When Iron Man debuted in theaters in 2008, audiences had no idea that it would completely change the landscape of film-making forever. It marked the birth of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The MCU became a collection of movies featuring different characters all tied together as a way to multiply audience interest and profits for otherwise uninteresting movies. While Marvel pioneered the scheme, other studios quickly jumped on board, notably Marvel’s main competitor, DC Comics. Universal Pictures recently decided to dust off their “Monsters” properties and build their own Cinematic Universe. The Mummy marks the first film in what they’ve christened “Dark Universe.” But the question remains; is The Mummy worthwhile?
From the very start, Universal wanted to make sure audiences were aware that The Mummy is part of a larger framework. With press releases and announcements of Johnny Depp playing the Invisible Man, this felt unnecessary. The studio has even inserted a logo variation that morphs the famous “Universal Pictures” vanity logo into the words “Dark Universe,” almost like a new entity that produced the movie. It’s an odd addition, one done out of hubris more than anything else, and it’s completely ridiculous. It would be as if Iron Man began with a logo touting it as “A Marvel Cinematic Film.”
The film itself opens in an equally bizarre way: on the burial of a Templar Knight in twelfth century England. It then quickly transitions to modern-day London before flashing back to Egypt and summarizing the history of Ahmanet and her quest for power, all told through a narration by Russell Crowe’s character. Why any of this was necessary I can’t say. The only thing I can think of is that the film’s writers, of which there are six, had no faith that audiences would have been able to understand the hook without having it spelled out. That theory also explains the immense amount of verbal exposition we get along the way. For a film that’s as steeped in lore as The Mummy, I would expect an excess of expository dialogue, but Universal really took advantage of my expectations.
Most of the film gets bogged down from how hard it is to like Tom Cruise’s character. Nick…Something Or Other is an Army Sergeant/thief who has his sights set on “liberating” whatever valuables he happens to find in modern-day Iraq. He makes no excuses for his deception and his main motivation throughout the film is saving himself. There’s a slight glimmer of goodness in his character, which is dashed as quickly as it appears by way of a sad attempt at levity. I doubt the writers even realized that their throw-away joke negated any positive quality in the character, because if they did, they should have worked harder to make him more likeable.
The dislike of Cruise’s character is compounded by how terribly the writers treat his female counterpart. Nick takes advantage of archeologist Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis) by lying to her, sleeping with her, and stealing her map to the location of what he believe is “treasure,” but not once does he show remorse for his actions. However, when he later discovers her secret that she’s been working with a covert team of “archeologists,” she’s made to feel terrible for her actions and apologizes profusely. Even watching this through the eyes of a dude, I could see the incongruity plain as day.
As expected, the movie makes a number of humorous attempts through its big, loud action sequence but most of them are so trite and obvious that they fall flat. Not to mention that some of the biggest jokes happen at the most inopportune moment, which made it uncomfortable to even enjoy them.
The humor was another pratfall the movie continued to make. Many of the jokes happen with unfortunate timing, such as when danger was at its highest. This created a strange juxtaposition that felt awkward. Am I supposed to laugh as Tom Cruise is about to get a dagger plunged into his heart? According to the writers, yes, I am.
I can’t say that the film is entirely bad, though. It does a few things right, most notably the casting of Sofia Boutella as the titular Mummy. Boutella has an amazing onscreen presence. The way she plays Ahmanet is threatening, unrelenting, and imposing, but she also manages to ply sympathy when needed. The only downside is how much her talent is wasted on a one-note villain. Granted, Ahmanet has more depth than both Cruise’s and Wallis’s characters, but her antagonism just comes off as boring. She’s the ultimate unstoppable evil that can be easily stopped by a MacGuffin.
Then you have Russell Crowe, whose appearance in this film is solely to expand the Dark Universe. Crowe plays Dr. Henry Jekyll. Yep, that Dr. Jekyll. He was a joy to watch as he seemed to be the only person in the ensemble who bothered getting into character. While I did like the way the film introduced the Jekyll/Hyde connection, I feel like they overdid it. In a case like this, as most of Marvel’s films have shown, a little goes a long way. Universal, on the other hand, didn’t seem to trust their audience would get the allusion and needed to center an entire action scene on just how badass Mr. Hyde could be. While it was a fun scene, it slowed down the pacing of the film and took some of the spotlight away from the Mummy, who should have always been the focus of the film.
For a movie that’s meant to kickstart a cinematic universe full of classic monsters, The Mummy lacks any sort of horror or thrills. It’s overflowing with cheap jump scares and cringe inducing creepiness (like Cruise being covered in rats), and those grow old fast. It also lacks the charm that 1999’s The Mummy starring Brendan Fraser had. At this point, it must be asked: what is this Mummy flick supposed to bring to the table, besides over-the-top action pieces?
Would I say The Mummy was a good movie? Nope. I will say that as the tent pole of the “Dark Universe,” it was fun, and at the very least, it opened the doors for films featuring a more diverse cast of classic monsters. After years of countless Dracula, Frankenstein and Werewolf movies, we finally have the chance to gets movies centered on the Hunchback of Notre Dame, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and the Invisible Man. In the hands of the right writer and director, these movies have the opportunity to be mind-blowing. While The Mummy is mediocre at best, it deserves some credit.
Grade: C
It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s a successful Superman movie! Aside from arguing the merits of the movie itself Man of Steel has broken June movie records. What does that mean? It means that the sequel has already been green lit and a Justice League movie is that much closer to becoming a reality. But you don’t want to hear about all of that. You came here to read about Man of Steel.
I’m going to be honest, I went into Man of Steel with almost zero expectations, after the semi disappointment that was Superman Returns and the debacle that was Green Lantern (Which I don’t blame on Ryan Reynolds, but that is subject that is best discussed in another article.) I was more than a little soured on the whole prospect of DC Films. I don’t count Chris Nolan’s Batman movies as a part of the DC movie universe because that Batman couldn’t exist with Superheroes like Green Lantern and Superman, so I’m not going to count those films.
Man of Steel is the first DC Comics film in my opinion that has successfully brought a character like Superman into the pop culture consciousness. Now don’t get me wrong we all know Superman, but most people think of the character as out of date or with morals that are too lofty to be relatable. In Man of Steel, I think we see for the first time a Superman that still holds on to those choices and morals but is fully realized. An extraordinary being dealing with his own need to be human, it deals with the need to be a part of the human condition but not being able to be understood by humanity. In my opinion each of the Superman movies has been a reflection of the national mentality at the time of creation. So while the main criticism for Man of Steel seems to be it is too “dark” or “realistic” I would argue that the word being looked for is modern. It is a retelling of the Superman mythos that while paying homage to past films and comic history does not follow it religiously, which I think is a good thing.
Part of the reason I was able to buy into this movie so well is due to Henry Cavill’s great performance as the Man of Steel himself. He was at times stoic, playful, sarcastic, and played the quiet strength of Superman well. Here is an important thing to note though, this is a Superman movie, not a Clark Kent movie. Just like Iron Man 3 was more accurately Tony Stark 3 or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang 2, Man of Steel chose to focus on Clark/Kal’El as Superman. While there were many great moments with Diane Lane and Cavill, the true strength of the character in this film was focused on Superman. I am hoping in the sequel which we all know is coming that we will see Cavill get to play Clark Kent a little more often since his turn in shows like the Tudors have shown his ability to play both comedy and drama.
But let’s get to my favorite part Amy Adams as Lois Lane. I’m going to fanboy for a moment here, I was so excited when she was announced. Amy Adams is one of my favorite actresses and I think she played Lois to a “t”, not the Lois that we have gotten recently in even the pre-New 52 comics but a Lois Lane that holds her own, she suits up, she kicks ass, and she is a great investigative journalist. These are all the things that she should be and is. I can’t wait to see more of her character in the sequel.
And last but not least here are the caveats, the problems, the shortfalls, and missteps that I felt existed in the movie. While I understand the narrative choices of the flashbacks I felt like some of them were misplaced or entirely unnecessary within the confines of the “Superman” story the movie was trying to tell. Laurence Fishburne felt underused as Perry White, and character development in general fell short. Also, while I enjoyed Michael Shannon as Zod, I missed Terence Stamp, The “Kneel before Zod” line was so iconic I couldn’t help but miss it a little bit.
Overall I loved the movie, it helped that I went in thinking two things “Expect nothing” and thanks to my fellow staff writer Tushar, “Infinite Worlds in the DC universe”. This movie exceeded my expectations, helped me fall in love with Superman again, and gave me hope for a fully realized DC movie universe.
What did you think? Let me know in the comments, or on Facebook, or Twitter.
UPDATE: It was recently pointed out to me that I mistakenly identified the Actress Diane Lane as Diane Keaton, probably because my mind was somewhere up in the clouds while writing this article.
Samuel Smith
Staff Writer
samuel@ihogeek.com
@samwasbornanerd