Movie Review: The Mummy

My poor husOtter. He tried, when we first started dating all those moons ago, to see what made me tick. I found paperback copies of Frankenstein and Dracula scattered under his coffee table and end table, all the pages shortly dog-ear-ed. He'd apologize, and admit, eventually, that I would have to see my horror movies alone. He'd ride the Haunted Mansion, but a walk-through house was too much.

Horror, as it seems, is a very personal and distinct experience. We all have those things that scare us to immobility; we also have those things we allow. My mother? She LOVED Hitchcock movies. When I would come home from the video store in high school on a Saturday night, they were all that was left that the rabble did not wish to see. She and I would watch bevies of those thrillers. Bring home Friday the 13th? Halloween? No. But Fatal Attraction was a standout. She had what was safe scary, what she could digest. And that which was unacceptable.

Even I do. I believe, for my tastes, that horror should be a personal experience. Regardless of the body count, the settings should be dark, intimate, alone, and isolated. There's a sense of impending doom, a sense that there's a chance we will not get out alive.

My checkbook, for many years, was the Universal monsters. Yeap. All those classic baddies. Drac. Frank. Creature from the Black Lagoon. I LOVED them. I played Dungeons & Dragons as a player-character, but when it came to Dungeon Mastering? We played, "Chill." The horror role-playing game. In it, my friends took part in a secret society bent on removing evil and monsters and specters from the Earth.

I love it.

But, because I write it? I should be able to look at it with a decent discerning eye. I, for one, was actually okay with the recent announcement of Dark Universe from the execs from Universal. They've always had the lid on big screen movies, surely, but also they have been able to keep all of the top famous monsters in the game. Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Werewolf-all are pretty much public domain, but every few years, they crank out another clunker to keep an eye on the IP. With Dark Universe? They were hoping to do what Disney has done with Marvel. What is that, like, 17 titles that are some how interwoven?

Follow the example, too. Keep lite, keep it moving, have simple and direct logic, let the story carry itself.

The first title out of the gate?

The Mummy.

Now, this is a difficult one to beat. See, they re-made it, in glorious 1930's caper format, back in the later 90s and it was a terrific tribute to the older horror movies. I'm sure you saw it. It was fun. During the depression, the exotic was fearsome, so it made sense that a monster would come from overseas. The remake held to that. It had pyramids and secret codes and growing menace. There were jumps and screams, and, yes, everyone looked like they were having fun.  That remake? That was a good movie. It was even scary in parts. I mean, they took the girl! She could die!

Now? They bring it back. There was that hope that maybe it was good. I like the idea of Dark Universe, but, hey, I read comic book serials, so I'm kosher with it with crossover after crossover. Let's do this, right?

But this? I'm not sure, totally, what happened. The acting? Good. The set pieces? Strong. Music's there, special effects? Bright and easy.

The fault? Story.

Again, look at me, I'm going for the writing thing again. You can't have everything perfect and have a shit tale to tell.

In the first thirty minutes, we subjected to three different flashbacks. Flashbacks that are brought up, again, 30 minutes later, adding no additional information. The story concerns two military men who branch out (how, exactly does that happen-the term court martial comes to mind. Even the CO says, "why do I let you get away with this AGAIN..." Again?????) and go fortune hunting. They get themselves in a quagmire and call in a drone strike (okay, how does that happen?), and unearth the evil within. An Egyptian princess, punished to mummification forever, her soul stuck between the Worlds.

The soldier?

Tom Cruise.

Now? Hold for a second. That name conjured up an image in your head of him. Probably running and yelling. His last seven titles have used this technique.  Running. Yelling. Taking command. Running. Yelling.  I am still stymied on how this dude is so famous. Yes. He is talented. But with replaying roles over and over again, the shine is wearing off.

And in this tale, he's no different. In fact, the script just makes him argue everything. They make it sound like all he wants is money, so when the tale gives him it, he suddenly grows a moral code.

And, and, and....I'm whining. I think I'm hurt. I wanted this movie to be better.

Even a better Tom Cruise movie.

An archaeologist, only we can't say that, because you'll think Indiana Jones, shows up (in the middle of a war zone....with GREAT hair and a perfect forehead) and they had a one night stand. He stole her notes to find this tomb. Wait. So, he goes out. Meets a nice girl. In downtown, where? Bahgdad? I didn't know they had reopened the singles cafe again. Not only that, they have their meet-and-greet, and he rummages through her stuff, stealing a detailed map.  In the digital age.

Doesn't the military have a purpose overseas? I guess it's to support Tom Cruise.

Played by Annabelle Wallis, she's not a good Tom Cruise woman character, either. I have consistently noticed, especially in the Mission: Impossible Cruise vehicles, women are afforded great roles by him and his studios. Here? She just stands there and acts surprised. Yes, she even becomes a victim. Three different times.

But, you know, Tom is there to save her. And others!

Russell Crowe plays Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, THAT one) and seems to be the only one having fun with the role. Not a normal character of tradition horror, his storyline is brief and entertaining-but ultimately, just a review and clarification of the plot put forth. Seems they've set this princess loose and she's undead, a mummy. She cannot move on to the heaven, hell, or whatever. Her immortality is to give her a chance to find the perfect male, a specimen that the god of death can inhabit.

Now, you know, of course, who that is going to be, right?

Those that die? Have to die in honor of the plot. There are brief sparks of horror tropes of zombies. But we've seen that. We have a huge attack on London. Not private scary moments in alleyways. Not jolting moments. AN ENTIRE CITY. And yet, no one is freaking out.

So much for intimate, I suppose. I don't care for the characters, outside of Jekyll and the Mummy, herself. So they could all die, and I'd be okay.

Not a single sense of peril.

And that's not horror. That's not scary. In fact, one character, dies, comes back as some kind of monitor or something, but none of the others do.

Such threads lead to a very poor opening for something that is supposed to be part of a franchise.

Is the movie good? Maybe. Not as a horror movie. As Mission: Impossible Lite, perhaps. When your story crashes from the get-go, there's not much else to go on.

If at all, Universal to look to what works well in franchises that have stayed the course. Bond films are consistently engaging and trying new things, with mixed results, but arcing segments. Disney? They have this to a cash cow. They just tell the director they should kowtow the producer and the story and keep everything slight. Warner Bros has recently learned this with mediocre hits of Watchmen and Batman/Dark Knight. They tried to keep that artsy-fartsy feel, but, as soon as they let the story unfold, you have a hit, like Wonder Woman. It can be done.

If they want it to.

See, like here, we have the Invisible Man coming up with Johnny Depp. Perfect. A series of murders without a single suspect on camera. Link the homicide. Media picks up the lurid tale and the lead detective is attacked, but escapes with the help of Dr. Jekyll's society. Seems they are looking for the same phantom. An Invisible Man.  Someone the Feds would LOVE to get their hands on. Tight corners. Seemingly a ghost in old homes, hidden from view, where people wouldn't look for scientist hiding and making more of his mysterious elixir.

It can be done. But keep the tone focused. Scare us. Don't make it big. Keep it small.

Movie Review: Wonder Woman

When Caitlyn Jenner came out, I congratulated her. Same with Michael Sam. And, every time, people responded positively. It is a good thing. I was once that gay kid who wondered if there were others. I couldn't see them in media, I had no idea. And that loneliness was lethal. Truly, lethal. I just needed a reason to know that I was not going to be a fat, ugly kid, a pariah forever, and I might as well end it now. It's not like my family could help (I would later learn that they would, but that's not what we're looking at, here). So, even if I didn't have a direct relationship with the famous, if they could do it, if they could voice their experiences and I could see the parallels, I had hope.

What was it my buddy, Harvey Milk said," You gotta give them hope."  With each famous individual coming out, hope grew. With ever gay cinema character, hope grew. With every recognition that didn't end up in death, hope grew.

In a world where white straight male privilege is becoming more and more obvious and the Old Guard is so resistant to that change, now, more than anything, visibility, especially in a universe with instant access, is becoming even more and more dire. I don't know how many of my friends, good people, smart people, made comments when I would congratulate another person coming out, would say things, like, "aren't we beyond this? We don't need to acknowledge that any more."

Yes, we are. We are beyond this.

'Cause I have smart friends.

But the world? That's a very different place. People, as a whole, are a much larger mixed bag of responses. They aren't so forgiving. They know racism is bad. Sexism is bad. But they have not, for whatever reason, accepted that things like feminism and civil equality are good. Racism still profoundly, exists. Sexism and homophobia STILL exist, even with so much evidence otherwise. I cannot figure it out.

So I turn back to the kids of today. They need to see equality.

Movies, as a whole, do try, I do believe that. From the "Oscars so white," Hollywood realized they needed to address their approach. Do they succeed? Not always. But there was an attempt, as the reddit users might say.

But the movie theaters still aim for those white male film goers, never really realizing that, well, if you make a good movie, it doesn't matter the demographic, really. Look at Titanic. If ever there was an example of women making the cinematic decision making process, there you go.

And yet? No other Titanic like movies. There were some clones-but all of them kinda sucked.

I'm also struck by the movie Brokeback Mountain, one of those rare titles that was both critically acclaimed AND made a crapton of dough. When the husOtter and I went to see it that Saturday night, the movie was PACKED. Not only that, it was packed with....cowboys. Now, I'm not joshing you with the Village People cowboys. It was evident as we stood there by the concessions, these men and women were from the Front Range, no more than thirty minutes from the theater on the outskirts of town. Their demeanor? Decidedly rural. But they watched the movie in silence. No catcalls. No shudders about the content. In fact, they spoke up about the realities of the film, we noticed, about rustling and getting herds converged.  See? You can never really count on the demographic.  All people go see all movies. That's why we need more good movies; that's why we need to cross all lines.

Please note: I am no innocent. I did, just now, possibly stereotype a group of people with my expectation. That is what's wrong.  We ALL need to work on this. Yes, even me.

Which brings us to this weekend's blockbuster.

Wonder Woman. Important in the comic book world but, also, important in the representation of women in a society that likes Superman and Batman, both literally and figuratively. I cannot really report on her comic book heritage, as it wasn't a title I frequented. But, strangely, I understood her in the pantheon of heroes that make our common culture. She was every bit in the equal of Superman and Batman. In fact, she was one to bare her face to the world, not a secretive creature like Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent.

It's interesting in that I bring up Superman. As I watched this movie, I was transported to that time I saw Christopher Reeve fly back in the 70s. Upon repeated viewings of that original titel, the movie is mostly good, holding up against time. But, as a child, my heart soared as much as the man in the red cape.

There's something of that childhood joyfulness here, too. The story is pure, novel for many, and has an ethereal quality.  There's a sense of hope, played by Gal Gadot's Princess Diana.  She carries with her a specific weight and, given the potent and clear choices made by Patty Jenkins, it's evident on the screen.  We have ethnic characters that aren't stereotypes. A Native American is a strange shaman type, he even gets along with the other characters and not regulated to the side. We have violence that comes with guilt by the protagonist when she commits them, her heartbreak that when she saves the day, the fighting does continue. The only nudity is male (take THAT! white boys! See? Didn't like it, did you?)   All the tropes dissolve completely under our audience's eyes, and in that, comes a welcome picture. There are action sequences, and yes, there is violence, but that's something to be said about bringing a new shine to old proceedings.

Now, I am lucky. In high school, I was addicted to Hong Kong Action Cinema, of which, women play a frequent strong role in many martial arts films. I mean, Michelle Yeoh, anyone? So, to some extent, this is what I was expecting. Ass-kicking with the usual aplomb.

We get that.

But we also get an origin story, much like Krypton, a home island named Themyscaria, instead of planet, and someone bred to be a hero-to the point that she cannot seem to be happy without action. This is an usual trait. I see it with Captain America too. Someone who cannot find themselves unless they are actively doing something. Wonder Woman smiles during the action progression. This is-unique. She's is fulfilling her destiny, as the tale unfolds, as she is supposed to be given the role of "god-killer." In this sense, the god in question is Ares, the Greek purveyor of war.

In fact, in this entire parable, her final duel with the super villain actually falls a bit short of the story that went beforehand. I'm used to big battle scenes, heck, if they are evenly matched, it should take forever. But, the excellent writing gives us two powerful individuals who have no way of giving to the other side, so we get a series of blasts that seemingly come out of no where.

It doesn't work.

But, by that point, we don't really care.

With 95% of the movie rolling along at a decent clip, such missteps are dissolved quickly in light of what went before.

In that way, I'm recommending the tale. It is epic, exciting, and has enough visual bluster that it is worthwhile on the big screen. In fact, it even goes on to prove something I have noticed that the Marvel Universe has already done. It doesn't seek to be an art film. It allows the characters and actions take their lives as their own and goes with it. There's no attempt of dark, gritty style; but, instead, a sense of purpose and journey.

Welcome Wonder Woman. Can you go kick some more butt for us, please?