By Brett Blake Representing Universal Pictures’ latest attempt to revive their dormant monsters for the silver screen, THE MUMMY offers game performances from several of its cast members and a few moments of cool imagery, but at the end of the day THE MUMMY just isn’t great. That pains me to say more than it probably should, but the classic Universal Monsters movies of the 1930s and 1940s are incredibly important films. They were the introduction to the world of horror for many people, myself included, and their atmospheric, perpetually fog-drenched visual styles forever left impressions, just as much as the captivating supernatural characters at the center of those stories did. It was with that in mind that I was rooting for this movie to work and do solid business, knowing that its success could pave the way for further re-imaginings of Universal’s classic horror properties; supposedly those new versions are still coming (the next, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, has a release date set for 2019), but THE MUMMY is far from a grand announcement of intention. Yes, it teases the future arrival of some additional classic monsters, and that’s kind of neat, but at the end of the day, THE MUMMY needed to work primarily as its own story, not a teaser for things (potentially) coming down the road. On that basis - on its own - its an unsatisfying and familiar outing. The film presents the story of Nick Morton (Tom Cruise), a treasure hunter/adventurer mercenary-type with questionable morals who discovers the burial chamber of Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), a murderous Egyptian princess who was mummified for her crimes. Disturbing her tomb triggers a curse which not only revives her, but also condemns Nick to an undead existence and threatens to end humanity. Supernatural shenanigans ensue, involving ghosts, ghouls, magical daggers, ancient gods, and Prodigium, a shadowy research outfit led by Dr. Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe), determined to study (or fight) paranormal or monstrous occurrences. The screenplay is where the heart of the movie’s problems reside. It’s usually never a good thing when you have six credited writers (which means there were surely even more uncredited) working on a project, and that absolutely holds true with this film. You can feel a patchwork sort of quality, as if individual scenes (which themselves may actually be decent and fun) were plucked from several separate drafts and sewn together - Frankenstein monster style - with little regard for making a cohesive whole beyond doing just the bare minimum of smoothing over the edges. It doesn’t matter how talented the writers are (and some of the credited writers on this movie are talented, and a couple of them are great), it’s often a fool’s errand to try to tie disparate voices, styles, and approaches into anything resembling a tonally and narratively coherent final product. The way the script utilizes several of the major players is also perplexing, as characters like Annabelle Wallis’ Jenny and Jake Johnson’s Vail never really feel like they contribute anything substantial to the story and are often only there so there’s somebody for Cruise to bounce off of, or to supply the frequently artless exposition required by the story. Ultimately, though, it’s the fault of director Alex Kurtzman that the movie never quite feels like it knows exactly what it wants to be or what it’s trying to do. There’s no defining vision, no overarching authorial intent. This is corporate product, and while Kurtzman’s efforts behind the camera are not totally incompetent, there’s complete anonymity to the filmmaking. The lack of personality here is truly striking, and that’s squarely on the shoulders of Kurtzman. The classic horror films from Universal, even at their most pedestrian, always had personality. This doesn’t. A few key moments have some vitality, but for the most part the proceedings - on a filmmaking level - are uninspired. There are still some good things about the movie, though. Tom Cruise is surprisingly funny here; this isn’t just a mere side step away from his MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE persona, this is a kind of goofy guy who finds himself in way over his head, and there’s a twinkle in his eye, a playfulness, that makes his scenes enjoyable, and which actually make a decent contrast with the more horror-ish elements of the story. And there are horror-ish elements of the story. Yes, there is fairly big-scale action. Yes, there’s a ton of visual effects work. However, a little credit (a tiny bit) has to be given to the filmmakers, because they were obviously keenly aware that the original MUMMY film starring Boris Karloff is far, far from an action film. As such, they’ve taken care to make sure that - at least in the first half - the supernatural threat that Ahmanet poses is handled with a bit of mystery, a bit of atmosphere (though not nearly as much as there should be), and a bit of creepiness. There’s also some fun to be had with the reanimated corpses that Ahmanet uses to do her bidding, and the moments featuring them are the ones that come closest to capturing some of the classic feel. No, this is not a frightening movie, but you can at least feel the film trying to cast off assertions that it’s just an action fest. The early scenes of Ahmanet scuttling around in mummy form are effective, as are (for that matter) just about any of the scenes where Boutella gets to brood into the camera lens or just generally do evil stuff. I’m unconvinced that she’s a great actress, but she’s got tremendous presence and an unexpected sensuality that she brings to the physical elements of the performance. Any time she's on screen, the movie basically works. And then there’s perhaps the best part of the entire film, Russell Crowe’s Dr. Jekyll. On paper, this character shouldn’t work, and shouldn’t even be in this story because he only exists to setup future movies, but Crowe makes the most out of limited screentime. The way he presents Jekyll as a good-natured man fighting back his darker impulses (i.e. Mr. Hyde) is kind of compelling, and I’d happily just watch a straight adaptation of the Jekyll and Hyde story with Crowe. Carrying Jekyll into further stories is something to look forward to. Taken together, Boutella, Cruise, and Crowe are almost enough to warrant a soft recommendation, but at the end of the day, THE MUMMY just never feels right. It’s tonally at war with itself, and its narrative is being pulled in too many different directions at once. It’s not a terrible movie, but it is a disappointing one - a misfire. The good stuff almost redeems it, but unfortunately it’s just not enough.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake All things taken into consideration, WONDER WOMAN is unquestionably a good movie. It is not, however, a great movie, as its antagonists and climax are too fundamentally flawed to overlook, but the central performance from its leading lady is more than enough to elevate the film into the category of a qualified success. The story begins with Diana (Gal Gadot) on the mythical, hidden island of Themyscira, an entirely female place where Amazon warriors (from Greek mythology) train to defend the planet should the long-defeated God of War, Ares, ever return to threaten the world. When Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), a spy in World War I, accidentally crashes on the island, a series of events are ignited which see Diana entering the larger world of man (from which she has been completely sheltered) on a mission with Steve to prevent mad German general Erich Ludendorff (Danny Huston) from unleashing a devastating gas attack that would potentially threaten millions. The superlatives will come soon enough, but first a few words on some of the more disappointing elements of WONDER WOMAN. Chief among these is the plot as outlined above; the story of the movie - concerning Diana’s awakening to the state of human affairs during World War 1, and how that crystallizes her heroic resolve - is great, but the plot, which gets bogged down with cliched, hackneyed villain machinations, is pretty uninspired, “we’re just going through the motions” sort of stuff. The villains are extraordinarily, monumentally unimpressive, and the ultimate confrontation at the climax feels limp and contrived because the story never bothers to give us any reasons to care about the villainous scheme at the heart of the conflict beyond purely perfunctory ones (i.e. the villains do villainous things because they’re the villains, not because they’re interesting characters with goals and desires that make any sense). There’s so much more that could be said on this subject, but for the sake of spoilers, we’ll leave it at that. The climax also features the worst effects work of the film, which turns what was intended to be a spirited and intense culmination into a CGI meltdown of epic proportions. It’s a bafflingly rote (save for one modestly daring decision made with respect to one of the characters) and visually unappealing finale that comes very close to putting a truly sour cap on the whole enterprise. So not much of that stuff works. What does work, then? Pretty much everything else, starting - most importantly - with Gal Gadot. She was essentially an unknown quantity walking into this movie. Yes, she appeared as Wonder Woman in BATMAN v SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE, but the usage of the character in that film did not demand anything from her acting skills. Here she’s required to show considerably greater range, and she proves to be up to the task. Her Wonder Woman in this film is not merely a credible physical presence (and she very much is, as Gadot throws herself into the action with gusto), but she also embodies all of the classic elements of Wonder Woman from the comics (her kindness, her independence, her unflinching willingness to defend others, her semi-outsider nature), but also synthesizes these into a package that doesn’t feel trite or old fashioned for a modern audience. At the heart of it, she’s fully human, a relatable and strong heroine. There’s also a potent blend of semi-comic naivete, deep intelligence, and profound optimism which makes Gadot’s Diana a thoroughly charming anchor for the film. Opposite Gadot is a very, very game Chris Pine. Pine’s Steve Trevor exudes decency, but he tempers what with a terrific undercurrent of warmth and humor, as well as a hint of complexity. Steve is not unaffected by the horrors of World War I, and Pine sells the character’s motivation to try to stop Ludendorff from engaging in further mass murder. Pine and Gadot have a great connection on screen, and by the end of the film it’s easy to buy that the characters mean something to each other. Spinning out from Gadot and Pine’s work, the overall tone of the movie is refreshingly earnest and sincere, and credit to director Patty Jenkins (at the helm of her first theatrical release in 14 years!) for striking the fine tonal balance required to make everything work. There’s an almost complete lack of cynicism, and there’s an embrace of the fantastical title character and her background that reminds one of Richard Donner’s triumphant SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE from 1978. In some ways, WONDER WOMAN is a more optimistic and uplifting film than MAN OF STEEL, and that film focused on the superhero who used to have the market corned on optimistic and uplifting. One gets the sense that when she meets up with Superman again JUSTICE LEAGUE later this year, she’ll be in a great position to give the Man of Steel a pep talk about the virtues and worth of humanity, because she certainly seems more happy to help than the current iteration of Superman has been so far. The action mostly satisfies for the first half (there is an occasional overuse of slow motion during some of the scenes), but then, around the midpoint of the movie, things kick into high gear with a fabulous setpiece which takes place in No Man’s Land and a bombed-out town just beyond, and which features the first emergence of Wonder Woman in her fully-formed glory. This is unquestionably the greatest action sequence of the year so far. Not only are the choreography and staging of the scene exciting and thrilling, but - more importantly - the sequence is deeply based in character: Diana is unwilling to keep moving past the atrocities of the war, and defiantly takes to the battlefield to help those who are suffering. To borrow hip parlance, she kicks all kinds of ass, and it’s enormously satisfying to watch. That scene is a distillation of the best elements the movie has to offer - Gadot bringing the goods, Pine ably backing her up, and director Jenkins treating the material seriously but in a way that still allows the audience to have fun. The fact that the villains and the climax don’t work (at all) is definitely a bummer, but even if all the movie had to offer was Gal Gadot being a credible and inspiring Wonder Woman, it would absolutely still be a success. Toss Pine into the mix, and I’ve got no problem calling this a winner. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|