Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated Risky Business (1983) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
That shot of Tom Cruise sliding across the hall in his trademark shades, pink shirt and the tightest pair of white briefs is synonymous with the spring board that launched his career.
A film that may have proved the inspiration for Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is one of Cruise’s most famous roles, and it has all the hall marks of a classic 80s comedy with an influx of drama that proved the catalyst for a great film.
Joel Goodsen (Cruise) is just your average American teen, when his parents go out of town for a few days he and fellow buddies look to have a little fun, in part by turning the homestead into a working brothel.
Of course there is a method behind the madness with Cruise hooking up with call girl Lana (De Mornay), they both have their problems and agree on a mutual business deal which also involves engaging in sex every now and again.
If you ever wonder what to do on the subway one night Cruise and De Mornay lead the lesson. That scene in itself is draped in 80s clichés, soft rock music and a strobe lighting effect from the train, it delivers on the steam factor.
The subject matter throughout is strong and covered across all angles. A highly sexed teenage boy, drug use, what not to do to your father’s Porche and being hunted down by a killer pimp, its all in there.
Cruise’s acting display is not the best, but he has the early raw talent to get him through, and of course as we know, the rest is history. What is always similar about teenage kids of this era getting into trouble is that they always seem to get away with it in the end, Ferris Bueller a prime example.
To think that anyone in this day and age would be as lucky is highly unlikely, and that goes for sliding around in tight white under garments.
A film that may have proved the inspiration for Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is one of Cruise’s most famous roles, and it has all the hall marks of a classic 80s comedy with an influx of drama that proved the catalyst for a great film.
Joel Goodsen (Cruise) is just your average American teen, when his parents go out of town for a few days he and fellow buddies look to have a little fun, in part by turning the homestead into a working brothel.
Of course there is a method behind the madness with Cruise hooking up with call girl Lana (De Mornay), they both have their problems and agree on a mutual business deal which also involves engaging in sex every now and again.
If you ever wonder what to do on the subway one night Cruise and De Mornay lead the lesson. That scene in itself is draped in 80s clichés, soft rock music and a strobe lighting effect from the train, it delivers on the steam factor.
The subject matter throughout is strong and covered across all angles. A highly sexed teenage boy, drug use, what not to do to your father’s Porche and being hunted down by a killer pimp, its all in there.
Cruise’s acting display is not the best, but he has the early raw talent to get him through, and of course as we know, the rest is history. What is always similar about teenage kids of this era getting into trouble is that they always seem to get away with it in the end, Ferris Bueller a prime example.
To think that anyone in this day and age would be as lucky is highly unlikely, and that goes for sliding around in tight white under garments.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
As average as you can get
The lacklustre box-office performance of Jack Reacher in 2012 seemed to scupper plans for the film to become the first in a new Tom Cruise-led action franchise to rival the likes of Mission Impossible and its mixed critical response only added to its woes.
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/
Beth Orton recommended Blue by Joni Mitchell in Music (curated)
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The SpongeBob Musical: Live on Stage! (2019) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020
An overall good musical event, mostly deserving of its Herculean 12 Tony nominations (there should be a criminal investigation into how it only took home one). As someone who's been a die-hard SpongeBob fan since I was a fetus, not only does this capture the essence of what makes the show so great both in appearance *and* in spirit - but I wasn't vetting on this being as timely as it was (tackles prejudice, media vs. government, and takes a jab at climate change deniers just for the hell of it which of course I always endorse). The casting couldn't be better (Ethan Slater is pretty much the human embodiment of SpongeBob), the production is like a vibrant splashpad of childhood wonderment and SpongeBob trademarks brought to life - some of the best aesthetics the theatre has to offer, the songs are good (even if none really stick out), it's very funny, and most importantly it has a deep understanding of the source material and a selfless willingness to please the fans without pandering (they even reference Battle for Bikini Bottom [!!]). The introduction of Tom Kenny's Patchy the Pirate sent my kid self to the moon and back again. This is what happens when you want to make something that's good out of an existing IP. Never cared for Best Day Ever as an SS song but this may have just converted me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands Ghost Edition in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The latest DLC for Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon: Wildlands has released and Fallen Ghosts gives a challenging and satisfying conclusion to the saga. The manufacturers have promised more content in the form of game modes and enhancements, so if this is it, then it ends on a high note.
Unlike the previous Narco Road DLC, Fallen Ghosts is a sequel to the main story of the game and does require players to create a new character in which to play. It is a shame that you cannot port over the character you used for the game but it is a minor annoyance as I was soon able to have my character ready to go.
The story follows the Ghosts as they are shot down in the jungle and surrounded by a new squad of elite exterminators called” Los Extranjeros” (The Foreigners). Their mission is to take down any American agents in the country and backed by Unidad, they have state of the art vehicles, weapons, and equipment which include cloaking and heavily armored suits.
Gameplay is the same as before as teams of up to four must complete missions, side quests, and other objectives as they gain intel, attack, extract, interrogate, and survive a relentless assault as they are the hunted this time around and have very few safe areas.
The game does feature new map areas and players will again have cars, trucks, vans, motorcycles, planes, and helicopters to travel the detailed landscape complete with day and night cycles and weather patterns.
The challenge is greater than ever as seasoned gamers who joined me in the missions commented how much harder some missions were compared to the last game, especially the final assault. Completion of the game gave me a real sense of accomplishment and closure to the story as if this is indeed the end, and then this chapter ends on a high note indeed.
The graphics and sound of the game are solid and match the prior releases so players who played and enjoyed the previous segments will enjoy this.
Fallen Ghosts is available as part of the Season Pass or stand alone and does require the full version of the game to play.
http://sknr.net/2017/06/12/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-wildlands-fallen-ghosts/
Unlike the previous Narco Road DLC, Fallen Ghosts is a sequel to the main story of the game and does require players to create a new character in which to play. It is a shame that you cannot port over the character you used for the game but it is a minor annoyance as I was soon able to have my character ready to go.
The story follows the Ghosts as they are shot down in the jungle and surrounded by a new squad of elite exterminators called” Los Extranjeros” (The Foreigners). Their mission is to take down any American agents in the country and backed by Unidad, they have state of the art vehicles, weapons, and equipment which include cloaking and heavily armored suits.
Gameplay is the same as before as teams of up to four must complete missions, side quests, and other objectives as they gain intel, attack, extract, interrogate, and survive a relentless assault as they are the hunted this time around and have very few safe areas.
The game does feature new map areas and players will again have cars, trucks, vans, motorcycles, planes, and helicopters to travel the detailed landscape complete with day and night cycles and weather patterns.
The challenge is greater than ever as seasoned gamers who joined me in the missions commented how much harder some missions were compared to the last game, especially the final assault. Completion of the game gave me a real sense of accomplishment and closure to the story as if this is indeed the end, and then this chapter ends on a high note indeed.
The graphics and sound of the game are solid and match the prior releases so players who played and enjoyed the previous segments will enjoy this.
Fallen Ghosts is available as part of the Season Pass or stand alone and does require the full version of the game to play.
http://sknr.net/2017/06/12/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-wildlands-fallen-ghosts/
Russ Troutt (291 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
It was a beautiful night in the theater, a beautiful night in the theater, would ya go see, could ya go see, won't you go see A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. No shame in saying I cried throughout this whole movie. Tom Hanks is amazing as always, but the entire cast is great. I wrote a poem after watching the documentary last year and felt like it would be fitting on this review as well.
It's always a beautiful day in the neighborhood,
For in the worst of times you always made me see the good.
You would walk in with a smile on your face,
I knew that I was welcome at your place.
And no matter the weather,
You would put on your sweater.
Then you would sit down to put on more comfortable shoes,
Making me comfortable knowing I had a neighbor like you.
Together we would feed the fish,
Sometimes go to the kitchen and make a dish.
It was always my brain and heart that you were feeding,
As a kid you knew exactly what I was needing.
Messages would come from Mr. McFeely,
Who would show up with a speedy delivery.
When I'd hear the bell of the trolley,
I'd get excited and feel jolly.
For I knew we were off to visit our puppetry friends,
On the other side of the tunnel in make believe land.
You taught me what to do with my mad,
And that it was okay to be sad.
You helped in dealing with the bad and serious issues of the world,
But at the end of everyday in me the good you had restored.
In our daily meetings on television with me there is so much that you left,
I am special, amazing the way I am, and in the scary to be the one that helps.
It was in your words that I did find,
The key to success is being kind.
In many ways you were a savior whose love will always be savored,
Mister Rogers I will be forever grateful that you were my neighbor.
It's always a beautiful day in the neighborhood,
For in the worst of times you always made me see the good.
You would walk in with a smile on your face,
I knew that I was welcome at your place.
And no matter the weather,
You would put on your sweater.
Then you would sit down to put on more comfortable shoes,
Making me comfortable knowing I had a neighbor like you.
Together we would feed the fish,
Sometimes go to the kitchen and make a dish.
It was always my brain and heart that you were feeding,
As a kid you knew exactly what I was needing.
Messages would come from Mr. McFeely,
Who would show up with a speedy delivery.
When I'd hear the bell of the trolley,
I'd get excited and feel jolly.
For I knew we were off to visit our puppetry friends,
On the other side of the tunnel in make believe land.
You taught me what to do with my mad,
And that it was okay to be sad.
You helped in dealing with the bad and serious issues of the world,
But at the end of everyday in me the good you had restored.
In our daily meetings on television with me there is so much that you left,
I am special, amazing the way I am, and in the scary to be the one that helps.
It was in your words that I did find,
The key to success is being kind.
In many ways you were a savior whose love will always be savored,
Mister Rogers I will be forever grateful that you were my neighbor.
Lenard (726 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Nov 22, 2019
Based on a magazine article written by an Esquire investigative reporter assigned a profile on Fred Rogers, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is the Tuesdays With Morrie adaptation of the man who guided generations of children through the perils of childhood. Opening in the style of the famed PBS series Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, we begin by learning the story of journalist Lloyd Vogel, a man very much in need of a change in attitude. He harbors a lot of father issues. The editor of Esquire wants him to write one of the articles for an issue on Heroes, but everyone has read his work and is afraid to talk to him. That is,except for the one man in the world who never judges others until he has walked in his shoes. In other words, you need to know a person in order to really be able to know someone. Tom Hanks is a national treasure and perfectly captures the heart and soul of a man who exuberates compassion and willing teaches everyone the most important lesson of life. Matthew Rhys capably plays Lloyd as he comes to grips with all the buried feelings of the childhood he had which turned him into the man he is. Chris Cooper stands out as Jerry, the father who abandoned his family when life became too rough. Overall, the movie is good, and the movie achieves its goal: telling the story of how one person can make a huge difference in the lives of others just by listening.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Knight and Day (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Knight and Day, directed by James Mangold (previous director of 3:10 to Yuma and Walk the Line), is an uninspiring, uninteresting action movie. Getting both of those words to work with the phrase “action movie” is quite a challenge, but somehow, through a group effort, it was pulled off. The movie itself gets boring primarily because the Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz have little to no chemistry between them both. Useless action sequences merely add to the feeling that all those involved were ruining a great premise for an action/date movie.
The plot of the movie started out fun and original, but again, the lack of a spark between the two leads just led to disinterest. The director made ample use of what I’ll call the “invisible montage,” wherein one of the main characters is semi-conscious, and what happens to them is revealed in a series of blurred, but outlandishly crazy situations only a few seconds in length and increasing in surrealism. This was a clever, if overused technique, but oftentimes the entire movie felt like longer episodes of these montages, with little reason for each to be happening other than to fill the quota for requisite action sequences. Because of some poor foreshadowing in the beginning of the film, even the finale became extremely predictable and had no weight.
Tom Cruise, playing the bizarrely comic spy Roy Miller, manages to pull his weight in his role. Cruise’s special kind of natural crazy is actually an advantage to the character he is playing. His unpredictability and his utter charm kept me, at the very least, entertained throughout the film.
Cameron Diaz, playing clueless midwesterner June Havens is obviously the weak link here. She can’t seem to keep up with Cruise’s character on screen, and aside from a few cutesy moments in the film, is outclassed by her co-star, and often by members of the supporting cast as well. Diaz doesn’t have a reputation for doing in-depth character studies of her portrayals, but the very least she could do is drop the same confused face she uses for most of the movie.
Together, Cruise and Diaz lack the chemistry that would have made this a decent movie without forcing the audience to shut off the emotional parts of their brains. In fact, the key make-out scene between the two of them was so clichéd as to be boring. Looking back at the entire movie, I believe that after their first few minutes together, the rest of their interactions just felt forced.
As for the rest of the cast, I have no special complaints or accolades, but I would like to single out one individual, and say that I would have loved to see more of Peter Sarsgaard. It’s immediately obvious that knows what he is doing on screen, and he deserved a much larger role than the one given to him.
In summary, Knight and Day is definitely worth skipping out on. Wait a week and soon enough some real 4th of July action blockbusters will be coming out. We’ll be sure to let you know which ones are the real deal and which ones are the duds. It’s just too bad this one was a dud, because it definitely had a lot of potential.
The plot of the movie started out fun and original, but again, the lack of a spark between the two leads just led to disinterest. The director made ample use of what I’ll call the “invisible montage,” wherein one of the main characters is semi-conscious, and what happens to them is revealed in a series of blurred, but outlandishly crazy situations only a few seconds in length and increasing in surrealism. This was a clever, if overused technique, but oftentimes the entire movie felt like longer episodes of these montages, with little reason for each to be happening other than to fill the quota for requisite action sequences. Because of some poor foreshadowing in the beginning of the film, even the finale became extremely predictable and had no weight.
Tom Cruise, playing the bizarrely comic spy Roy Miller, manages to pull his weight in his role. Cruise’s special kind of natural crazy is actually an advantage to the character he is playing. His unpredictability and his utter charm kept me, at the very least, entertained throughout the film.
Cameron Diaz, playing clueless midwesterner June Havens is obviously the weak link here. She can’t seem to keep up with Cruise’s character on screen, and aside from a few cutesy moments in the film, is outclassed by her co-star, and often by members of the supporting cast as well. Diaz doesn’t have a reputation for doing in-depth character studies of her portrayals, but the very least she could do is drop the same confused face she uses for most of the movie.
Together, Cruise and Diaz lack the chemistry that would have made this a decent movie without forcing the audience to shut off the emotional parts of their brains. In fact, the key make-out scene between the two of them was so clichéd as to be boring. Looking back at the entire movie, I believe that after their first few minutes together, the rest of their interactions just felt forced.
As for the rest of the cast, I have no special complaints or accolades, but I would like to single out one individual, and say that I would have loved to see more of Peter Sarsgaard. It’s immediately obvious that knows what he is doing on screen, and he deserved a much larger role than the one given to him.
In summary, Knight and Day is definitely worth skipping out on. Wait a week and soon enough some real 4th of July action blockbusters will be coming out. We’ll be sure to let you know which ones are the real deal and which ones are the duds. It’s just too bad this one was a dud, because it definitely had a lot of potential.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Sully (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
“The Miracle on the Hudson” is a story that many are acquainted with and many have forgotten in the seven years since the incredibly miraculous landing of US Airways flight 1549 on January 15, 2009. In Sully, Clint Eastwood brings the attention and focus back to this historic event in order to tell audiences about more than just a forced landing into the Hudson River.
Tom Hanks stars as Chester “Sully” Sullenberger reminding viewers how he can so easily represent a character on screen whether they are fictional or based off of real people. His portrayal of “Sully” demonstrates the varying issues surrounding the events the day of the landing and those that followed. When the events played themselves out in the public, it appeared very “cut and dry.” The film reveals the depth at which the pilots dealt with the stress of the publicity, the investigation, scrutiny, and the reality of facing one’s own mortality.
The story, although generally familiar, is engrossing in its presentation by Eastwood. The story is built in layers to where you get to feel the pain and fear that Sully experiences with this near death experience. We witness how he tries to cope with this situation and struggles with the realization that he accomplished the near impossible. The scenes are not over sensationalized. They are not trite. They allow for a true representation of what took place and all of the people affected by it. The film is an imaginative and thought provoking account of real events. Sully demonstrates to audiences the depth inherent with events, circumstances, and individuals.
“The Miracle on the Hudson” had reporters, investigators, and the general public consumed with numbers; 155 people on board, 208 seconds of total flight, altitude of 2818 ft, 2 engines lost to bird strike, a water temperature of 36 degrees, air temperature of 20 with a wind chill of -5, and 1 pilot who made the right decision that day. It is not the numbers that the film is concerned with, it is the people. Eastwood allows for their stories to be on display and demonstrate the reality that they all faced during the incident and the days that followed. The film is outstanding in displaying the humanity and chaos of the event.
Tom Hanks stars as Chester “Sully” Sullenberger reminding viewers how he can so easily represent a character on screen whether they are fictional or based off of real people. His portrayal of “Sully” demonstrates the varying issues surrounding the events the day of the landing and those that followed. When the events played themselves out in the public, it appeared very “cut and dry.” The film reveals the depth at which the pilots dealt with the stress of the publicity, the investigation, scrutiny, and the reality of facing one’s own mortality.
The story, although generally familiar, is engrossing in its presentation by Eastwood. The story is built in layers to where you get to feel the pain and fear that Sully experiences with this near death experience. We witness how he tries to cope with this situation and struggles with the realization that he accomplished the near impossible. The scenes are not over sensationalized. They are not trite. They allow for a true representation of what took place and all of the people affected by it. The film is an imaginative and thought provoking account of real events. Sully demonstrates to audiences the depth inherent with events, circumstances, and individuals.
“The Miracle on the Hudson” had reporters, investigators, and the general public consumed with numbers; 155 people on board, 208 seconds of total flight, altitude of 2818 ft, 2 engines lost to bird strike, a water temperature of 36 degrees, air temperature of 20 with a wind chill of -5, and 1 pilot who made the right decision that day. It is not the numbers that the film is concerned with, it is the people. Eastwood allows for their stories to be on display and demonstrate the reality that they all faced during the incident and the days that followed. The film is outstanding in displaying the humanity and chaos of the event.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.