Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Mummy (2017)

 On to the first proper review for this year.... and oh, God, I have to actually go into the history of this, aren't I? I'll make it quick. I find corporate bullshit like this far less interesting to write about. 

   So, as many of you know, Boris Karloff's The Mummy spawned a reboot in 1999, starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. It was an action adventure film rather than a straight forward horror film, but it was successful enough to spawn two sequels and a number of spin-offs. However, as it gradually lost steam, Universal decided that a reboot was necessary, cancelling a fourth film with Fraser. They announced the reboot in 2012, and following the example of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it was decided that it would be the centerpiece of a new "Cinematic Universe". After cycling through writers and directors, eventually, hack screenwriter Alex Kurtzmann (whose credits read like a cinematic rap sheet) was tapped to lead the "Dark Universe" and eventually to direct the new Mummy. However, he would be one of many screenwriters, including frequent partner and fellow hack Robert Orci and (of all people) David Koepp, writer of Jurassic Park, Spider-Man,... Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit,.... Mortdecai.... Anyway, Tom Cruise was cast, and by most accounts, took over production, controlled every part of it, and basically made himself the bigger star over the titular mummy (played by Algerian French actress Sofia Boutella, cast after her star turning role in Kingsman.) The film was a gigantic flop, and brought the end to the nascent "Dark Universe". The next film, a remake of The Invisible Man, was unconnected to the Dark Universe, perhaps for the better. 

    So, in this film about ancient Egypt, we start in England. During the 13th Century. During a funeral for a crusader. Then to modern day London where Dr. Jekyll (Russell Crowe, and yes, it means exactly what you think it means) digs up the corpse. What has to do with the rest of the film, I'm not sure, but then we get the story of Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella), her bloodlust on her way to power, her deal with the God of "Death" Set (Set was actually the god of deserts, Osiris was the god of death. How do you screw up such a basic piece of research?) and how she was mummified alive and transported to Iraq. There, her tomb is uncovered by Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson, whose presence is extremely distracting), a pair of ... I'm actually not entirely sure, deserters? special ops?... anyway, they report it to their commanding officer (Courtney B. Vance) and by extension, archeologist Jennifer Halsey (Annabelle Wallis). They excauvate the ruins, and unleash the titular mummy, who decides to... again, not clear on this, but apparently it motivates her to unleash supernatural wackiness upon the world. 

   Good stuff, good stuff.... Sofia Boutella is always a compelling presence, and for the limited role she's given here, she does the very best she can (you want a good performance, watch the first Kingsman or Atomic Blonde for that). Tom Cruise is... Tom Cruise, for good or ill. Russell Crowe is mildly entertaining, since he's just decided to go hammy with the role. 

    This was very badly written, for the first really glaringly awful thing. The plot changes at least three times over the course of the film, and even then, it's really hard to tell what's going on. Why any of this is happening, what any of it signifies, and why should the audience care. I was baffled throughout this film, wondering what the hell was going on. The motivations of the titular Mummy are the biggest flaw, in that she doesn't have any. Her original plan was laid out and foiled in the opening, so her resurrection makes little sense, and she has no reason to do anything. Why does she conjure this supernatural menace? What's her endgoal? The ending is terrible, too, especially its non-climax and bizarre resolution that doesn't explain anything. I suppose it was meant to set up the "Dark Universe", but it was poorly done. As was the SHIELD counterpart Prodigium, which was deeply uninteresting and puts the film's pacing to a stonecold halt. As an intro to the "Dark Universe", it's really bad, and makes you actively avoid any future installments if they're this blatantly commericial. It also has terrible special effects combined with terrible cinematography. The result is a blur of action just vomited onto the screen, especially the action scenes, which are incomprehensible. 

    This was bad. Really, really bad. Bad in a distinctly uninteresting, completely predictable kind of way. There's no ironic enjoyment or unintentional fun. It's really dull and boring when it doesn't actively insult your intelligence. Frankly, you're better off watching the recent Invisible Man remake over this, since that worked on a individual level. This should probably be only seen as an example of how not to make a cinematic universe. (well, this and the DCEU.)

    Onto stuff I actually have interest in, we return to Larry Cohen next time with Because God Told Me To.

Summer of Terror-The Universal Monsters: The Invsible Man

     HG Wells' The Invisible Man was inspired in part by references to invisible men in a WS Gilbert poem and Plato's Republic. It, along with War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, would be seen as one of the classics from Wells. The film version began production as early as 1931, but ran into a number of production problems. The film had multiple treatments with wildly different takes on the story, including one set on Mars. RC Sheriff (who wrote Journey's End, which director James Whale had produced on stage in 1928) eventually found the original novel in a secondhand bookstore, and wrote the script around that. Even that had issues, as the script was helped by then-famed science fiction writer Phillip Wylie (later known for proto-superhero work Gladiator and When Worlds Collide, who integrated elements of his novel The Murderer Invisible into the script) and future Oscar winner Preston Sturges, who were then taken off the project. Director Cyril Gardner was replaced by the reliable James Whale. Originally, Boris Karloff and Colin Clive were considered for the role of the Invisible Man. However, Whale had a small falling out with Karloff and Clive declined, so the role went to a newcomer to film named Claude Rains. Rains, a British World War I veteran, had been a rising star on the London stage (thanks, in part, to him modifying his Cockney accent into a trans-Atlantic accent) , and had been an instructor in the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, where John Gieglud and Laurence Olivier were his students. He had appeared in a silent film in 1920, but largely remained a theater actor and came to Broadway in 1928. In 1931, he was offered a screen test for an RKO picture called A Bill of Divorcement. While the screen test failed, James Whale happened to overhear it, and impressed by Rains' voice, hired him as the Invisible Man. Even still, production remained troubled, with a fire breaking out at one point, shutting down production. The Invisible Man effect was well-regarded in its time. Wires on set were used to display the invisible man running around, but the actual effect when Rains took off his mask was achieved through a special velvet black suit Rains wore against a velvet black background, which was combined with a location shot through a matte. Released in 1933, the film was Universal's biggest success after Frankenstein , and would launch Claude Rains into an incredibly illustrious film career. Wells himself would have mixed feelings on the film, commenting that while he enjoyed it, he didn't like that the scientist had gone insane from the process.

    A bandaged man (Claude Rains) walks into a hotel and asks for a room. It's revealed that this bandaged stranger is in fact, Dr. Jack Griffin, a scientist working for Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers, aka "Clarence" from It's a Wonderful Life), and engaged to Cranley's daughter Flora (Gloria Stuart). They, and Dr. Kemp (Willaim Harrigan) have concerns for Griffin, especially when they come across a dangerous formula in his collection. Sure enough, when the innskeeper (Forrester Harvey) tries to kick him out, Griffin dispatches him, and grandly reveals that he has gained the ability to become invisible. 

    So, the special effects hold up really well. The invisibility effect is extremely well-done in close up, and I was shocked when I read up on how it was done (hence why I noted it in the intro.) It also helps that the other invisibility effects are also well-done, making the character feel present even if you can't see him. Claude Rains does well in his de facto film debut, delivering the grand villainous monologues with energy and gusto that makes him very appealing to watch. Helps that he also has legitimate malice and menace to him that makes him a very real threat. I also liked that the film had some good intentional humor that was legitimately funny, but also felt more like fun than the relatively dour films prior to it. It also has a conclusion that feels like an actual conclusion, rather than feeling like something was cut out.

    Some parts, like the opening and some of the middle, were a bit confusing and hard to follow. I only learned from looking at the synopsis what a discovery in the middle of the film actually meant, and some of the extensive middle part felt confusing. Also, the way he's dispatched at the end was a bit anti-climatic, especially with his grandiose gesturing throughout the film.

    Pretty entertaining film overall, and an interesting companion piece to the very recent remake (if you managed to see it in theaters before... everything.) I'd say I prefer the new one a little more, but this is definitely worth a watch, if only for the insane monologues Claude Rains delivers and the incredible special effects. 

    Next up, the very  first sequel in the Universal Monsters franchise with The Bride of Frankenstein.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: The Silent Era

      From 1921 to 1960, the Universal Monsters terrified and enthralled audiences across America with their grotesque, but sympathetic creatures, all of whom represented something about mankind that spoke to them. While they have mostly entered the pop culture lexicon as fixtures stripped of their original horror elements and reduced to kitsch items, their legacy can still be felt in horror to this very day. And with a new decade ahead of us, I figured there was no better franchise to start off a new decade than what is considered the first true horror franchise. If you haven't really noticed, I do actually burn out a lot when I do these, and I have a lot of trouble with this, given there is a large number of films outside the classic monsters, and the nebulous definition of a "Universal Monster" film. So, I'm going to do this a bit differently. The big films with the big creatures get full reviews. However, smaller films get smaller mini-reviews that are compiled together. They won't have a full in-depth look, but just a brief examination. This is especially true of these first two features, both of which are silent. Silent movies aren't exactly my area of expertise, so instead of doing my usual schtick, I'll just list stuff I enjoyed about the film.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

    Of course, based on Victor Hugo's 1831 novel of the same name, it follows the story of Quasimodo (Lon Chaney), the titular hunchback who rings the bells of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, during the reign of Louis XI (Tully Marshall) in the 14th Century. Quasimodo ventures out to a large festival being held, with his master Jehan (Brandon Hurst), Jehan's brother, clergyman Dom Claudio (Nigel De Brulier, analogous to Claude Frollo from the book), and dancer Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) in attendence. He is celebrated, only for people to turn on him upon learning of his deformity. Only Esmeralda shows sympathy, causing a chain of events involving Esmeralda, Jehan, and Phoebus (Norman Kerry)
     Popular legend attributes the creation of this film to producer Irving Thalberg (later a seminal figure at Universal's rival MGM and whose life was later fictionalized by F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Last Tycoon),but the film by most accounts, was the idea of Lon Chaney, having then established his reputation as a versatile character actor and who lobbied heavily for the role of Quasimodo. He later chose the director Wallace Woolsery (who had worked with Chaney on some productions at Goldwyn), after his first choice, Erich von Stronheim, was fired by Thalberg. Thalberg did originate the idea to make the film more of a large scale dramatic epic instead of a straight forward horror movie. Because of censorship prohibiting mocking religious figures, the villain of Claude Frollo (a Catholic priest) in the book was instead given a brother, who would take up the role.
    What really works about this film is the large scale of it. The massive sets, the extras, the sheer sizeof it can be overwhelming. Yet, despite this large scale epic scope of the thing, it does manage to have some intimate moments, especially with Quasimodo. Speaking of, Lon Chaney does pretty well as the Hunchback. He imparts his performance with a lot of physicality and emotion, giving an audience enough to sympathize with him, especially at the end. Finally, it uses its sets very well, especially with dark scenes set in the corridors of the Cathedral.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

     The Paris Opera House suddenly finds itself in the thrall of the mysterious "Phantom" (Lon Chaney), who has taken an interest in a young understudy named Christine (Mary Philbin). While the new owners and Charlotta (Virginia Pearson) laugh off the threat, the Phantom soon makes his presence known, which guides Christine at first, but slowly, the Phantom makes plans to kidnap her, and the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny (Norman Kerry) must navigate the strange architecture of the Paris Opera House to stop him.
     Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel was based around various myths and legends centering around the Opera House (including the use of a real skeleton in an 1841 production.) Leroux met Carl Laemmle, the head of Universal, in 1921 during a visit by the latter to France. Leroux gave Laemmle the book, and Laemmle envisioned it as a vehicle for Lon Chaney. Chaney made up his own make-up for the film. The film's turntable set would continue to be used for another 90 years after the completion of the film. The film's gigantic success would be the impetus for the Universal monsters.
   I remember being terrified of the Phantom's make-up as a kid. Never actually saw the film until years later, but the make-up just scared me. It (meant to apparently invoke a skull) is still effective, especially when the Phantom is unmasked towards the middle of the film. Again, Lon Chaney is the star here, and even more so, he is the main reason to watch, with his physicality and his ability to balance menace with some humor. The set of the Paris Opera House also looks incredible, even today, and it also has a massive scope.

----

Well, that begins this Summer of Terror. Apologies for the lateness of this. As with all of us, the pandemic hasn't been exactly great for me, and it's been a struggle to muster the energy to do this. Not helping is the fact I tend to burnout on these, and I had a pretty bad case of burnout yesterday. If some entries are late or come a few days after the last one, that's probably why. Apologies in advance if this ends up inconsistent as a result. Nevertheless, I feel like starting off this new decade with something different, and what better than the first horror franchise, one that was influential for years to come. Join me tomorrow for Dracula.

And as always, if you enjoy this or other works, I have a Ko-Fi page to donate to, if you're interested: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc

Current Film Review/Coming to a Video Screen Near You- Scoob!

       Yep, the pandemic is still going on. We're all still stuck at home, and most movie theaters are still closed. So, it's mostly direct-to-VOD for a lot of movies. So, for this month, it was either this or Josh Trank's Capone. I didn't really want to spend time talking a movie where nothing happens except Tom Hardy growling at people and shitting his pants, and this actually seemed to have potential from the trailer. I greatly enjoyed the comic series Future Quest, and this seemed to capture similar energy, creating a universe of Hanna-Barbera characters. And hey, it's a crossover between my Current Film and VOD reviews, appropriate for this film.

        Based on Joe Ruby and Ken Spears' venerated series (and featuring characters from other Hanna-Barbara produced series), the film, of course, centers on Mystery Inc.: Fred (Zac Efron, which is too perfect casting to have not been considered before), Daphne (Amanda Seyfried), Velma (Gina Rodriguez), and the ever loveable Shaggy (Will Forte, doing a decent Casey Kasem impression) and Scooby Doo (Frank Welker). After Simon Cowell (Simon Cowell) questions the latter two's contribution to the group, they sulk a bit in a bowling alley (In a cute nod, named for veteran Hanna-Barbara animator Iwao Takamoto), before they are attacked by scorpion robots and beamed into the Falcon Fury, the sanctum of the superhero Blue Falcon (Mark Wahlberg) and his assistants Dee Dee Sykes (Kiersy Clemmons) (from Captain Caveman and the Teen Angels) and Dynomutt (Ken Jeong). Apparently, the robots were sent by nefarious villain Dick Dastardly (Jason Isaacs) (from The Wacky Races) to capture Scooby. What results is a globe-trotting adventure as the gang with their new allies try to stop Dastardly and his mysterious scheme. 

      First, a lot of really good jokes and gags littered throughout. Very subtle jokes alongside very good references. The jokes appeal to all ages too, so you don't have to be very young to appreciate them. I liked all the references they made both to the old cartoon (including a CGI recreation of the original theme) and the other Hanna-Barbara creations, especially in terms of the designs. Jason Isaacs hams it up as Dick Dastardly. The animation is pretty good, with very fluid motion and colorful design. I really liked that they included all the little cartoon sound effects from the original series all over, which gives it a lot more oomph. 

     I'd honestly try not to think too hard about the plot, because it gets into a lot of confusing territory real quickly. There are basic character arcs that mostly work, but the plot goes into some weird directions to try to connect all these characters together. Even as an adult, I had trouble really following some of this story, so the target audience might also have trouble figuring out the mechanics of the plot. And unlike those direct-to-video Scooby movies from when I was a kid (like Zombie Island and Cyber Chase) , it really doesn't follow the Scooby formula very much. It's just a standard adventure story that Shaggy and Scooby just happen to be in. There are nods to the original format, and even a short bit where they homage parts of the formula, but the story doesn't have that Scooby Doo feel to it. 

     This movie delivers what was promised:  a nice, decently Hanna-Barbara crossover with tons of little nods, potentially setting up an animated cinematic universe of those characters (especially in the end credits). If you're familiar with these characters, like I am, you'll probably get a kick out of all the little references. Even if you aren't and you watch it with little children, it's good enough on its own, with tons of funny gags and nice animation to keep you satisfied, even if the plot has some trouble. 

     Anyway, thanks for reading, and if you like this review, please consider donating a bit to my Ko-Fi: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc. I'll sign off with this interesting compilation of Scooby Doo openings through the decades: