Well, we’re back again with another movie review. Today we’re
going to look at an interesting one: the first (second? third?) revival of the
Universal Monsters and the beginning of their own, new cinematic universe. I’m
talking of course about, The Mummy. Now there’s been a lot of really bad
buzz about this one, so we decided to see what all the fuss was about. As
usual, no spoilers ahead.
I’ll be totally honest, I kind of expected this to be a hate-watch.
In fact, we came prepared, just in case. I even tried something new for the
occasion.
Not bad, but really sweet. Also, why do I always get pink wine for these kind of movies? |
I was willing to give this movie the shot, the benefit of
the doubt, even. That is despite how dumb the trailers looked. Because trailers
can be deceiving. It was kind of a ‘hope for the best but prepare for the worst’
kind of scenario. And well, I’m kind of glad I did. I’m going to come right out
and say it: this movie is dumb. Not the dumb fun way that I actually
tend to really enjoy, but the flopping over like a disgruntled teenager while
whining ‘this is duuuuumb’ kind of way.
Laaaaame.... |
Let’s examine this further by breaking down the exact issues
with this movie.
-Tom Cruise is horribly miscast and phoning it in. Watching this
movie, you can tell that this role was written for a younger actor (Russell
Crowe even says ‘you are a younger man’. Cruise is 2 years older than
Crowe). So much of it just doesn’t add up with Cruise as the lead. That’s not
the only reason he’s miscast, though. His character is clearly supposed to be a
‘dashing rogue’, Han Solo-ish type and Tom Cruise cannot sell that, nor
can he deliver a one-liner or quip that lands. He’s an annoying asshole with none
of the charm this character needs, especially with his buddy Vale, played by a
grating Jake Johnson who’s worse than he was in Jurassic World. They
obviously cast Cruise for the star power, but he is completely wrong for this
role.
-Annabelle Wallis’ character, Jenny. First off, her and Tom
Cruise have exactly zero chemistry on screen. Their ‘romance’ arc is totally
forced, unearned, and basically out of nowhere. She’s also the worst
character, and that isn’t the fault of the actress. She has nothing to do but
spout exposition, be a damsel in distress, and have cringe-worthy conversations
about how she thinks Cruise’s character ‘is a good man’. I don’t know who she’s
trying to convince more, her or us. It was a conversation that was so trite,
forced, and cheesy that I rolled my eyes so hard I’m pretty sure I saw my own
brain. If I wanted to watch a movie about lost ancient treasures with a
loveable rogue and a useless blonde, I’ll go watch Temple of Doom,
because that one’s actually enjoyable.
damn rights |
-Ahmanet’s timeline. This one really gets under my skin, and
that’s putting it mildly. We have three different dates for Ahmanet, each
corresponding to very different periods in history. In trailer 2, Jenny
says that the tomb has been buried for 2,000 years. That would put Ahmanet in
the Roman period and long after the end of the native Egyptian pharaohs. Okay,
so maybe that was a flub on the trailers’ part, right? Both the UniversalMonsters Wiki and Wikipedia itself say that Ahmanet is from the New Kingdom
era, or around 3,000 years ago. That date actually makes sense given what we
see of her in the flashbacks. This would have been peak Pharaonic Egypt and
that would have worked great. In the movie itself, Jenny says twice that
Ahmanet (and her sarcophagus) are 5,000 years old. That would put her way back
in the First Dynasty (New Kingdom was 18-20th Dynasties), not long
after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt. That would also mean that those
lovely, recognizable pyramids in the background of the flashbacks wouldn’t be
there, as they wouldn’t be built until the Fourth Dynasty. So… get your dates
right, guys. Seriously.
-Stupid archaeology. This kind of goes along with my last
point about the timeline, but as someone trained in the field, I can’t let this
go. Jenny is a terrible archaeologist. They pull out the sarcophagus, seemingly
taking nary a provenance, or you know, contacting the government of the
country they’re in before they just haul it away. And what about all the
rest of the stuff down there? Are they just going to leave it there? They pull
up the sarcophagus with two little straps tied around it and then the helicopter
flies away, swinging it through the air like it’s a carnival ride. Two straps
and not even a blanket or a tarp to protect it as its sails through the air and
the blowing sand.
Ahmanet's gonna need some Gravol |
This is beside the fact that while the stuff in the tomb
looks relatively Egyptian, Ahmanet’s sarcophagus doesn’t look Egyptian at all.
I suppose they wanted a ‘horror’ or ‘monster’ theme with that, but it looks
dumb and out of place. Oh, and you can’t ‘mummify someone alive’. That’s not
how it works guys. You can bury someone alive, and I suppose you can start mummifying someone alive, but they aren’t going to stay that way for
very long. Again, just a dumb line that stuck out to me.
-Sexist crap. Okay, just a quick point on this. There are
some gross shots of the female characters in this film. There’s
one part where Jenny reaches up to get something while in the foreground and
you’re basically looking down her exposed stomach and pretty much down her
pants. Yuck. She also ends up in the water in a white t-shirt. Also yuck. This
is added on top of how Jenny is basically just a useless, damsel character.
This movie even has a butt-focused shot of the Mummy herself! And it would have
been so much cooler if Ahmanet herself wasn’t so interested in bringing Set into
our world, but rather was consolidating her power for herself and her own rule.
Wasn’t that her whole plan in the first place? I’m not even going to go into
something said at the end after Cruise has rescued Jenny that was said (and
done) so much better in a movie that came out earlier in the summer. I actually
had to pause the movie because I was so angry about it and how it cheapened
that line. I don’t want to say what it was, because spoilers, but it was the
same thing a male character said to a female one in a much better movie and
with much more emotional impact. (If you really want to know, I can post it in
the comments lol)
-Exposition, aka, let me tell you a story. Honestly, there
are so many scenes where everything just stops and one character begins telling
another what’s going on or what we need to know at that given moment. The film
literally begins and ends with an exposition dump. It is ‘tell, not show’
to the nth degree, and it gets pretty tiresome. In fact, one exposition scene
is telling us about things that we just had seen a few minutes ago on
screen. It just grinds everything to a halt to try and flesh out this universe
that they’re building, but it really affects the overall pacing. And yet with
all this exposition, there are things that don’t get explained! The double iris
thing, the Templars and the dagger, why she’s buried in Mesopotamia (Iraq)
instead of Egypt, and so on.
-Bad CG. It’s not very good, need I say more? Much like Tom
Cruise’s performance, it felt like they weren’t even trying.
Alright, I’m not going to end this off on such a negative
note. There were a couple of positives. Let’s lighten things up and have a look
at them.
-Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. You can tell he’s
having fun with this, and truthfully he’s one of the best parts of the movie. Think
of him as the Dark Universe’s Nick Fury.
I'm here to speak to you about the Monster Initiative.... |
The differences in his character
between the two personalities was pretty cool, even if most of what he does is
exposition.
-The plane crash/ zero grav stunt. I’ll give credit where
credit is due, that stunt was pretty cool. The fact that they did so much of it
practically is really impressive. Tom Cruise may not have fit well with this
movie, but at least you get here what he does in his other films: him doing something
completely nuts and doing it for real.
-At one point when the Mummy is bearing down on our main
characters, my other half busts into Hall and Oates’ ‘Maneater’. It was
hilarious, out of left field, and sorely needed at that point.
So there it is, guys. This really was not a good movie. I’d
say just stick with the Brendan Fraser ones, or the original Universal Monsters
films. It’s really not worth your time, and will in several places remind you
of other, better films that you could be watching instead. Skip it.
3/10
No comments:
Post a Comment