Mummy reboot offers few redeeming qualities

Sofia Boutella as the eponymous Mummy in The Mummy. Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

Any sense of remarkable for the Tom Cruise starring iteration of The Mummy comes from how bad the movie is. Although it isn’t quite interesting enough to qualify as a trainwreck, it is a great example of how bad the screenwriting by committee method can get. There are six people who have their names attached to this thing, and it’s difficult to find areas where more than two of them agreed on a plot point or piece of dialog. The lack of cohesion is stunning and somewhat impressive in how it results in an otherwise unimpressive movie.

The messiness The Mummy exhibits starts with a random text opening quote followed by uninspired voiceover courtesy of a bored Russell Crowe. Then the movie starts in England circa 1127 A.D., then bounces back to present day England, then flashes back yet again to ancient Egypt before stopping for a while in the Middle East in modern times again. The writers in effect created four separate openings to this film, three of would be OK on their own but none of which work in unison with the others. What remains is a good indicator the movie lacks a single direction, a tone it wants to follow and an identity worthy of its predecessors.

What, then, is The Mummy supposed to be? Previous adaptations have worked as a horror film, using the supernatural aspects of the ancient evil to invoke terror. But no one involved in this version seems interested in having this movie be truly scary, and the trace elements of horror that sneak into this movie are subpar. The Mummy character has background comedies tracing back to the days of Abbott and Costello, and this movie does work best using the comedic elements. The writers mine solid material from the moderate silliness of the monster, with one scene involving Cruise, the monster (Sofia Boutella), a few henchman and an awkward entrance by Cruise's love interest (Annabelle Wallis) working as an entertaining example of awkward comedy. Appropriately enough the filmmakers abandon the intentional humor in the middle of the second act, leaving the one enjoyable part of this movie behind.

So what's left is an action-adventure movie, not too far off from the 1999 version, albeit with a slightly darker tone. Except the 2017 Mummy isn't particularly good as an action-adventure flick. The surprisingly sparse action sequences have little vigor and excitement to keep the viewer interested in the fates of Cruise and the far too young for him love interest Wallis. The adventure is limited to England and the early sojourn to the Middle East, making it a less than enthralling globe trotting journey. It's difficult to spend more than $125 million on a movie and come out with something this blasé.

The Mummy becomes remarkably stupid toward the end of the second act with the proper introduction of Crowe's character, the mysterious leader of a secret organization, Dr. Henry Jekyll. That's Henry Jekyll of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde fame. The reveal is as dumb as it sounds, and the scenario only gets worse when Crowe hams it up when he inevitably transforms into Mr. Hyde. It feels like one of the writers or a few people from Universal decided threw that in there to kick off the Universal monster movie universe, and it comes across as awkwardly as it sounds. It also makes little sense to have a man as volatile as Henry Jekyll be in charge of any secret organization, but that's one of the lesser problems this movie faces.

If there's any single potentially interesting aspect to The Mummy, it's an ending that isn't as saccharine and easy as it could've been. A real sense of tragedy sneaks in for the final few moments that makes sense despite all of the messiness beforehand. But, again, this movie is dumb. It's not smart enough to end at the right time, favoring an ending with even more asinine voiceover and a similarly useless closing scene with Cruise and resurrected co-star Jake Johnson. The Mummy is the type of movie that not only isn't able to do anything right, but doubles down on doing the exact wrong thing.

Review: One and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 110 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: Tom Cruise followers and viewers who want to see the start of a monster universe.

Take the whole family?: This'll probably be a little intimidating for kids younger than 8.

Theater or Netflix?: Once again, stay at home and let it come to you.

Is the film sexist?: It is with its treatment of Sofia Boutella's character. Having the monster as a woman is fine and kind of cool, but the filmmakers portray her as a Jezebel creating mayhem for the men around her. That the filmmakers literally bind her at one point is troublesome for a whole host of reasons as well.

Watch this instead?: The 1999 Mummy with Brendan Frasier and Rachel Weisz isn't great, but the action is solid and the characters are fun enough. It also has one of the cooler haboobs ever depicted in a movie.

Kong smashes in Skull Island

Kong faces down helicopters in Kong: Skull Island. Image courtesy Warner Bros.

There are precious few complications to Kong: Skull Island. The movie sets itself up to be a good old fashioned monster movie featuring a giant ape smashing all the things and giant lizards eating people, and it delivers exactly all of that with even more creatures and a little emotional undercurrent to offer just a little something else beyond mindless smashing. But, really, it’s the smashing that matters most.

Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts and his team of writers get right to the monster from the get-go, using the opening sequence to contrast Kong's enormity with the first wave of intruders to come to his island, American and Japanese fighter pilots who happen to be fighting to the death in 1944. It doesn't take too much longer than to jump the story to 1973 and establish the key players who keep the plot going and get them right back to that island located somewhere in the South Pacific so viewers can watch Kong demolish a fleet of helicopters and piss off Samuel L. Jackson's crazed colonel. What people want to see from a movie called Kong: Skull Island is Kong acting very ape on his home turf, and the gaps between the human interactions designed to push the plot forward and the wanton craziness with Kong are short and sweet.

Skull Island has a few themes it hits on with a decent amount of success. The Vietnam War backdrop serves as a tool to set up important plot machinations and acts a thematic parallel between the Americans invading Skull Island and the actions taken during the war. Along those lines is the Ahab in Apocalypse Now subplot involving Jackson's character losing his mind over the ape and, again, the war. It’s an interesting idea that works in no small part from Jackson’s consistent ferocity in the role and one memorable shot of Jackson staring down Kong through a wall of flames. It looks just as cool as it sounds.

The humans as a whole though are a little less important, especially in comparison to King Kong's emphasis on the romantic subplot between Kong and the respective female protagonist. Brie Larson's photographer Mason Weaver is as close as this film gets to a Fay Wray, Jessica Lange or Naomi Watts, but her relationship with Kong is less amorous and more protective of each other. But there’s just enough emotional justification for Skull Island to work on that level and the movie establishes character motivations efficiently before settling on the island. Larson's Mason and the young geologist played by Corey Hawkins are both drawn to the island by curiosity. Jackson is fueled by his remorse for the unsatisfactory end of the Vietnam War and the emptiness that comes from a man who lives to fight but has no more battles left. John Goodman's government official Bill Randa is motivated by desperation. Tom Hiddleston's tracker James Conrad is in it for the money. It’s not enough to forge fleshed out characters, but it is more than enough to care about which humans will or will not get eaten.

Skull Island never asks any of them to do more than solid work or be a menacing Samuel L. Jackson. It leaves the emotional heavy lifting to John C. Reilly as the slightly loony Hank Marlow, the American soldier who crashes to the island toward the end of World War II. It’s easy to feel for a man stuck on an island of death for almost three decades, only wanting to go to home to his wife and see his son for the first time, all the while losing bits of his mind. Reilly sells his character's humor as expected from his comedic background while hitting on the loneliness the character, making the final few silent moments with Marlow more rewarding than expected.

There’s just enough there to keep the moments between monster action interesting as the humans wait for Kong or some other creature to strike. The battles are the selling point, and Vogt-Roberts put a lot of time and effort into making them engaging, enthralling and surprisingly gory given the rating. Watching Kong rise from the trees is intense and astounding, a great figure rising from the depths to protect his home from unwanted invaders. The vibe these fights give off are rooted in the atavism of its main character, messy and violent and without too much complexity. Vogt-Roberts’ film promised a giant ape fighting humans and monsters alike, and Skull Island gave the world a very good version of what it promised.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 120 minutes

Genre: Action
 

Ask Away

Target audience: Loyal King Kong fans and people interested in what will happen to this monster franchise and several others in the very near future.

Take the whole family?: I really have no idea how this thing got a PG-13 rating. There is a lot more gore than expected for this rating, so make sure your kids can handle blood if you take them.

Theater or Netflix?: Big screen is cool if you do it matinee style.

Any other things worth noting?: One of the cool touches Jordan Vogt-Roberts uses are a few bait and switches where characters try to sacrifice themselves. Most films emphasize a blaze of glory for characters after a kiss-off line, but Vogt-Roberts turns that on its head and shows the more realistic result of their attempts at martyrdom in a land of enormous creatures.

Watch this as well?: Any of the three versions of King Kong is watchable on some level. The 1933 iteration remains the best, while Peter Jackson's remake is a step above the one starring Jessica Lange. Track down Godzilla circa 1954 – although not the one remade for American audiences – and the much more recent creature feature Monsters for some more monster mashing.