'The Mummy' Spoiler Review: The Dark Universe Fails Instantly

In some respects, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is the most unfortunate thing to happen to modern films. Not for Marvel, of course – they continue to make (mostly) enjoyable films that clean up at the box office. No, the misfortune is the result of other studios scrambling to emulate the Marvel formula, and failing spectacularly. Why make one hit movie when you can launch an entire universe of interconnected films? To quote The Social Network, "A million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? A billion dollars."Yet somehow, no other studio has managed to pull-off what Marvel has done. The DCEU has only just managed to deliver their first good movie (after three dreadful previous attempts) with Wonder Woman. Guy Richie's box office disaster King Arthur: Legend of the Sword was intended to spawn several sequels, building a cinematic universe that introduced each new member of the Round Table (don't expect any of those to see the light of day). And now Universal Studios wants to get in on this action, hastily cobbling together their Dark Universe – a proposed series of action-packed remakes of their classic Universal Monsters.There's a touch of irony here, since, historically speaking, Universal and their monsters were responsible for the very first "cinematic universe" back before anyone had coined the term. It all started back in the 1920s with the Lon Chaney-led silent films The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Phantom of the Opera, but it was in the 1930s that Universal really cracked the formula, releasing Dracula and Frankenstein in 1931. Universal learned fast that monsters were very profitable, and a whole slew of horror followed, including The Wolf Man, The Invisible Man, The Mummy and more. In the 1940s, they found ways to cross-over these characters into films like House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, and of course Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.In the modern era, Universal has been trying – with very limited success – to resurrect their roster of the walking undead. There was 2010's The Wolfman, helmed by Captain America: The First Avenger director Joe Johnston and starring Benicio del Toro. Despite some stellar makeup work from master monster maker Rick Baker, and a committed performance from del Toro, The Wolfman sagged at the box office and inspired very little audience interest. 2014 brought on Dracula Untold, which turned the infamous vampire count into a handsome folk hero, as played by Luke Evans. Dracula Untold wasn't a complete disaster at the box office, but it didn't exactly set the world on fire. The only true success Universal had trying to capitalize on their monsters was in 1999, when B-movie maestro Stephen Sommers remade The Mummy as a rollicking, Indiana Jones-style adventure. Sommers' film had none of the eerie charm of the 1932 Boris Karloff original, but it was a fun popcorn movie, full of energy and wit, and featuring a star-making turn from Rachel Weisz. Yet Sommers squandered whatever goodwill his Mummy had generated with a lackluster sequel and the absolutely abysmal Van Helsing, featuring Hugh Jackman as the famous monster-hunter, who must contend with Dracula, the Wolf Man, the Frankenstein Monster and Kate Beckinsale delivering a truly terrible Transylvanian accent.Universal's new Dark Universe was intended as a fresh start, ignoring the reboots that came before it. There's nothing inherently wrong with Universal's plan. But the MCU was a huge gamble that ended-up paying off thanks to years of good will built up from the comic book source material, some smart casting and some talented filmmakers. Even though the Universal Monsters still have their fans, the fanbase isn't as rabid as those who thirst for all-things Marvel.Right out of the gate, with 2017's The Mummy, Universal's Dark Universe is a colossal misfire that doesn't understand just what, exactly, it wants to be. Imagine laying an uneven, structurally unsound foundation for a massive skyscraper and blindly hoping everything will work out. That's The Mummy.Putting the cart way, way before the horse, Universal went ahead and announced their Dark Universe weeks before The Mummy hit theaters, with Johnny Depp set to play The Invisible Man and Javier Bardem cast as Frankenstein's monster. Two more movies featuring the Phantom of the Opera and the Hunchback of Notre Dame announced mere days before The Mummy was released. Universal is putting all their hopes on The Mummy, and with a tepid domestic take of $32.2 on its opening weekend, it looks like Universal execs will be walking around Monday morning paraphrasing Gob Bluth, muttering, "We've made a huge mistake."They thought they had a hit on their hands. After all, the 1999 Mummy was a box office success, and Tom Cruise, one of the biggest stars in modern film history, is the lead of this new film. Yet not even Cruise's star power is enough to salvage this lifeless corpse. Cruise, an actor who always commits 150% (and continually risks his life via stunt work in the process) seems completely lost here, unsure of who his character is supposed to be. It doesn't help that the 54-year-old actor is inexplicably playing someone in his 30s. Hey, Tom Cruise looks great for his age, but that doesn't mean he should be playing 30-year-olds.The fault of The Mummy doesn't reside solely with Cruise. The story and script, credited to six (!) different writers, is execrable. The direction, from Alex Kurtzman, who has previously only directed one other film (the already forgotten People Like Us from 2012), is so uninspired it'll make you want to take a nap. Like its title character, The Mummy is a lifeless husk, yet no amount of dark magic can breathe life back into it.

Here's a bit of sacrilege for you '90s kids: the 1999 Mummy isn't really a great movie. It has its issues, mostly on a plotting level. But it is entertaining. It's a light, airy treat that's easy to snack on. What's more, you get the sense that everyone involved is having a great time. Most of all, though, it works well because it was clearly focused on being one movie. Yes, there were two sequels and a spin-off, and yes, they were bad. But the first Mummy had no interest in being solely a launchpad for future films. It's a self-contained adventure, just like Raiders of the Lost Ark is a self-contained adventure that just happened to spawn a franchise.This seems to be the secret to a successful film series – make one movie first, worry about the franchise later. Yes, Marvel has subverted this concept and made it work for them, but this is the exception rather than the rule. There's nothing wrong with wanting to start your own cinematic universe, but perhaps you should focus on getting the first film right? If Iron Man had been a critical and box office failure, Marvel wouldn't have been as confident plowing-ahead with their MCU. And even though there are nods in Iron Man to the films to come, it's still very much a self-contained narrative.That's not the case with the 2017 Mummy, even though the film does borrow the basic plot-structure of the '99 film. Just about every moment of this film exists to set-up a cinematic universe no one is clamoring for. Crowe's Dr. Jekyll is apparently the bridge to these future films – when the film shifts to his lab, we get quick shots of various specimens, including a skull with vampire fangs. But why is Dr. Jekyll the character in this position? Wouldn't it have made more sense to make someone like Van Helsing – already well-known as a monster hunter – the Nick Fury-like character here? Then again, it's never clear just what Jekyll wants to do with monsters. Does he want to destroy them, or use them as weapons? Is he pro-monster, since technically he's part-monster himself? The movie has absolutely no idea, so why should we?The final scenes of the movie, with Nick and Vali riding on horseback through the desert, show Nick with bandages wrapped around his hands, implying he's the new mummy, which is a particularly boneheaded move. I get it – Cruise is a big star, and they likely signed him for multiple films. But it would've been wiser to keep Sofia Boutella as the mummy. No matter how hard the film tries to limit her, Boutella's screen presence shines through. A dancer-turned-actress, Boutella moves with lithe grace while also conveying a kind of seductive menace, and had this been a better film, her mummy could've very well become an iconic movie monster. In fact, even though Boutella's Ahmanet is evil, it's hard not to root for her. So lifeless are the heroic characters here that it's easier to wish Ahmanet would destroy them all and reign supreme.Of course, what with the nature of the character, there's always a chance Boutella's mummy could return – the mummies defeated in other films always managed to come back for sequels, after all. But with the way the film sets Cruise up to be the "new" bandaged monster at film's end, that seems unlikely. Then again, with the way this film underperformed at the box office, sequels themselves seem unlikely as well.Kurtzman's direction is astoundingly unfocused, but there's always a chance it could've been saved, or at least made passable, in the editing room. Yet the three different credited editors do it no favors. One scene after another just lays there, uncinematic and weightless. Jokes fall flat, action beats stumble, the actors seem adrift. The cinematography by Ben Seresin has no personality to speak of. This is not a film, it's a crass product; the very worst example of a movie pieced together from ideas of other movies. It is the Poochie of cinema. The Mummy isn't even bad in an entertaining way. It's just bad. Everyone involved should be embarrassed, especially Cruise, who at this stage in his career has no reason to take a role like this.Despite its popularity, the horror genre is often maligned. Actors working on horror films will be quick to call the film a "dark thriller" or a film with "horror elements" rather than a straight-up horror film. Yet horror sells: Jordan Peele's Get Out – which Universal distributed – was a huge hit earlier this year, and Robert Eggers' The Witch did incredible box office in 2016. Of course, these were much smaller films than The Mummy. But therein lies the problem – why do these films need to be big spectacles? And worse than that, why can't they be horror movies?The Universal Monsters movies of old were haunted, lonely, gothic things – films that dealt with shadows, sadness and death. The monsters at the heart of those films were tragic creatures, often misunderstood. They were doomed to their terrible fates, unable to throw off their hellish curses. There was a dignity inherent in those films that is nowhere to be seen in this latest Mummy. Just imagine if Universal had tried to make a series of interconnected, small-scale horror films instead of assuming the only way to create a cinematic universe is through big, dumb action. Imagine if instead of putting Alex Kurtzman in charge of all of this, they had hired someone like Guillermo del Toro. Instead, The Mummy plays out as if the producers watched the abysmal 2003 adaptation of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and said, "Let's just try to remake this."Of course, even if the Dark Universe had gone the horror route, that's no guarantee for success. Universal's 201 Wolfman reboot was an attempt at gothic horror, but the film underperformed. Then again, the film was also bad, thanks to a weak script. And while he has been capable on other movies, Joe Johnston is not exactly a master of conjuring up chilling horror. That can't be the sole reason it failed, though. After all, Crimson Peak, a Universal release helmed by Guillermo del Toro, failed to draw in audiences as well, despite the fact that it's a wonderful film. Perhaps there really is no secret formula here – perhaps it's all chance.Will the Dark Universe soldier on? I'm sure at least one more film will be made before the plug is pulled. Universal has already invested too much time and money into this concept to completely abandon it after one film. Yet where it goes from here remains to be seen. Will The Mummy become The Incredible Hulk or Iron Man 2 of this universe – the film that everyone pretends never happened? Or will Universal plow ahead with their current plan, and deliver yet another dreadful, unfocused mess? The next planned film is a Bride of Frankenstein remake, directed by Bill Condon. Condon is certainly a better filmmaker than Kurtzman, so there's a chance he may be able to course correct this damaged vessel. But the prospect of a goofy, action-packed remake of Bride of Frankenstein sounds almost sacrilegious at this point.Perhaps it's best for Universal to cut its losses now and try again in a few more years. Focus on getting at least one movie right and building from that. People will forget The Mummy, as they forgot Dracula Untold; as they forgot Van Helsing. The Dark Universe may not be dead and buried yet, but it's certainly on life support. And The Mummy is already destined to be forgotten to the sands of time, entombed forever, never to be dug-up again. May it rest in peace.