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.
No comments:
Post a Comment