Disney has
the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Warner Bros. has the DC Extended Universe AND
the Kaiju Universe and now Universal is hoping to get in on the Universe action
with their Dark Universe, a cinematic world featuring the studios’ famous
monsters. The Invisible Man, Wolfman, Frankenstein’s Monster and Dracula are
all up for grabs in this Universe. Interestingly, the 2017 film of The Mummy is the third film this century
signalling Universal’s attempts to start a monster cinematic universe. First,
we had 2004’s Van Helsing, which is a
guilty pleasure of mine (and is ironically directed by Stephen Sommers, who
also directed 1999’s The Mummy and
2001’s The Mummy Returns). After the
critical and commercial disappointment, Van
Helsing failed to ignite much interest in the classic monsters. Then we had
2014’s Dracula Untold, which I
haven’t seen yet but which was another let-down for the studio both monetarily
and in critical feedback. With 2017’s The
Mummy, Universal is throwing all their might behind this endeavour; there’s
even a Dark Universe logo which appears at the start of the film, much like how
the Marvel Studios logo first appeared before 2008’s Iron Man. Unfortunately, if The
Mummy is the best that the Dark Universe can muster, this franchise is in
serious trouble.
Centuries
ago, Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella) made a pact with Set, the God of Death.
Being discovered, she was condemned to an eternity of imprisonment. In present
day, soldier of fortune Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and his partner Chris Veil
(Jake Johnson), along with archaeologist Jennifer Halsey (Annabelle Wallis),
unearth the tomb and unwittingly unleash Ahmanet’s evil upon the world. Now
Nick is cursed and a race against time to save his soul begins…
I’m a big
fan of Tom Cruise, and while the screenplay doesn’t craft much of a character
for him to work with, he’s still an energised and fun lead for the film. As
usual, Cruise throws himself into the action; his stunt-work and physicality
are very impressive. He also handles the comedic moments quite well, as his
encounters with the supernatural throw him for a real loop. The only issue I
have with Cruise’s performance is that he overplays Nick’s confusion sometimes.
Anyone going through this situation would be more than a little perplexed, but
there are a couple of scenes where Cruise seems almost on a different plane of
existence to everyone around him, and not in a good way. Despite that, while
Nick Morton isn’t likely to be one of Cruise’s most remembered roles, he still
brings enough gusto to make one forget his lacklustre turn in last year’s Jack Reacher: Never Go Back. What’s
more, he shares solid antagonistic chemistry with Sofia Boutella. Boutella, who
has become a huge rising star after her scene-stealing turn in 2015’s Kingsman: The Secret Service, once again
brings a poised menace to her work here. She is a powerful physical presence,
but Boutella also manages to add an undercurrent of pain and a healthy dose of
arrogance to the character. Try as Boutella might to flesh out Ahmanet, though,
neither the screenplay nor director Alex Kurtzman give her enough to do and there
are times during the second act where she slides into the background. She also
falls victim to being part of a poorly done love triangle between Ahmanet, Nick
and Jenny. As the latter, the lovely Annabelle Wallis is saddled with a
bare-bones role. She does manage to inject some wit and humour into her scenes
occasionally, but she’s often either providing exposition (sometimes exposition
we’ve already heard from other characters) or needing to be saved by Cruise’s
character. Wallis and Cruise seem forced together rather than exhibiting
genuine screen chemistry, which proves a significant flaw in the film come its
final act. For comedic relief, Jake Johnson isn’t all that comedic. There’s a
point early in the film where something interesting happens with his character,
but the approach that Johnson and the filmmakers take to this concept never
meshes successfully and the character ultimately becomes extraneous. Speaking
of extraneous, why get an actor like Courtney B. Vance, who portrays Nick and
Chris’ colonel, only to do almost nothing with him? It seems odd, especially
given that Vance has become even more well-known after his work on American Crime Story, to throw him into
such a thankless role.
The last
cast member I want to discuss is strangely both one of the best and worst things
about the film. As a mysterious figure who plays a role in proceedings, Russell
Crowe (joining his second cinematic universe after playing Superman Sr. in 2013’s
Man of Steel) delivers a stand-out
performance. Crowe walks the tight-rope between controlled intelligence and
quirky oddity with ease (a simple ‘hm?’ from him during one of the more intense
scenes garnered perhaps the biggest laugh of the film from me). The scenes
between him and Cruise are a lot of fun to watch, mostly due to watching these
two great actors go head-to-head. Crowe also does a solid job emphasising the
intensity bubbling beneath the surface of the character. I’m not going to
reveal the character’s name here for those who don’t know, but as soon as you
hear the name, you’ll be expecting certain events to happen. And when they do,
Crowe’s performance is superb. However, despite Crowe’s strong and nimble portrayal,
his character is indicative of significant flaws in the film. The character
feels less like an integral part of this story and more a hefty chunk of set-up
for the future of the Dark Universe. The set-up isn’t that subtle, either; my
dad, who likes to steer clear of film details (which would include everything
Dark Universe related), said upon leaving the cinema that they’re obviously
planning to build more films around The
Mummy. Speaking of the Mummy, Crowe’s introduction is what pushes her right
into the background. This development brings the story of the film, which
already gets off to an awkward start and has a few bumps, to an utter halt. When
the ground-work for future films smothers the titular character of the present
film, isn’t that taking things too far? This is, in my opinion, a major part of
what makes The Mummy the weakest
opening chapter of a cinematic universe to date. 2008’s Iron Man, 2013’s Man of Steel,
2014’s Godzilla… Despite their
varying qualities overall, these introductions to cinematic universes
understood the importance of allowing the first film to play out without going
too far in establishing future films. This allowed the films to make their mark
as their own entities, making me more excited to see future instalments because
I didn’t feel beaten over the head by the prospect. The Mummy goes out of its way to let you know that this is the
start of a universe, leaning so heavily on that knowledge that it’s harder to appreciate
as something which stands on its own.
That doesn’t
mean there’s nothing to enjoy here, though. The film shifts between action,
comedy and horror, and while the film can often shift from one tone to another
so quickly that it leaves a feeling of whiplash, each has their moments. There
are some effective action set-pieces. One scene on a plane, whilst shown almost
in its entirety throughout the trailers, still manages to be a thrillingly
edge-of-the-seat sequence; the stunts in this
scene are very well-done. And while the film never quite tops that, a chase
scene in and around the woods and a climactic dash through London (particularly
an under-water pursuit) are enjoyably executed. However, it bears mentioning
that the finale has at least three unavoidable echoes of action sequences from
2011’s Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
and 2015’s Mission: Impossible –
Rogue Nation, both also starring Cruise. To the film’s credit, the horror
is more intense than I anticipated. The scene where two men encounter a newly
awakened Ahmanet is skin-crawlingly creepy; this is one of the film’s best
scenes, and even when you know what’s going to happen, the execution is still
confident enough to make the scares stick. What’s more, the creature design by
Crash McCreary is grotesquely riveting (even though Ahmanet’s minions look a
lot like the zombies from 2013’s World
War Z). Aided by a bombastic yet slyly atmospheric score from Brian Tyler,
the action and horror elements are the tones which the film juggles most
successfully. It’s less successful when it comes to implementing comedy. While
there are moments where all the actors land at least one funny line, only
Cruise and Crowe manage to successfully lace a thorough-line of humour all the
way through. At its best, the comedy stems from the shock and confusion of the
characters at these supernatural events; one of the funniest scenes, and the
only scene where that ill-advised love triangle has any merit, is a darkly clever
spin on a big romantic cliché. At its worst, the comedy detracts from some of
the film’s more intriguing concepts; this is never more evident than with Johnson’s
character. There are also scenes where we’re clearly meant to be laughing, but
the comedy is so obviously manufactured that it’s hard to embrace; some of the bickering
between Cruise and Wallis epitomises this perfectly.
Technically,
the film is a mixed bag. As is to be expected from a big summer release, there
are some engaging visuals; these include the early incarnation of Ahmanet, her
minions and the main plane sequence. But these are nowhere near the best visual
effects we could hope for nowadays; compare this with recent films like Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2, Wonder Woman and even Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No
Tales to see what I mean. Even that final chase through London, while
entertaining to watch, features visuals which felt better-executed in a similar
sequence from the 1999 version. The lacklustre visuals might have something to
do with the cinematography, though I feel the 3D is partially to blame here. Cinematographer
Ben Seresin brings the Egyptian desert to vivid life whenever it’s on screen
(which isn’t as much as you might think for a film called The Mummy) and he creates some strong atmosphere in a regenerating
Ahmanet’s night-time attacks. Unfortunately, the London sequences are decidedly
drab and offer little of visual interest. The 3D doesn’t help much, either;
following Dead Men Tell No Tales,
this is the second film I’ve recently seen in 3D where I’ve had no idea what’s
going on in certain scenes. If you have a choice between seeing this film in 2D
or 3D, please see it in 2D. The 3D doesn’t provide further immersion nor does it
offer the fun gimmick of things popping out of the screen; it’s pointless and
makes an already visually dark film near pitch-clack at times. The editing team of Gina Hirsch, Paul Hirsch and Andrew Mondshein struggle to keep the film moving at a efficient pace; there are scenes which feel WAY too rushed (everything between Cruise and Wallis' character, in particular) and scenes in the second act which feel much longer than they actually are. In fact, the second act is so thick with exposition and groundwork that the editing over-compensates spectacularly when it comes to the third act, moving so quickly that nothing has time to really stick. Dominic Watkins
and Jon Hutman’s production design (along with the work of the art direction
and set decoration teams) echoes the cinematography in that it is strongest
during the Egypt sequences. The Tomb of Ahmanet is the high-light, an immense
chasm filled with imposing statues, crumbling corpses and a ghoulish sarcophagus.
However, bar a church and surrounding ruins which practically drip with implied
menace, the production design is unimaginative in bringing the UK locations to
life. There’s a severe lack of visual panache or style here, which is a real
shame given how the film started. One thing which isn’t lacking in panache or
style, as I said before, is Brian Tyler’s score. Tyler’s compositions here may
not be memorable, but he ably switches tone from intense actions beats to
dread-filled horror and provides a constant energy which the film often lacks elsewhere.
The main
issue with The Mummy (outside of it
so obviously straining to be a solid foundation for a cinematic universe, and
not doing a very good job of it) is with the story and script. As I said
before, the story (worked on by Kurtzman, Jon Spaihts and Jenny Lumet) stops
and starts way too often. I have no idea why the whole film wasn’t set in
Egypt, but the constant shuffling (no pun intended) of pieces to bring
characters to the UK makes the film feel much more convoluted than it really
needed to be, with a shoehorned-in lore which really feels out-of-place in a Mummy film. Then, of course, you have
that second act which kills a lot of the limited momentum the film had at that
point. One thing which hasn’t been discussed thus far is the ending. No
spoilers, but what could have been a cool and interesting idea gets all but
bungled in a rush of lacklustre motivation and poor execution. The most
transparent flaw here is the lack of attachment. You can’t get attached to any
of these characters because the film never gives you a chance to. The script by
David Koepp, Christopher McQuarrie and Dylan Hussman tells you why you should,
but there’s a difference between telling and showing. Wonder Woman gave us characters to care about by showing you why you should care; thus,
when it came time for that attachment to pay off, it really worked. Here, try as
the actors might, we’re shown too little and told too much why we should be
invested; this means that, when the film-makers try to execute certain events
based on a non-existent attachment with the characters, the effort feels more
flat and hollow. Keep in mind that the story and script teams had to work
together to create the film’s final narrative. That means that six people, each
with their own individual style, worked on the same product. Suddenly the tonal
inconsistencies and discombobulated story-telling make a lot more sense.
Speaking of
discombobulated story-telling, Kurtzman as director should face some of the
blame. For a man who’s only directed one feature film prior to this, his first
big-budget effort, Kurtzman does show some flair. This is especially true of
the more horrific moments and some of the action sequences. But when it comes
to handling the story and characters, Kurtzman’s direction leaves much to be
desired. He feels much more at ease around the monsters than the humans, which
makes it more perplexing when Ahmanet is shoved to the background (no, I’m not
letting that go). Kurtzman’s direction, and the film in general, never escapes
the air of a ‘studio mandated’ excursion. The romantic entanglement, the
inclusion of Crowe’s character, uprooting the Mummy from her homeland of Egypt
and bringing her over to London… These all feel like decisions forced upon the
film by the studio. Studio mandates can bring down even the most experienced
directors; look at the drama between Edgar Wright and Marvel Studios over Ant-Man for a more detailed example. Kurtzman’s the over-seer for the entire
Dark Universe, and that is a lot of pressure.
However, I don’t know if he was the right man for the job here. As stated
before, his passion for the monsters dissipates when the humans are on screen;
it doesn’t help that the script saddles him with scenes of dull and generic
exposition, which the actors try their best to enliven but are ultimately
speeches we’ve heard many times before (even within this film, as Wallis’
character offers the same explanation to Cruise’s character that Crowe’s
character gave the audience at the beginning of the film). While Kurtzman may
have some areas where he needs to improve his directorial skills, the script
also hinders him and makes the flaws with the film more evident than they might
have been otherwise.
During a
pivotal confrontation in The Mummy,
an object gets knocked to the floor. This object will look familiar to fans of
1999’s The Mummy and 2001’s The Mummy Returns. But, while it’s a
winking reference, it works against the film since it made me wish I was
watching those films (particularly the former). I don’t want to sound overly
vicious, but I honestly think the 1999 version trumps the 2017 film in almost
every way. It’s important to compare, since the 2017 version borrows a lot more
from the 1999 version and The Mummy
Returns than might be initially apparent. So here’s a brief review of the
1999 version:
As Rick O’Connell, Brendan Fraser is a great action hero with
a wonderful streak of goofy comedy which matches the film perfectly. Fraser’s
work in The Mummy is career-defining,
and whenever I hear Fraser’s name, Rick O’Connell is always the character which
comes to mind first. Rachel Weisz is a wonderful romantic interest as Evie Carnahan;
while she does need to be saved occasionally, she has an alluring mix of smarts
and excitable zest which stop her from falling into the ‘damsel-in-distress’
trap. What’s more, the chemistry between Fraser and Weisz is loveably organic.
As Evie’s brother Jonathan, John Hannah offers great comic relief which doesn’t
feel forced. Arnold Vosloo makes for a terrific Mummy, with the design of his
mummified, regenerating figure a memorably frightening one; it also helps that,
from his revival, the character is always a presence. Even when he’s not in
scenes, characters are always wary of him, building anticipation for his
appearances. The stunt-work is fantastic (particularly in an awesome battle
scene early on), and the visuals are genuinely impressive for a 1999
production. Adrian Biddle’s cinematography and Allan Cameron’s production
design thrive on the Egyptian setting, creating some brilliant vistas and
creatively atmospheric sets (the latter with help from the fantastic art
direction and set decoration teams) whilst also capturing the period
terrifically along with John Bloomfield’s excellent costume design. The score
by Jerry Goldsmith is magnificent, Bob Ducsay’s editing keeps the story moving
in both fast and coherent fashion, the script by Stephen Sommers has a lot of
fun dialogue and Sommers directs the film with just the right balance of goofy
humour, bad-ass action and creepy imagery. The
Mummy is one of my favourite child-hood films, and after revisiting it
numerous times, I still love it.
As you can
see, I clearly enjoy the 1999 version, and while I didn’t talk about it as
much, I also really enjoy The Mummy
Returns (2008’s The Mummy: Tomb of
the Dragon Emperor, on the other hand, is a piece of cinematic road-kill).
The key ingredient which made both the 1999 and 2001 films work was charm.
There was a lightness to proceedings that, even in the darker and scarier
moments, made the films so much fun to watch. The characters, the setting, the
environments… All of this and so much more was handled in just the right way to
make them enjoyable pieces of escapist summer entertainment.
The 2017
version, on the other hand, is bogged down by heavy-handed world-building and a
lack of a clear tonal thorough-line. Most importantly, it's not fun. There's no sense of being on a thrilling adventure; for the most part, it just feels like we're going through the motions. While there might still be potential ahead
for the Dark Universe, The Mummy has
severely damaged what little faith I had in the franchise. In fact, I’ve wanted
to say something for a while, but I wanted to give The Mummy a chance before I did. Why does there need to be a Dark
Universe? There doesn’t. Rather than try to copy other studios and their
success by creating a Universe right off the bat, Universal could have released
this as a stand-alone film and given other monsters the same treatment. Then, if those
worked, they could have woven the characters together and it wouldn’t feel as forced as
it does here. That’s how the studio handled the monsters back in their hey-day
during the 1930’s and 1940’s. At the end of the day, The Mummy does very little to justify its existence; it’s not even
proving as monetarily successful as the studio might have liked, flopping at
the US box office. As it stands, the Dark Universe is an arrogant and greedy
way of bringing much-loved monsters back into the lime-light. If The Mummy is a sign of what is to come,
perhaps it should have stayed buried.
Final Rating: 2 out of 5
