I may be a king, but I'm a wrestler first.

The Scorpion King

(2002)

I studiously avoided this prequel to The Mummy Returns on release because I was so repelled by that film’s incompetent CGI monstrosity of the Scorpion King himself. It turns out I did Chuck Russell’s film a small disservice for, whilst it bears originator Stephen Sommers’ smudged knuckle prints in the script department, he is crucially absent behind the camera. The result is an old-school sword-and-sandals picture, with more than a slight doffing of the hat to Conan the Destroyer, that doesn’t outstay its welcome and doesn’t make you feel like you’ve been beaten about the head by ILM (in the interests of fairness, eight effects houses are credited for the disastrous visuals in The Mummy Returns).

Russell hasn’t helmed a film in more than a decade; this is his last credit. Perhaps there are personal reasons, or he just hasn’t found anything to tickle his fancy. It’s not as if he was shunned for delivering a string of flops; he has the most respect A Nightmare on Elm Street sequel to his name as well as significant hits in the forms of The Mask and Eraser. Although, picking up on an inferior director’s “inspired” cast-offs does seem a bit like slumming it. Russell’s no auteurist dazzler behind the camera, but he’s a competent pair of hands who knows where to position the camera and how to ensure that action is coherent. He also doesn’t feel obliged to vault through the story at a breakneck pace, drama and tension be damned. He’s everything Stephen Sommers is not, basically, and for that he deserves some small praise.

I won’t get carried away, though. This is all relative, and I came upon Scorpion King after enduring TMR. Things don’t look good in the opening scene. The Rock appears wise-cracking (his first line, is “Boo!”) and there’s an inappropriate electric guitar on the soundtrack. But John Debney’s score proves to be agreeable rather than jarring in the long run, while John R Leonetti’s cinematography may not be striking but the plastic sheen of Sommers’ movies is thankfully absent.

The plot, as it is (I’m assuming the better elements come from the co-credited Watchmen and X-Men scribe David Hayer), sees Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s titular character (at this point a mercenary known as Mathayus) employed to kill nefarious King Memnon’s (Steven Brand) victory-ensuring sorceress Cassandra (Kelly Hu). Inspired name, that. I’ll bet that one came from Sommers. Of course, things don’t go quite as planned. Instead of killing her, he abducts her, and then leads a force against the King.

So it’s a bog standard premise, but Russell is blessed with the surprisingly charismatic Johnson as his leading man. His self-conscious delivery actually suits the material, so when you discover he has a pet camel, which he talks to, it’s amusing rather than tiresome. Most of the other performers don’t fare as well, from the obligatory comedy sidekick (The Men Who Stare at Goats helmer and Clooney pal Grant Heslov) to Michael Clark Duncan’s initially-at-loggerheads-but-sure-to-be great friends eventually tribal leader. Bernard Hill bizarrely shows up as a crackpot inventor, while Peter Facinelli (lately banished to Twilight movies) is a conniving turncoat.

Most damagingly, the villain is rubbish; Brand has little presence aside from acting like a swaggering prick. Hu, who would memorably clash claws with Wolverine in X2 the following year, doesn’t make an impression for her performance, it must be said. That’s okay, as it doesn’t seem to be why she was cast. Instead, her form is much-adored by the camera as she progresses through a series of skimpy costumes; certainly as scanty as a PG-13 will allow.

Obvious CGI is limited, aside from re-use of the series’ crawling critters programme; this time to have Johnson threatened by large red ants. King didn’t make even half the sum of its parent films at the box office, but then it’s in a difficult genre. And, quite possibly, the lack of ADD on the part of its director was off-putting to viewers who expected something that barely made sense. Too slow, no doubt. Or maybe, as seems to have been confirmed subsequently, the Rock just isn’t a major box office draw.

I’m making it sound like The Scorpion King is a good film. It isn’t, but it’s a tolerable movie that doesn’t outstay it’s welcome. And you won’t finish watching it feeling as if your retinas have been assaulted. Which is more than you can say for Stephen Sommers-ville.

**1/2

Comments

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog