Warner Brothers had high hopes with their new creature feature, The Mummy. The reboot of the horror classic was supposed to kick off a new dark universe for the studio with more epic monster movies to come. Unfortunately the only scary thing about The Mummy is how poorly it’s doing at the U.S. box office. That fact alone may not herald a death knell for the burgeoning franchise. The film did very well overseas, making back the entire production budget during opening weekend.
Director Alex Kurtzman's The Mummy (2017) has a decent plot, some stellar CGI and decades of Hollywood lore to draw from. So why did it fail with American audiences?
I have a theory.
And before Tom Cruise fans start yelling at me, hear me out. I don’t plan on bashing the guy or his acting. For the most part I can get behind and even applaud his roles. Cruise is excellent at playing the tough guy, the self-sacrificing hero with a patriotic soul. And people love him for it.
And that’s what I think part of the problem is with this movie.
The script for the 2017 film, while touted as a reboot of the Hollywood classic, actually seems to draw a lot of inspiration from director Stephen Sommers’ 1999 version of The Mummy. That one --starring Brendan Fraser went on to become a cult classic. I wasn’t even a fan of it when it first came out but by now I can quote almost every line.
The lead character was an opportunist rogue, named Rick with a map that’s supposed to help him in his search for treasure. He finds an ancient evil buried under the desert sand and inadvertently unleashes an unholy plague upon the earth. His buddy, Beni, winds up helping the resurrected Mummy.
Rick, with the help of a sweet-faced Egyptologist, her brother and a Medjai warrior who commands a legion of soldiers -- must band together to save the day. Oh, and one of them is to be sacrificed in order to reincarnate a powerful evil being.
In the 2017 version, the lead’s name is Nick. Also an opportunist rogue with a stolen map in search of treasure. He finds an ancient evil buried under the sand and inadvertently unleashes an unholy bitch upon the earth. His buddy, Vail, winds up indirectly helping the resurrected corpse.
Nick, with the help of a pretty archaeologist, her ally --who runs a consortium that tracks monsters, and a group of special forces types -- must band together to save the day. Oh and one of them is to be sacrificed in order to reincarnate a powerful evil being.
Everybody on the same page?
The problem with the modern version is that Kurtzman’s script lacks the essential humor of the Sommers’ feature. So does the cast. It doesn’t offer much that is new, aside from setting up this “monster watching’ consortium" with Dr. Jekyll at the helm. Which frankly added another level of exposition that was just too long.
Fraser’s Rick had a way of letting the audience in on the gag. Be it venting his frustration with Evie or Jonathan -- or even taking swipes at his former jailer. He never took himself too seriously and the audience was always in on it. There was great chemistry among the entire ensemble.
And while there are light moments in the 2017 film, Cruise works too hard at it. It’s more of an exercise in saying the right words at the right moment, yet it fails to charm. The audience is never invited to be in on the joke. Each line is delivered in a believable manner but lacks the mojo needed to captivate or woo.
Another problem with this current Mummy is the ending. I know that Warner Brothers is setting up the sequel with it. This was not the proper way to go about it. Granted most people expect Cruise’s Ethan Hunt or Jack Reacher to be self-sacrificing and not get the girl. However that’s not the character profile of Rick/Nick. And thus made the final scenes unsatisfying.
If this film was a paint by the numbers portrait, I’d say the technique is there. The painter managed to stay between the lines and select the right color scheme. And I might spend a moment looking at the end result on display -- just to be polite. But I wouldn’t take it home with me or call it art.
