Hello everyone, guys!
How are you? Everything's ok?
Have you seen some good movie lately?
I hope so, for the film we will review today is very, very bad.
But first I would like to apologize, late now, about some inaccuracies
about my previous video, the review of "It".
First of all, the release of the movie in Italy:
I was convinced 'til the end it would come out on Semptember 21st,
instead it will be October 19th.
Then, I told about the miniseries with Curry, that it was released on 1991 instead of 90's,
perhaps it came in Italy one year later,
and also about "The dark tower", with Idris Elba and Matthew McConaughey,
convinced it was a tv series, but it's not.
My apologies.
And now, let's talk about our daily movie:
"The mummy".
Released in theatres a few months ago,
with Tom Cruise,
Annabelle Wallis, Russel Crowe
and Sofia Boutella as the Mummy...
oh well, calling that a Mummy...
This movie is the first one of the "Dark Universe" of the monsters of Universal,
begun really bad.
It was supposed to be released with "Dracula untold" with Luke Evans, in 2014,
but instead they moved it on this movie, and this beginning was catastrophic.
And it would be some kind of a reboot of the 1999's movie directed by Stephen Sommers
with Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz and John Hannah,
Shakesperian actor, one of my favourites, who portraits the role of an idiot like Jonathan
and also as Gwyneth Paltrow in "Sliding doors",
as well as a perfect motherfucker like Batiatus in the first two seasons of "Spartacus".
I just want to start with the characterization of the main characters.
When you watch a movie you know very well that those actors,
even if not so famous,
can portrait and act.
They can portrait a dramatic role, a comedian role, a villanous role.
Here, instead, there is not the linearity between Sommers' characters,
so Rick O' Connell as a clumsy hero like Errol Flynn
or like Naruto and Edward Elrich of "Fullmetal Alchemist".
So, a character with an easy anger,
often cantankerous,
sometimes also macho and superior,
but anyway he always ends to act like a chump,
as much in the first movie as well as in the second one, maybe even more.
The love interest between Tom Cruise and Annabelle Wallis
is not like O'Connell and Evelyn.
These two love each other exactly like Del Piero and Cristina Chiabotto in the "Uliveto" spot (old italian spot)
it's not that kind of love interest that manually grows up like Rachel Weisz and Brendan Fraser
no: these two hate themselves.
Just in the end it appears they fal in love due to a screenplay forcing.
Really bad, guys, believe me.
Then, Jonathan's like character has been replaced by Marwan Kenzari,
who has been chose to portray Jafar in the upcoming live-action of "Aladdin".
About the film's genre...
do you remember Sommers' movie?
It wasn't a complete horror, but there were some elements of traditional horror
that used to give you a shiver down your spine:
the Mummy, the soundtrack (you are listening a sort of a cover of it played in a kind of 8bit),
photography, some scenes... here there is nothing about horror.
The whole thing's like... I don't find my words...
looks like an "Asylum" movie, sometimes.
Point 3: the Mummy.
How should a mummy be, guys?
Boris Karloff was completely covered in bandages,
Arnold Voosloo was a corpse that, going ahead, became much more human,
this mummy looks to me like the sexier cousin of the Enchantress from "Suicide Squad".
It's not scary. It's not horror. It's just sexy.
Seems like a trash physical designs on the trend among the films after 2010.
That's not good, trust me. It's really bad.
Plot: the Mummy, Princess Ahmaneth, is chosen to reign over the Egypt
once her father, the Pharaoh, will be passed away.
But this one, before dying, has a son with a concubine
and the princess acts like any spoiled princess or adult human being
who finds to have an unwished snotty thing as stepbrother in his/her house
that screws away food, the house, the legacy and much more would do:
she makes a deal with Set, god of chaos portrayed by spanish actor Javier Botet,
who also acted in "Crimson Peak" and "Mama" by Guillermo Del Toro and Muschietti,
and that, my my, will portrait It in the form of the Leper.
Everything coincides.
By the way, Ahmanet makes a deal with Set, in order fot him to reincarnate in a human body
and wreak havoc on the world, and that she may rule the planet.
She kills both father and stepbrother, attempts to end the ritual, but is discovered and mummified.
Obviously, her tomb is found, don't need to tell ya, she will be awakened,
and, bada-boom-bam bam!, that's the story.
Coincidentally, Cruise's character, the chump hero,
because he's not even a hero but just a cretin, a caricature of "Mission impossible"
and Les Grossman of "Tropic Thunder", in a more chump version.
He will discover the Mummy's corpse
and will chosen as the chosen one D: to bring Set's soul inside his body.
So, the lady in danger like Evelyn in Sommers' movie is not present.
Now it's the non-hero, dumpling and cretin, to be the lady in danger.
And there is a very sad trash scene:
the Mummy captures him in a church
about to kill him with this dagger with a red gem, avaiable for the proper ritual,
and what does he do? While kept stopped by these living dead serving Ahmanet,
starts laughing like: "No, what are you doing with that knife?
Stop! You're tickling me! No no, don't strip me, I'm shy!...".
I mean... a sexiest Mummy, I get she's hot, but they're about to gut you.
What do you do? Playing the funny guy?
Any human being would scream, cry, summon for help...
Alright, I can understand you want to prove to have balls,
but your character sucks hell because it has been badly screenplayed, what do you?...
Going on...
Guys, do you know what an easter egg is?
I guess you do, but since you can't interact live here,
an easter egg is an element that,
in a visual or novelized opera is described for a few seconds or words,
making you, spectator or reader, recognizing it.
For example: in the last trailer of "It" is seen a mask of Tim Curry's Pennywise,
in a scene where the Skarsgard's clown attacks Richie.
Or: in Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow", right at the the beginning of the movie,
appears a scarecrow with a grinning pumpkin as it's head,
that resembles Jack Skellington's Pumpkin King appearance
on the beginning of "Nightmare before Christmas".
These are easter egg, if then they go further than a frame or a shot
and it becomes something much more than one/five minutes
it's not anymore an easter egg, but a cameo.
Exactly what Russel Crowe has here,
it would pretend to be an easter egg, but it's a cameo,
also something more, since he is the narrator of the beginning of the movie
and has a role... I'd like to say important, but actually it's not.
Russel Crowe portraits Dr. Henry Jekyll.
Ok. It's an amalgamated universe with Universal's monsters, like Marvel of DC,
so it's ok: a Universal character is present in a Universal opera, belonging to the same universe.
Right. But...
Guys, do you know that has been the worse choice?
The worse that the director and the screenplayers could do.
Make Russel Crowe Jekyll tranform in Mr. Hyde.
But you know why?
Because he has nothing to do with the story.
While the Mummy summons an army of spiders to get free from her imprisonment
in this headquarter of Prodigium, a squad composed by researchers, scientists and soldiers
employed in searching monsters in order to prevent them from wreaking havoc on the world...
Crowe reveals that Tom Cruise has been chosen to become the new Set, so he has to die.
Cruise doesn't agree, screws off his medicine and he becomes Mr. Hyde.
Physically is even a good version of Mr. Hyde,
not like that terrible thing in "The legend of extraordinary gentlemen", that sort of Hulk - Gollum like.
He's also thought well.
But, I repeat: he has the same importance, much more inferior, of a secter boss in "Final Fantasy"
or "Kingdom Hearts". A boss that, maybe, hasn't much to do with the story and you face him,
but here he doesn't have a crap to do with.
You know that he does do? Nothing!
He mutates and proposes to Tom Cruise to become Set to become his partner,
so they could do any fucking thing they want:
money, women, sex, success, terror, death...
He punches him, Hyde starts laughing, punchs him...
just as two children that fight, with one punching and the other who enjoys being hurted.
I swear, guys, I took it so badly. It's ugly. Really ugly. It does not do anything.
And you wanna know one other "easter egg?"
Calling it "easter egg", I told you:
it is you viewer, nerd, eater of these visual operar of a specific topic
to recognize this easter egg.
Here, they smash in your face like a punch from Ivan Drago with this zoom
Dracula's and Wolfman's skulls and the Gill Man's arm.
It's not an easter egg, here the director was like"look, look, look here!"
He denied you the chance to recognize those elements that will be introduced in the new Dark Universe movies.
And here, guys, I stop talking about this movie because really: I'm having an heartache.
About the Dark Universe future:
they will call famous actors like Scarlett Johansson for the Gill Man movie,
and others that I can't remember now, maybe because I don't want to remember
or better, don't wanna know about that.
I just tell you that Tom Cruise will portrait Van Helsing.
And in this movie he, once becomes Set but then rebels
and ends in some kind of a limbow of non-death, non-life, didn't exactly what's that.
Guys, I bet on my kidneys, i rip them off my body and put them on Amazon.
I bet that Cruise's Van Helsing will be the same one in this movie.
I don't know what else to say, guys. This movie is horrible.
And I'd say we shoud stop here before I seriously send to fuck off somebody.
We'll see next Tuesday with our next video
and there we will talk about monsters with some pairs of titanic balls.
I will review the future of Legendary Pictures' Monsterverse :)
No comments:
Post a Comment