Imagine if you will, a film centering around a beautiful and brilliant woman, who is part of a secret society dedicated to tracking down and studying super-natural creatures.
She meets an attractive rogue who thinks he can't be saved, but tries to convince him that he's a good man at heart.
But then, this lovable rogue is seduced by an ancient hotty, a throwback from a loyal line of Ancient Egyptians.
This seductress is determined to reclaim her throne over humanity and is looking for a hot, male regent whom she can grant power. Together, they will enslave humanity and kill lots of people, probably.
He's spellbound and can't help but give in.
Then, at the last minute, he remembers that other, slightly less attractive scientist lady from the beginning and decides to betray his ancient queen.
You might think I'm describing the plot from Queen of the Damned, however this was also conveniently the plot from The Mummy, starring Tom Cruise. And perhaps this is why this film failed at the box office: it completely lacked originality.
I'll be the first to admit a bias, as I'm a huge fan of the 1999 film starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz.
This earlier film of the same name did a lot of things right that the 2017 version failed at:
She meets an attractive rogue who thinks he can't be saved, but tries to convince him that he's a good man at heart.
But then, this lovable rogue is seduced by an ancient hotty, a throwback from a loyal line of Ancient Egyptians.
This seductress is determined to reclaim her throne over humanity and is looking for a hot, male regent whom she can grant power. Together, they will enslave humanity and kill lots of people, probably.
He's spellbound and can't help but give in.
Then, at the last minute, he remembers that other, slightly less attractive scientist lady from the beginning and decides to betray his ancient queen.
You might think I'm describing the plot from Queen of the Damned, however this was also conveniently the plot from The Mummy, starring Tom Cruise. And perhaps this is why this film failed at the box office: it completely lacked originality.
I'll be the first to admit a bias, as I'm a huge fan of the 1999 film starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz.
This earlier film of the same name did a lot of things right that the 2017 version failed at:
Character building.
I found myself asking why I should care about the main characters of the 2017 version. Nick essentially comes off as a bit of a slimy idiot, while Jennifer is used more as a plot device than an actual character (she's basically unconscious for half the film). Not to mention there is no chemistry between the two whatsoever. The chemistry between O'Connell and Evie, however, is what kept the previous franchise going. So much for the "Dark Universe" they had planned.
Plot building.
While the 1999 film provided a satisfyingly paced plot, the 2017 film relied too heavily on special effects. An action/adventure film this might be, but we didn't come to see another Mission Impossible.
Lack of Ancient Egypt
What I loved about the 1999 Mummy film is that it mostly takes place in Egypt, allowing the characters to delve into the culture of the Ancient Egyptians. While they do this with varying levels of inaccuracy, the visual nature of this ancient culture continues to be incredibly appealing to modern audiences. While London has it's own interesting history, we didn't get to witness much of that, either.
In the end, it seemed to fall into the familiar trap many films do these days: Trying to be everything to everyone, and ending up not hitting any of the marks.
What a shame.
Comments
Post a Comment