Boutella's Ahmanet reawakens in the present day, set on carrying out her mission to rule the world, leaving it up to Cruise, his comedy sidekick, his generic love interest, and Crowe's mystery organisation to take her down. It's an inherently bland and predictable story, and nothing we haven't seen before. However, not only this, but the movie follows in the vein of movies like "Iron Man 2" and "Batman v Superman" in terms of story structure. The movie feels like a series of set-up scenes for future movies or events (which don't happen here), with a few action set pieces in the middle. Unfortunately, that only serves to disrupt the proper flow and pacing of the movie we are watching right now. A writer should never sacrifice the movie they are writing in favour of the next steps in a franchise. Never.
Our generic hero and bland love interest everyone
The plot is not the only severe problem with the writing, as the characters suffer as well. The unfortunate fact of this is that these are all generic stereotypes, none of which undergo any development throughout. Tom Cruise plays a stock hero, but he is strangely made unlikable for the most part as he is shown to be a dishonourable soldier. Annabelle Wallis delivers a terrible performance as the standard love interest for Cruise's Nick Morton. The character is unfortunately reduced to a damsel in distress-type character fairly quickly, despite an intriguing entrance into the proceedings. She is only in the movie to deliver exposition on the odd occasion, before Cruise has to save her once again. The less said about Jake Johnson in this film the better, honestly, because not only is his character incredibly cringeworthy and annoying, but his performance is without a doubt one of the worst I've seen in a long time. The only two good characters in the film are Sofia Boutella's Ahmanet, who actually has an interesting backstory; and Russell Crowe, who, as I've said, I won't' be spoiling but he is easily the most engaging presence throughout. The worst part about the entire issue of characterisation is that the performances throughout are equally terrible for the most part. With the exceptions of the aforementioned Boutella and Crowe, and to an extent Cruise (though he is simply playing a less liable version of himself here), the cast are largely terrible. These are two issues which go hand in hand in my mind. Without strong writing and characterisation, the actors cannot be expected to deliver truly memorable performance. However, that is not going to stop me from identifying the performances as one of the worst and most annoying parts of the entire production.
Sofia Boutella gives another admirable performance despite the script
So it's practically all bad news so far. However, there are a few areas where the movie is actually relatively successful. For the most part, the effects work in the movie is solid. Admittedly, there are some extremely questionable moments, particularly the sandstorm attack glimpsed in the trailer. The effect of Ahmanet's face appearing for some reason appears far less convincing than it did 18 years ago in the Brendan Fraser led version of "The Mummy". That said, the majority of the effects are very well executed. In particular, the much advertised moment of Ahmanet's pupil splitting into two is effective and haunting when seen in the context of the actual film. Additionally, the stunt work in the movie is great and the action set pieces (while slightly uninspired on occasion) are extremely entertaining for the most part. As well as these, the make-up is excellent, particularly on the mummies as you might have guessed, and the production and set design as a whole is phenomenal. Every set is perfectly designed, from Ancient Egypt to present day Iraq to a secret organisation's base in London (which is crammed full of Easter eggs and references for the eagle-eyed). The cinematography is also solid. If one point of the production design is slightly underwhelming it is the soundtrack, however. It's not bad by any means, but Brian Tyler's soundtrack is fairly generic and leaves a lot to be desired. For the most part, however, it is these aesthetic and behind the scenes aspects where the movie really shines.
The best performance and most interesting part of this movie - of course it's the one point I can't talk about
I'm just about done talking about this film. I've simply got no where else to go. The production designs and visual effects are admittedly very good. However, these are all aesthetic factors, and don't matter if everything surrounding it is bad. Three fine performances, that's all else that I had to entertain me through this nearly 2-hour long mess. The rest of the movie is plagued by problems, not least the apparent primary purpose of this project to set up the future movies of this universe. The story is paper thin at best, and can be easily dismantled without overly detailed scrutiny, and the script as a whole is terrible. However, the biggest issue I have is that, if I had to pick one word to describe this movie, it would be this - dull. The whole thing feels much longer than it actually is, and that is because you will constantly find yourself wondering when this..."experience" will come to an end. With all that said, I don't recommend this movie particularly highly unless maybe you're devoted to and love Universal's monsters. In case you couldn't guess, this whole movie did not instil me with hope for the future. We'll see how this universe progresses, with "Bride of Frankenstein" coming next in 2019 (I have no idea why they chose THAT movie), but, unfortunately, I doubt that "The Mummy" is the foundation Universal were hoping to be building upon.
Pros
Some good performances
Some great effects
Solid production design
Cons
Dreadful characters
"Batman v Superman" Syndrome
Uninspired action set pieces
The awful screenplay
The movie is BORING
Rating: 4/10
Original Release Date: 9th of June, 2017
Starring Tom Cruise, Annabelle Wallis, Sofia Boutella, Jake Johnson, Courtney B. Vance, Marwan Kenzari and Russell Crowe
No comments:
Post a Comment