THE MUMMY (2017)

This is the remake that was never asked for. A film to start the Dark Universe for the monster films, and while I can see why they chose the Mummy film (it was a brilliant franchise), this remake has gone ahead and destroyed its chances at being taken seriously. The Marvel Cinematic Universe started with Iron Man, a standalone film that only brought in connections to other IPs in the end credit scene. The first DC Extended Universe film that wasn't critically panned was Wonder Woman; another standalone film that only referenced the connected universe at the end of the film. The success of these films is that they allow the characters to star in their own films with their own plots. The film is meant to carry its own weight, and not just be a vessel to introduce as many characters as possible into a "universe". Therefore, the introduction of Dr Henry Jekyll and the Prodigium organisation at the absolute beginning was the films first misstep.

Tom Cruise playing an arrogant, narcissistic character, is as good casting as having Robert Downey Jr play an arrogant, alcoholic, millionaire playboy. They are essentially playing themselves. Unfortunately, an arrogant narcissistic character is not what the film needed. Ultimately, the film is called The Mummy, and the mummy, Ahmanet, should, therefore, be the primary focal character. Even in the original superior Brendan Fraser franchise, despite Fraser being the main character, the film still equally followed the path of the Mummy, Imhotep. In this remake, Tom Cruise takes the forefront of every scene, and Ahmanet is cast aside, having even less importance than the character of Set, who despite never actually being a visible character on screen, still manages to reduce Ahmanet's intimidation levels to that of an angry child.

Jake Johnson portrays Corporal Chris Vail, arguably the most interesting character in the film. He is the only character that isn't over the top in personality, and the only person who is realistic in his opinions; such as bombs are bad, we should run away from guns, Tom Cruise's character Sergeant Nick Morton makes bad judgement calls, etc. He is the character that we can empathise with the most because in his boots we would know better than to enter those situations too. 

I really wanted to like the film. The idea of an attractive female mummy was intriguing, and I was looking forward to seeing a powerful woman being portrayed. Instead, we got an angry child, that is running around trying to do the bidding of the male god, and pining after the body of Tom Cruise for some reason, and was easily captured. Hardly a viable threat, and a wasted opportunity.

The film felt like a Mission Impossible movie. It was all running and action scenes while the other half was needless exposition in a convoluted plot with so many holes in it. I am disappointed in how lacklustre the film was, and how unlikable nearly every single character was. 

Brendan Fraser, your Mummy films will always be number 1.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7724

THE PROMISE (2016)

As a rock music lover who has been a fan of the Armenian-American heavy metal group System of a Down, and following the lead singer Serj Tankian on social media, means I've often seen articles and comments made by him regarding Turkey and the Armenian Genocide; namely the lack of any acknowledgement from officials that it even happened. So I heard about this movie through him, as he composed a song for the end-credits alongside the late Chris Cornell, and it piques my interest. 

The film itself has a stellar cast line-up with Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Ex Machina, X-Men: Apocalypse), Batman (I mean, Christian Bale), and the gorgeous Charlotte Le Bon. Charlotte was an interesting choice as while I was watching it, my flatmate walked in and the first thing he said was "nice french accent". I found it interesting because it is explained that the character had spent several years in Paris, and had returned to rediscover her Armenian heritage; I did not think anything of this until my flatmate pointed out the authenticity of the accent. A quick Google told me that Charlotte is actually French-Canadian in ancestry, so it led me to a question. Was the history of her character changed to get around her accent? An interesting thought.

The film started off rather generically; one of the issues with having big names in your film is that it becomes more difficult for your audience to truly see them as their characters, and then the audience may start to over-analyse every action. The film follows Oscar Issac's character Michael (pronounced Meekhell) as he works to progress from working in an apothecary to becoming a qualified doctor. The quick introduction of the woman that he "will learn to love", and the lively, beautiful woman who was married to Bale's character, leaves very little room for subtlety. The film wants a love triangle and takes no time throwing one together. It takes a while to truly warm up to the characters because of the speed at which we are introduced to them (admittedly they aren't really the important plot points in the film).

In this way, the pacing of the film seems a bit inconsistent. We are thrust into the film with very little backstory, and with the film focusing on the three protagonists, we see very little from the other side of the conflict. Reasonings and justifications from the opposition are hinted at, but it is very much the matter of noticing words that characters use, to assume their intentions. A lot of the film relies on your emotional investment in the main characters, to give you a feeling of a nation working against them, rather than giving you a single antagonist character that you can focus the negative emotions towards. It's a film that successfully instils the feeling of shifting goalposts; which while likely an accurate representation of the events, is sometimes frustrating to watch.

There is a lot of potential with the film, but it would have worked better if it was more firmly rooted in historical accuracy. I'm not by any means saying that the genocide didn't happen, but using fictional characters locked in a love triangle that coincidentally puts them at the centre of every clash that occurs, makes it much harder to take the film too seriously. What is accurate? Who is based on a real person? Who is fictional? I don't have the answers to these questions with a few exceptions. Something along the lines of the Band of Brothers miniseries would have been a better route to follow, but with far fewer survivors, perhaps that wasn't a viable option. 

Slow to get into, but ultimately it managed to keep my interest. Was it satisfying to watch? Not at all. Was it meant to be satisfying? Well, no. This isn't a Hollywood film with a usual happy ending and the conflict resolved. There is only the Promise.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7717

BAYWATCH (2017)

I only watched this film for one reason; Alexandra Daddario. Despite her having a smile that makes her look a bit unhinged, her eyes are magnificent. You get lost in them. So mesmerizing. So I was shocked to see how one of the running jokes of the film revolved around how Zac Efron's character keeps staring at her breasts. In real life, Alexandra Daddario is one of the few people that would never have that problem because her eyes are that luxurious. And that really outlines one of the big problems with the film. It feels like the casting was done completely separate from the scripting; that is to say that the cast was chosen because of their popularity and attractiveness, with no regard for how well they fitted in with the jokes and personalities in the script. 

The film really struggled with what it wanted to be; it wanted to be cheesy like the original tv series, but it also wanted to be edgy, and action-packed. But each of these aspects reduces the effectiveness of the others. They attempt to be edgy by inserting as many penis jokes in as possible, and it negates the action. The action scenes negate the cheesiness. It ends up battling with itself, which is a losing battle. But was I entertained? I watched the whole movie through in one go without having to pause. So it did manage to keep me reasonably engaged. Did I hate the film? No, I didn't love it, but it wasn't atrocious by any means. Did it have everything I expected? I expected hot women barely clothed, slow-mo running along the beach and some cameos from the original cast. Tick, tick, tick.

The cinematography was great. Crisp, clean environments with a wide variety of camera angles. It was fun to watch, even if the plot was more like Fast and Furious meets Transporter meets Mall Cop; it certainly isn't a plot that requires you to think. But the story was far more complicated than it needed to be. All it needed was the first half of the film. Saving people on the beach, and a competition to pick new lifeguards. It would have been a wholesome film, with some reasonable snarky comments from Dwayne Johnson. None of this unnecessary buddy cop drama. Keep it simple.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7725