Skip to main content

You guys are like mummy magnets!


The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
(2008)

What’s worse, a terrible film or a dull film? There’s always the possibility that a terrible film will end up in the “so bad, it’s entertaining” category. But a dull film is generally a chore to sit through. You become distracted, listless, or nod off. I could barely remember anything about this, apart from the Yetis. The third Mummy film isn’t a horrendous mess in the same way as the second, but it is really boring. On the balances side, so much of Mummy Returns is painfully bad that if came down to a choice of which to suffer again, Dragon Emperor might be the less damaging option.

Despite (or because of; people had the chance to forget how bad Returns was?) Dragon Emperor was a significant (and surprise) hit. Not in the States, where it did about half its predecessors’ business (inflation-adjusted), but worldwide where the total was four times that gross. Brendan Fraser, who has never been a major draw and receives more column inches regarding his level of baldness than his movie career, suddenly found himself with two big hits that year (the other being Journey to the Centre of the Earth). But the status of the production suggested an “anything will do” cash in. Director Stephen Sommers did not return, saying he didn’t think he’d have the energy for another installment. And then Rachel Weisz opted-out, citing her recent birth and script concerns. Nevertheless, the script had been in development since 2005, seeing John Hannah’s character added along the way.

As with Returns, the son of Rick and Evelyn was given a central role; the timeframe leaps 13 years to 1946. Now Alex (Luke Ford) is an archeologist on a dig in China and his parents have reluctantly retired to a stately pile. It isn’t long before they reunite, along with Jonathan, to face a new threat.

The switch of location to China is one of the few original aspects of the film; inspired by the Terracotta Army, the prologue sees Jet Li’s warlord (the titular character) imprisoned by Michelle Yeoh’s sorceress, due to being a nasty piece of work, along with his army (transformed in said Terracotta Army). It’s unfortunate that this sequence is quite good, as it gives a false impression of what’s in store. Jet Li’s Mummy is possibly even less inspired than Arnold Vosloo, and Li doesn’t seem remotely engaged by the material (when you can actually see him in non-CGI form, that is). Yeoh is always appealing but there’s not much here for her, even when the film takes in Shangri-La.

Evelyn has been recast in the form of Maria Bello, a decent actress who seems uneasy here; maybe it was concentrating on the (competent) English accent, but her performance is a bit off (I’m not going to make out that Weisz was some kind of irreplaceable feature of the series, as the character was terribly thin and at best you could say she dampened down the more grating aspects). One of the movie’s few witty moments has Evelyn at a book signing, asked if the novel’s female character is based on her. She replies, “No. I can honestly say she is a completely different person”.

More damaging is Luke Ford, playing Alex as an American this time (and only thirteen/fourteen years younger that Fraser and Bello) and doing it utterly charmlessly. I wouldn’t say he’s quite as annoying as the character’s earlier moptop incarnation, but you wonder if the producers didn’t deliberately intend to piss of the audience. The same year’s Indiana Jones movie at least had the excuse of an aging star who might need to pass the baton to a successor should the series continue. But Fraser hadn’t even turned 40 when the Dragon Emperor came out. And already they’re replicating Sean Connery’s death scene from Last Crusade for him.

Did I mention there are Yetis? Friendly Yetis. I quite liked the Yetis.

The big point in favour of Dragon Emperor is that its look is far superior to Sommers’ movies. The colour palette lacks a post-production sheen, the physical locations are more tangible, there’s a sense of scale; this feels like an adventure movie that actually visited exotic climes, rather than one that spent an extended period on a soundstage (Crystal Skull).

The downside is that Rob Cohen, Sommers’ replacement, is such a disengaged filmmaker. It’s not just a case of director-for-hire; he imbues no energy or vitality into his material. No matter Sommers’ numerous faults, that’s something you could never accuse him of. Cohen’s soulless spectacles (not that kind) are not only personality-free, they are mechanical to the point of actively discouraging involvement with the material. He has the dubious claim to fame of introducing the most unlikely of mega-franchises with The Fast and the Furious but his CV consists mostly of the forgettable (Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, Dragonheart) or tedious (Daylight, XXX, Stealth). He did much more interesting work as a producer during the ‘80s, truth be told.

Unlike Indy, which staggered on to a fourth installment, this looks like the final ending for Universal’s cheerful knock-off series. There was talk of a further adventure, but the property has now progressed to reboot territory; Jon Spaits (Prometheus) is attached to script it and (a warning sign) Len Wiseman to direct. If not for the latter’s action-orientated involvement, I might have held out hope for something hewing closer to the spirit of Universal’s classic horror roots.

** 

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.