THE COMMERCIAL FILM OF THE WEEK
THE MUMMY (2017) by Alex Kurtzman
“The evil in itself”
We don’t have any illusions. In today’s mainstream cinema there is no place for romanticism. All the generations that grew up with the charismatic monsters of the Universal would be deceived if they thought that the company has decided to resuscitate them (I can not think of a more adequate term) to please the nostalgic death of so many spectators. Nothing is further from reality. The creation of the “Dark Universe” is a movement perfectly measured and calculated with a single objective that, let us assume, is none other than economic revenue. In a time when creativity and risk are values in danger of extinction, if you do not copy what others do to succeed you fall behind. So why not introduce a third force that endangers the balance of power between the “Marvel Cinematic Universe” and the “DC Universe”?
For this reason can not be considered “The mummy” as anything other than the first installment of a franchise of films that will be carried out by the classic monsters Universal, from Dracula to Frankenstein to the Wolf Man, intended (horror) to Get together in one last and apotheosis installment. And for this reason it is not strange that, to carry it out, its creators have used all the ingredients that in principle must have a product (the word is not involuntary) of these characteristics to end up triumphing at the box office. Because that’s what it’s about, right?
Of all these ingredients, unfortunately the most important and obvious is the standardization. To make a new version of “The mummy” had to bury (again not happen to me a more appropriate term) everything done so far. Nothing of the mummy of Karl Freund and Boris Karloff who in the 1930s used the best of nineteenth-century gothic horror (like the rest of the Universal Monster Cinema): the notion of the monster as “the other”, the Atavistic terror that sneaks into the incipient society of capitalism and development. Nothing, either, that refers to the saga inaugurated by Stephen Sommers in the late 90’s, and who stood out for recovering that tone of classic cinema of adventures to the Indiana Jones that combined with the precision of a Swiss watch action and comedy . Instead, Alex Kurtzman’s film opts for obscurity and, alas, a pretended depth that provokes the well-known embarrassment of others who takes one who takes himself too seriously.
And is that everything in “The Mummy” makes a whiff to a formula that is not hidden or under tens of meters of sand. Not only does he make the mistake of choosing Tom Cruise as the headliner (Tom Cruise’s entire film ends up being a Tom Cruise movie), to the detriment of an absolutely flat and unnecessarily sexualized mummy for the “target” “Adolescent (and typecasting of Sofia Boutella). It is no longer that the trope repeats itself of putting to Cruise an amorous interest thirty years younger than him (why no one misses to him if it would be a bombazo of being the opposite?), Causing with this one of the most discharging situations Of the entire film. It is no longer that they have put to capon a personage like the one of Nick Fury, pardon, the one of “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde “, interpreted with equal reluctance in both cases by Russell Crowe. It is, in short, that feeling of being cheated by a film that has no other vital intention than that of raising money (like all, go, but other times you see some other value) and that, if something is saved, it is by Some references ranging from the most obvious (“An American werewolf in London”) to the directly involuntary, such as underwater zombies to Lucius Fulci or Templar zombies to the Loving of Ossorio. At this point in life, we settle for little.
Our rating: (1/5)