Why The (2017) “The Mummy” Is A Shell of An Adventure

#BLOG 3

INTRO

The review produced by Screenrant tries hard to give “The Mummy” movie a bone but ends up killing it even faster. The honest truth of the matter, “The Mummy” tries to be something it’s not and doesn’t even do that well. Giving the audience five reasons why the movie was bad and why it was good.

10. A Disappointingly Small Scale:

Oddly enough for a movie called The Mummy, the story spends very little time in Egypt, or anywhere comparable, and, instead, sets the majority of its action sequences somewhere around Surrey, England. Which doesn’t really spell rip-roaring adventure to most people.

Even when the movie reaches the streets of London for its third act, the sets and locations feel quite limited, and the color palette is remarkably grey and monotonous.

Response: The movie shouldn’t have been set in England in the first place. At least with the last Mummy movie with Branden Frasier, it was based in China with a Chinese mummy. It makes total sense and at no point are you confused. Was the Dragon Emperor a good film like its predecessors? Sort of, but not quite.However, The Dragon Emperor has many redeeming qualities that make it a worthwhile watch.

9. Isn’t: Tom Cruise Has Still Got It

There are few movie actors left in the business who have the star power of Tom Cruise and, at age 54, he still brought some much-needed charm to The Mummy.

Not only could Cruise sell moments of tension and action, but his all-around enthusiasm for the process energizes the wearier aspects of the movie in a way that few actors possibly could have.

Response: I’ll be honest, I don’t really know much about Tom Cruise, and that’s OK. Although I did like him in “Interview with a Vampire”. He was very mysterious in his villainy. Although in this movie, he’s just not the guy for the role or anybody for that matter.

8. Generic Screenwriting

Despite some very talented screenwriters working on the project, The Mummy fails to stand out from the blockbuster crowd and this is mostly its own fault.

The popular MacGuffin of a magic rock is introduced almost immediately in the movie and a predictable course of events feels secondary to the movie’s desire to flesh out a fictional universe that audiences will never actually get to see.

Response: The plot was flat; you don’t need to beat around the bush. This director completely misses the essence and fun of the other films. Branden Frasier, along with the rest of its cast, added too much flavor to the franchise just for it to taste bland.

7. Stunts

Tom Cruise’s dedication to stuntwork on his own movies is well documented and The Mummy is no different. Having the lead actor actually get inside as many of the action shots as they can brings a lot to a movie and it helps this one feel like more of a romp.

Though a lack of originality holds it back, The Mummy is a movie that’s always trying to be entertaining in an almost slapstick kind of way and the physicality of the action adds a lot of personality to the comedy.

Response: “The Mummy” Franchise is not Mission Impossible, a James Bond movie, a spy movie, Jason Born, or Taken. It’s literally a fantasy adventure, and that’s all it ever was.

6. Tasteless Updates to the Story

For a movie presenting so many distinct time periods and cultural icons, you’d think The Mummy would present at least one of them in a satisfying way.

Aside from sidelining Egypt, and needlessly adding medieval English history to the mix, the movie makes the particularly tasteless choice to set its opening action sequence in modern-day Iraq with a force that is, while stereotypically faceless and nameless, essentially ISIS.

Response: Making more vibrant environments would have helped the film.

5. A Combined Monster Universe Isn’t a Bad Idea

While The Mummy often fails to frame it in an appealing way, the central idea of the movie isn’t a bad one. Universal alone had been doing monster team-ups and crossovers for just shy of three-quarters of a century before the movie came out.

The movie’s idea to unify everything through what would almost certainly be its Nick Fury figure, Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde and a S.H.I.E.L.D.-like organization with its own potential to spin-off and become evil, there are some entertaining promises made. Even if they’re only just that.

Response: Creating a creature feature universe from other monster franchises wasn’t a terrible concept. What was a terrible concept was using “The Mummy” as its basis to debut. The titles below are all the movies that would have been in theaters if Warner Bros. hadn’t ditched the project. I think Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde could have been a smash hit!

• The Dark Universe Begins – and Ends. Universal Pictures. …
• Van Helsing. Universal Pictures. …
• Johnny Depp’s Invisible Man. Universal Pictures. …
• Phantom of the Opera and Hunchback. Universal Pictures. …
• Dwayne Johnson’s The Wolfman. …
• Creature from the Black Lagoon. …
• The Bride of Frankenstein.

4. It Borrows Very Heavily from Much Better Things

Arguing over how original the story really is is something that you could do with every version of The Mummy, from the original in 1932 to everything that it’s inspired since. But the 2017 version chooses much more poorly with extra cultural references and they often end up contradicting the tone of the movie.

The Mummy wants to be a horror movie in an atmospheric kind of way rather than by showing anything overtly horrific or grotesque but it also wants to be an Indiana Jones movie, which, of course, balanced its joyful qualities with more graphic imagery. It’s overwhelming visual similarities to the Uncharted series of video games (which were, themselves, already heavily inspired by The Mummy movies) also feels like an aesthetically-confused choice.

Response: Sure….I suppose

3. It Brings Horror To a Non-Horror Audience

Not everyone watches movies in the same way and people don’t always have the same access to movies. The Mummy goes for as wide an audience as it can because it wants to reach the most amount of people and make the most amount of money, yes, but it actually succeeds in bringing classical horror aspects to audiences who ordinarily wouldn’t get to see them.

Aside from Cruise’s name bringing his own kind of audience, The Mummy was a financial hit in China, a country famous for its stringent censorship laws surrounding, amongst several other things, the horror genre and the supernatural.

Response: If you want horror elements but not a horror movie, go watch Pan’s Labrinth.

2. It Puts the Cart Before the Horse

So much of what makes people remember the 2017 version of The Mummy as a bad movie is that it set itself such an unnecessarily high bar for success.

Audiences were definitely holding it up to, at least, the first two Stephen Sommers Mummy movies but the gigantic budget and shared universe were both its own choice yet both feel wasted. They transform it into something that audiences actively root against rather than for.

Response: Were they trying to give this movie a chance? The response says it all regarding the film successs.

1. A Pervading Sense of Humor

Stories of production troubles on The Mummy are easy to believe but, no matter how things really went down, what the cast and crew were able to pull out of the movie is a light tone and some comedic chemistry from its actors.

Cruise is a big star with a knack for making sure his movies are driven by him but not all about him. He creates entertaining dynamics with a wide variety of talented actors that he’s paired with and allows what’s best about them to really shine in the movie, even if it isn’t for every long.

Response: Tom Cruise added nothing to this movie, nor did the humor.

Conclusion

After tentatively rewatching the (2017) “The Mummy” I realized the movie is empty. The characters have no volume, the anti-protagonist is wildly underutilized, comedic conversations are out of place, and the tone of the movie is too dark (the color of the film). The movie is not fun, and it comes off more as a chore for the audience to get through. Ultimately, I was surprised at a few points throughout the movie and bored at the same time.

Why Authentic Representation Matters Within Storytelling

#BLOG 1

Introduction

White Washing

What Does Authentic Representation Provide

Conclusion

Hopefully, this analysis gives you the comprehension to understand the ins and outs of representation. Configuring why it’s crucial to how we understand the world and each other. There will always be gaps in experiences that we may or may not encounter, which is why it’s necessary for us to learn these components. Even after learning these steps, you, as the audience, will consistently apply them when crafting, creating, and producing subjects about POC or people from different cultural backgrounds. By the end of this entry, you should be able to understand the cultural standing representation has, the empowerment it provides to disenfranchised groups, increase the written dialogue about POC, and find solutions for change and prosperity.

---

Introduction

Where do we start? We could talk about the lack of depth communities of color had in film between 1888 and the 1960’s. The constant stereotyping up until the mid 2000’s, atrocious caricatures on major merchandise, creating token characters just to silence criticism about a show or movie, the constant double standards, sexism, and the understanding that the only way to garner empathy or sympathy from people if you were in the LGBTQ community was if your partner died, you died, or you killed yourself (the list goes on). Then the 2010’s happened, which pivoted a lot of representation for the better. Giving disenfranchised communities the ability to tell their own stories. The lack of complexity and character development regarding POC, LGBTQ characters, and people of different cultural backgrounds has always plagued the way people view them and, unfortunately, write them.

White Washing

The Gods of Egypt is the first movie that comes to mind and how heavily criticized it was for not hiring more non-white actors and actresses. At some point in the film, you can even hear Nikolaj William (who played Jamie Lannister in Game of Thrones) speak with his Danish accent. The reactions to this and many other concerns about the movie imploded on social media. Sam (2016) “Our movies now typically feature a white cast, with the exception of a few minor roles played by people of color (POC). For the second year in a row, the Oscars failed to recognize the comparatively few roles played by minorities. By doing so, the institution feeds into an endless cycle [of white washing and erasure of minority groups].” On the same note, there has been a lot of buzz about non-white actors and actresses playing traditionally white roles in a movie, show, or comic book. Posing the question, “Why is it OK when nonwhite actors play original white roles but it’s not OK when white actors play nonwhite roles?”.

Most of the time, when nonwhite characters are created, their race, their culture, and their behavior (to some degree) are implemented. Regardless of reckless or ignorant ideas that surround the character before they debut. Characters such as Storm, Bishop, Static Shock, John Stewart, Spectrum, Night Crawler, Cyborg, Luke Cage, and Blade are all examples of heroes whose identity is directly linked to who they are as icons (Stan Lee and other creators made it abundantly clear of this fact). Now, does this make it OK for nonwhite actors and actresses to play traditionally white superheroes? Not exactly. Although anybody can play the Fantastic Four because it’s based more on an ideology rather than a single identity (let alone adversity). I’m a super big fan of superheroes, so taking it case by case is OK.

Sam (2016) “There is no representation. When people of color critique the lack of inclusivity, they’re given characters who are 1-dimensional caricatures of their culture in order to appease critics. This is why we see so much of the “ghetto” black women, “hard working Mexican immigrant,” “dragon lady” Asian women. But these characters don’t serve enough of a purpose and often end up being very, very small parts. When this is critiqued, we are given larger and often times more offensive roles like the
“Sexually submissive” Asian women, “thug” black men, “gangbanger” Hispanic men, etc. These images just normalize an image of POC that is entirely unwarranted”.

What Does Authentic Representation Provide

The answer lies in the script in which the audience will never see until its debut. Portteia (2020) “The impact a film holds on its viewers is determined by the script, and we need diverse writers who have unheard stories to aid in the film industry’s growth. Diversity is the solution”. People seem to think that movies like Indiana Jones or Mission Impossible are being sucked into a vacuum, never to be seen again, which isn’t true. Those movies that you like will still be there, but there will also be movies that include everyone. This also includes fantasy and other genres as well. Portteia (2020) “Film companies need to hire scriptwriters of diverse backgrounds. The lack of diversity can be a reason for the lack of new and inspiring stories. Without hiring these new diverse writers striving to test the boundaries and create change, we get stuck in a loop of poorly written movies that are merely a reflection of the exclusive film industry of the 1900s”. What is stopping you from engaging and learning about other people’s stories? Everyone has one.

Conclusion

Do I agree with everything in Porttiea’s article specifically, no. Although she did make a lot of points about perspective writing. Instead of using the word harmful, I would have said unrealistic and disingenuous when it came to representing different communities on screen with a lack thereof attitude. Meaning, if you’re going to write about a person, place or thing, you need to do the research to fully understand what you’re writing about.

Bibliography

Tracy, Sam. “White Washing.” Https://Digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu, University of Maine’s Student News Paper, 23 Nov. 2016, https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=racial_justice.

Davidson, Portteia, and Peggy Woods. “Best Text Collection – Umass.” Https://Scholarworks.umass.edu, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 13 Nov. 2020, https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=best_text.

Captain Marvel: Earth’s Mightiest Hero

Warning: This post contains (mild) spoilers.

Yesterday, Rick and I went to see Captain Marvel in theaters.

Strangely, I’d heard almost nothing about it after it was released on March 8th. The only thing that had passed through my social media was some headline about an old white guy upset about the MCU’s mightiest hero being a woman.

Over dinner last week, my dad, who coincidentally is also an old white guy, and who has not yet seen the movie, expressed his own confusion about Captain Marvel being a woman. Having grown up with the kind of Captain Marvel who starts out as a little boy, shouts “Shazam!” and channels the powers of several ancient male heroes by morphing into a well-muscled, fully-grown man, he wondered how all of that was going to work.

First of all, there’s no reason a girl couldn’t channel the powers of male heroes, given the opportunity–their maleness and their powers are not mutually inclusive. Secondly, I’m not sure what the deal is with kids having to grow into adults in order to use their powers (this also confused me when I first read the W.i.t.c.h. series).

But, most importantly, DC’s Captain Marvel/”Shazam” is not the same character as Marvel’s Captain Marvel. And, as I’ve learned from my good friend Wikipedia (because I am in fact not a comic book nerd), Carol Danvers (Captain Marvel’s civilian identity) has been a fixture of Marvel Comics since 1977, when she first appeared as Ms. Marvel, in a new series of that name, after having gained her powers from events that transpired in the Captain Marvel comics. She finally took up the mantle of Captain Marvel herself in 2012 (although it appears there were a couple other women who also held Captain Marvel’s title and/or powers, at some point or another). So, yes, the first Captain Marvel was a guy, but Carol Danvers certainly has a legitimate claim to the role.

And Marvel nailed it with this movie.

It is the most normal movie I have ever seen.

“Vers” (played by Brie Larson) as she’s known when the story begins, is apparently an alien soldier from another planet, fighting a war against another race of aliens called Skrulls. When the Skrulls capture her and take her to 1990’s Earth (this is a prequel), she works with a young Nick Fury to find and defeat the Skrulls before they can infiltrate Shield and steal an essential piece of technology.

It sounds pretty straightforward, for a superhero mission, but along the way, Vers, who can’t remember anything about her past and has trouble controlling her powers (read: obeying; getting things right), manages to discover who she is and what she is really capable of.

I cried watching her self-actualization play out. This wasn’t a story about a woman being powerful despite being a woman or because she was a woman. This was a story about a human being–who just miraculously happened to look and act like me–realizing their full potential.

Brie Larson is beautiful, make no mistake, but they don’t make her up like a supermodel (cough cough, Wonder Woman), and she’s dressed from head to toe in a practical uniform which sufficiently protects her from both the elements and the vacuum of space. She’s fit, like I imagine anyone with military training would be, but she looks like a normal person, not somebody’s ridiculous ideal.

And our hero’s defining relationship? Carol Danvers’s friendship with Maria Rambeau, a black single mother and badass pilot, replaced what could have easily been a meaningless long-lost love interest, if this were a different movie.

Captain Marvel, despite the horrendous line of advertisement I found on this AMC theater page, is not a “(her)o.” What a strange and belittling advertisement for such an amazing and worthy character.

She is a hero.

Captain Marvel is smart, brave, and human, in addition to having powers on par with those of DC’s Superman. I’m excited to see her take down Thanos in Avengers: End Game next month.

In the meantime, go see Captain Marvel. (Go experience it in IMAX, too.)

Take your friends and your children with you.

Everyone should see this movie.

Was Vermeer a human camera?

Last night I had the pleasure of seeing the movie Tim’s Vermeer, a documentary about a genius inventor obsessed with creating his own Vermeer painting. Johannes Vermeer was a Dutch painter born in 1632 who specialized in recreating scenes of domestic life in vivid detail. The painting below is a good example of his work.

Johannes Vermeer “The Geographer”

The subject of the film is Tim Jenison, a video graphics specialist who made a fortune as a 3D innovator. Jenison believes the photographic quality of Vermeer’s work would be impossible for a human to paint by sight alone. Instead, Jenison suggests the painter used a specialized “camera obscura” to create a mirror image of whatever he wanted to paint. Then he would blend color on the canvas until it matched the reflection.

Jenison isn’t the first to suggest Vermeer used this type of technology to assist in his paintings, but he is the first person who ever set out to prove it. Since no real documentation exists other than the paintings themselves, Jenison decided to recreate a Vermeer painting using only the technology available at the time the painter was alive. The catch? Jenison had no prior painting experience.

Jenison with the optical tools he used (Tim’s Vermeer)

Through a painstaking process that took over two years, Jenison eventually completes a painting that looks nearly identical to the Vermeer he was imitating. While this doesn’t prove that Vermeer used this method, it certainly shows that it is possible and maybe even likely. How else could the colors and detail in his paintings be so life-like?

Rather than trying to defame or cheapen Vermeer’s work, this film does a great job of showing that art is not always what it seems. It clearly shows the blurred lines between art and invention, painter and tinkerer, and even genius and madness. The movie was directed by Teller (of Penn and Teller fame), and although it was a little dry even for a documentary, I’d still highly recommend seeing it.

Can you tell the difference? Tim’s Vermeer, left, and actual Vermeer, right (The Music Lesson).

A comparison on zombie movies – ([REC] vs Quarantine)

[REC] Trailer – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAnbWCjmOkA

Quarantine Trailer – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoBh5S_aWwk

Sets:
The sets from both films are practically identical. So there’s no noticeable differences/effects there.

Scare factor:
This is a rather subjective topic, though both films do a good job of making the viewer much more involved than the stereotypical horror films we’re so used to. Now you could say seeing Rec prior to Quarantine may have made it seem less scary one might experience while watching Quarantine, but the same can be said for the reverse scenario. Though Quarantine has added a few new scares to the mix. Another thing people seem to be constantly complaining about in Quarantine is the final “infected creature” wasn’t nearly as intimidating as the girl in Rec. But how they shoot that final ten minutes still has everyone’s heart pounding.

Gore:
Neither movie is tame when it comes to the graphic factor, but Quarantine is definitely more extreme. With the camera man mauling a zombie, and witnessing a dog in the elevator succumb to the same fate. The effects in both films are amazing, but if you’re simply  looking for bloodshed Quarantine spills  gallons more.

Characters:
First major difference: In Rec the cameraman never makes an appearance, where as in Quarantine the cameraman is seen at least partially multiple times. In both films, the relationship between the reporter (Angela) and the cameraman (Pablo/Scott) is very established. So in Quarantine the relationship isn’t soured the least bit by having Scott on screen from time to time as so many people say it does. In fact, one could say it adds more depth to their relationship.

Second: The two main firefighters (Manu and Alex in Rec, Jake and Fletcher in Quarantine) are quite different between the two films. In Rec, we are meet them and liking them is a given. But we’re not supposed to feel much sympathy for them. Where as in Quarantine gives us more face time with the two at the beginning at the fire station so we feel more of a loss when they’re taken out of the picture.

Third: The reporter (Angela) is somewhat likable in both films, but in Rec she has a bitchier, more career-oriented attitude. Where as in Quarantine, Angela is younger, less seasoned, and overall a nicer person. Both can characters play the lead role quite well, but Quarantine’s Angela seems to feel the impact of the situation and has a genuine fear. As shown in the scenes displaying her mental breakdown. Neither portrayal is better than the other, they are just two slightly different Angela’s.

Fourth: The residents differ slightly, but does it matter? Everyone dies in the end anyways! However in Quarantine the residents do play a larger role as the group slowly gets picked off.

Story:
From shot to shot, there isn’t much variation between the two films– but there are a few things one would notice on a second or third viewing. Such as added scenes and dialogue at the fire station in Quarantine to make us identify with the main group of characters further. There is also more creature set-pieces in Quarantine, to be more specific the old lady watching television scene, and the “infected” dog in the elevator scenes. One big change between the two is the origin of the infection. Which one is better is something you must decide for yourself.  Personally I lean in Rec’s because it’s the original. When viewing Quarantine be on the watch for the extra scenes as really do add that extra impact when it comes to character depth and relation.

Now on to the real question.
(Since you most likely just scrolled all the way through looking for a snip-it to reply /post your opinion on.)

Which film do you think was better, scared you more, or was more realistic? If you’ve seen both that is. Also how did you feel about Rec 2 and Quarantine 2?