The Mummy (2017)
Alex Kurtzman
Writers:
David Koepp (screenplay), Christopher McQuarrie (screenplay), Dylan Kussman (screenplay), Jon Spaihts (screen story), Alex Kurtzman (screen story), Jenny Lumet (screen story).
Cast:
Tom Cruise (Nick Morton), Russell Crowe (Dr. Henry Jekyll), Annabelle Wallis (Jenny Halsey), Sofia Boutella (Ahmanet), Jake Johnson (Chris Vail), Courtney B. Vance (Colonel Greenway), Marwan Kenzari (Malik), Simon Artherton (Crusader), Stephen Thompson (First Man), James Arama (Second Man).
Opening Credits:
The original Mummy opened up to all theaters in 1999. The film was a hit in the box office, a whopping 413,300,000 world wide. An 80,000,000 budget, a conservative opening weekend, it took some time but the build up to this great film, with the help of the wonderful cast managed to put smiles on audiences faces. The film wasn't difficult to understand, it was something bigger than it really was. The film wasn't just about people, it was the background, ambience that made the film beautiful. Special effects didn't carry the film, the story did. Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah. Characters were all rounded, they had flaws, especially the lead protagonist.
Re-boots are either good or bad, and sometimes they can be to much to handle. Why does Hollywood continue to make these types of films? Does the big guy that calls the shots just say, "Hey guys, we're going to make a huge movie. Don't care how it's done, just make the damn thing."
The quality doesn't pay off, it just makes the audience pissed, and the studio loses a lot of money, just because they didn't really care in the first place.
I have so many friends That are moviegoers, afterwards they come out and come out and shake their heads in disappointment. What happened? I'll tell you what happened. The studio didn't care, period. Films like Deadpool, Logan are incredibly awesome because the director down to the water boy cares. The content, feel, look, everything that made Deadpool was addressed. The creative process was thought out, not rushed, and completed. The studio wanted another bad film, the creative team did not. So when something is huge, and breaks the box office, only then will the studio agree, and to me it's a really sad part about film making.
Review:
Good:
The film started out with Russell Crowe (Henry Jekyll) narrating the opening sequences. A wonderful job, because out of all the characters in the film, Jekyll was my favorite. His cunning, strength, and overall knowledge of the events became an obsession to him. His passion for archaeology, relics, was unprecedented. So out of all the characters in the film, the anti-hero to me was the best part of this movie.
Bad:
Where could i even start with this, there're so many situations, events that are so bad, i really don't know where to begin. Let's start with the main character shall we, Nick Morton (Tom Cruise). He was in the military, but somehow he's more of a treasure hunter. Ok i get that part, he's in the military, but the treasure hunter deal is off. I mean the guy makes comments about the dig, and he's some kind of a hunter. Wouldn't you have some flashbacks or something in order to give the character background, life, something. Instead the character is dead, lifeless, and boring. Tom tried to be more like Brendan Fraser from the very good 1999 Mummy. His action sequences were boring, reminded me of Mission Impossible films. Instead he tried to be funny, quirky, a character he truly wasn't.
The film should've had one desired tone, dark. The comedy was so out of place. If Tom Cruise is your lead, then have a certain tone. Gritty, action sequences can only good if the character is right, and in this case it wasn't.
The plane going down was not a good idea. Why not have the guys actually tomb raid. Let the guys get caught by a team of explorers. They're not supposed to be on location, because it's Iraq, which is heavily saturated by insurgents. Act one started with that feel, why not have a character, bad guy, be a mercenary of some kind; The leader behind the insurgents; Now you have problems. Then you'd find out that the insurgents are a group of hired militants keeping outsiders away from the dig site. As the scenes go on, then have Tom Cruise do what he is known for.
The film tried to be like the 1999 counterpart. Instead of having it's own tone, being very different. A female badass, with the insurgents as her minions. Making the lead a villain to me was a horrible idea. Tom Cruise that is should've been the hero, finding a way to beat the bad gal. That's how characters develop into something more.
Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) the guy who had some promise in the film was killed off right from the start. The guy didn't have a chance because it was taken right out of the film American Werewolf in London (1981). In that film the friend dies a horrible death by the wolf, and comes back undead like in American Werewolf in London (1981). His friend is the guide, dead and all, but only his best friend sees him. He tells him his wrong and rights, a guide. The Mummy (2017) used that horror tool, and it was done horribly. Vail was uninteresting at that point.
Go rent, buy American Werewolf in London. The studio tried to use an excellent horror tool from the past, and thinking the folks in 2017 are complete morons, and wouldn't notice. Guess what guys, the audience noticed because it wasn't believable, and it failed. Especially when you take something so obvious that it changes the dynamic of the film. Instead of either being funny or having a true dark tone, the film was boring, lifeless, and a waste of time. The undead part would've been cool if the character was interesting, when he was killed you really didn't care.
Ugly:
What could be so bad that i even left out the opening sequence of the film. Act one had promise, but still did not reach it's goal, which was character build up. Henry Jekyll's (Russell Crowe) was the best part of the film. Instead of using him as the main bad guy, since he was a monster himself, the character was just in the background. Why not have him be the guy in charge of the insurgents, double cross the military, trap them in Iraq. Even kill every one of them, but keep Morton, and Vail alive. Those two guys intrigue Jekyll; Or until he turns back to normal and then Henry must fix what his counterpart has damaged.
Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), and Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis), the characters should've been larger than life. The main antagonist Ahmanet was weak, after her kick butt opening sequence in the film, back in Act one. She had the most background, but instead of using her in a slick, evil, way, the guys behind the film managed to mess up what could've been the perfect antagonist
. The effects were used so much with her that when she was captured by Jekyll it wasn't exciting, or dangerous. You felt bad for the villain. To me a villain supposed to be the villain. Not a crying little tea pot. Nope, she should've destroyed everyone on site. Use practical effects, that would've at least made a difference. Ahmanet was a leader, she attempted so much in the beginning that by the time Act three comes along, she is boring, and uninteresting.
Jenny Halsey really was the worst character in the film. Her encounter with Nick Morton (Cruise) wasn't memorable. She slapped him in their first scene together, thinking the audience would believe some kind of relationship. It was awkward, and unprompted; Like the whole movie. She was this big time Archaeologist that had no idea what she had. At least in the 1999 version of the film you get a Librarian who is interested in a dig site. The mystery, relics, things that make up a good movie was all missing. Jenny Halsey was missing everything that could've been. Her character was the core in the film right? Morton saved her, so that's the connection. Nope, they had no real connection, it was like having two people meet for the first time and throughout the ordeal both parties don't really talk because of the awkward silence.
No one really makes an attempt to create dialog that makes sense, instead they write up Morton being the hero, and becomes a villain by letting in the great evil from the past. But yet Morton somehow controls it, almost like a Jekyll, and Hyde character. riding off in the sun set, what a joke.
The main point of the film was gone after the first Act. It was gone, finished. Morton was good, than bad because of what he did to truly kill Ahmanet. That was the only way.
Look at film's like Indiana Jones who was a true good guy. He was smart enough to understand what was going on. He always investigated, a true archaeologist. Sometimes he went in head strong, but those times were funny, engaging. Jones knew what to do at the right time, which made the character interesting.
Mummy really has no horror about it, because the filmmakers use the special effects as the number one thing in the story. You ever buy a videogame that looks really good but the gameplay, and story suck. Well that is the case for this film, it's beautiful, but everything else just doesn't make it. Instead of having a wonderful story filled with adventures, it becomes a horrid waste of time.
Nothing against the actors, they're the ones i feel bad for. To give you an understanding on how bad this film is. A Budget of 125,000,000. 31,688,375 opening weekend, and a gross of 61,613,215. This film is my opinion only. You make the choice. But you'll be disappointed. Want a great Mummy film watch the 1999 version. The Boris Karloff 1932 version of the film is really good, and that version of the film should be watched, not this one.
Comments