All-New Movie Jibber-Jabber: The Mummy

Evan: This week I'm joined by fellow Yapper Nick to talk "The Mummy." As always, guest gets first shot. What are some of your thoughts on this crusty turd circus, Nick?

Nick: Well, Evan, it’s only the second-worst movie Tom Cruise has ever made. (I intend to keep the horse that is “Jack Reacher: Mistake” alive long enough to ensure my beating of it retains merit.)

Because Cruise can choose any project he wants, the subtext of his selections always fascinates me. Why this? Why now? With this, who knows? He plays a thoroughly average schmoe promised eternal reign over mankind’s survival by a sexually aggressive demon in female form. Not sure if it’s immersion therapy for insecurities about inevitable aging or waning star appeal. It’s more likely desperation.

Even in his poorest films, though, Cruise retains some semblance of force – even if only from a brand-management perspective. For the first time ever, he’s simply furniture, arranged with appalling feng shui for a (wannabe) shared-universe franchise and over which a swarm of digital rats can crawl. Given how utterly devoid of personality or point “The Mummy” turns out to be, Universal may perhaps return him to the store for a refund (minus the 15% restocking fee).

Plus, when people grouse about committee scripts, this is the shapelessness of which they speak. Six credited writers (and who knows how many more sous chefs), none making it funny, scary or exciting. An unexpected gunshot that provides levity and a scene that briefly frees Russell Crowe’s character from boring exposition are it. (I kept waiting for Crowe to say “I’d like to talk to you about the Gods and Monsters Initiative.”) I suspect both are triage of longtime Cruise collaborator Christopher McQuarrie, doing what he can to maintain interest in Cruise ahead of “Mission: Impossible” movies yet unmade.

There are two ways this movie could, and should, have gone besides action sludge – psychosexual horror or full-on creature feature. For either, you need an R-rating. For the former, you need, say, Paul Verhoeven. The plot hinges on if Cruise’s character will allow himself to be “Basic Instinct”-ed by the Mummy anyway – complete with cowgirl straddling and intimate licking. Nothing is made of the power play, but can you imagine what Verhoeven might have done with that? For the latter, why not let Sam Raimi get back on the stick and let loose with an R-rating?

For no incarnation of this (or reason besides box-office clout in a crowded summer) do you need Cruise, though … unless he was going to channel Frank T.J. Mackey of “Magnolia” in a Verhoeven jam.

Evan: I never want to talk about "Jack Reacher: Never Again" ever again, except right now, because I think the two-hit punch of that mess and this mess actually paint a fascinating picture of where Cruise is at this moment, and how his trajectory speaks to the larger problem with Universal's Dark Universe as a whole.

You point out astutely that "The Mummy" deals with a schumyjoe Cruise being haunted with a "strong woman" archetype straight out of the '90s; this is not dissimilar from most of his more recent action renaissance roles, which all involve him playing a charismatic-if-non-committal action hero partnered with a "strong woman" whom he eventually overcomes (if not romantically, at least in a contest of strengths). "Jack Reacher," "Edge of Tomorrow," "Mission: Impossible — Rogue Nation" and "Jack Reacher: Never Go Back" all feature that. It's kind of an archetype many action films are moving away from and I've always felt like Cruise was the last one to embrace it fully.

Which, in a way, feels perfect for the Universal Dark Universe series, which is built off of properties that themselves rely on extremely dated cultural norms — for better and for worse. It's not impossible to create a fun mummy movie while avoiding whole-hog colonialist approaches to Egyptian culture and Middle East culture in general (the 1999 "Mummy" does it well), but inevitably that's going to be an issue when you approach remaking "The Mummy" or "The Wolfman" or "Dracula" with any kind of fidelity. Creatively eschewing it is one thing; outright avoiding it by replacing it with a bland attempt at "Monster S.H.I.E.L.D." is another, and holy shit do they fail to make it interesting here.

So Cruise is throwback, but shockingly nothing else in "The Mummy" is, and I think that's something of a shame.

Regarding directors, I appreciate your suggestions — you're right. But even look at the more modern horror directing talents who are all being scooped up by larger studios to inject their talents into decided non-horror fair. Adam Wingard, Scott Derrickson, James Wan, just to name three, all of whom would at the very least bring something to a Universal Monster revival. Instead we're getting, what, "Bride of Frankenstein" from Bill Condon?

Nick: Perhaps. I predict we … receive (because “get” too strongly suggests anyone truly wants it) “Bride of Frankenstein.” But I also think “The Mummy” will tank and entomb the Dark Universe connectedness for a third time after “The Wolfman” and “Dracula Untold” (both shockingly better than this).

Potential upside if Dark Universe persists: Rumored low-budget, Blumhouse-abetted complements to fat-budget blood farts like this. I’d prefer $15 million takes on such tales, and they may introduce exciting new talents rather than the anonymous “vision” of co-writer Alex Kurtzman – gifted his second directorial effort (after “People Like Us,” with your favorite boy Chris Pine) for co-writing movies that made lots of money. (I can hear his lifeless Blu-ray commentary already: “So I was going for something like ‘The Abyss’ here, which is a movie I really love. If you haven’t seen it, you really should.”)

At least the low-budget stuff won’t be in 3D so slipshod you seem to watch it in MummyVision®, with wraps over your eyes. It’s the crappiest conversion since “World War Z,” a similarly schizophrenic horror-action juggernaut with oddball A-list casting that at least figured out how to lean into Brad Pitt’s persona. (I have thoughts on how this film self-justifies Cruise’s casting, but I’ll save it for the end.)

As to Cruise’s co-stars, I don’t see Emily Blunt or Rebecca Ferguson in “Edge” or “Rogue Nation” in quite the light you do, but Rosamund Pike and Cobie Smulders in the “Reacher” movies certainly fit that bill. (FWIW, Annabelle Wallis — in her second summer dud after “King Arthur: Legend of the What Now?” — is a bland-sel in distress here.) How much more interesting if the Mummy set her sights on Wallis’s character to seduce and subsume. Again, paging Dr. Verhoeven!

I’m glad you bring up the nigh-20-year-old (!) “Mummy” from 1999. I’d also throw in its first sequel, 2001’s “The Mummy Returns,” as a prime example of modernizing these films for sleekness and speed without sacrificing camp, charm and chills. Here, the assumption is because you know these characters through cultural osmosis, you inherently want to see them in interconnected films. Is there anything that interests you about a standalone with Crowe’s character? Or even a reemergence of Cruise’s?

Evan: There is nothing that interests me in the slightest about seeing Crowe's oddball take on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or Cruise as a mummy powered by Satan. There's no clear context in which I would ever want these characters to interact with other Universal properties either. Not Dracula, not Frankenstein, not a Wolfman or a Creature from the Black Lagoon or, hell, a Phantom of the Opera or a Hunchback of Notre Dame. The brilliance of S.H.I.E.L.D. in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that it fulfilled an expository role that would've been filled in the narratives of Thor or Iron Man or Captain America by generic government stooges; Prodigium (the name given to the S.H.I.E.L.D.-like entity here and overseen by Crowe's Dr. Jekyll) doesn't fit into these monster stories at all, and the fact that they explain the name two times within 20 minutes doesn't instill long-term confidence.

Low-budget horror takes on these monsters is clearly what's needed here; as you noted, this is the third aborted attempt at making a new franchise out of these monsters in the same bloated way. Imagine if "Van Helsing" had succeeded. This mummy movie would've fit right into that universe. That is serious lack of vision.

Let's just — OK, so Aly, my wife, generally gets migraines after 3D movies. She actually went into this movie with a migraine and came out fine. That should tell you something about just how godawful the 3D conversion was here. Which, I think, also speaks to Kurtzman's inability to set a scene properly and cinematographer Ben Seresin's, well, general inability. Seresin, coincidentally, also handled the cinematography for your beloved "World War Z," and my beloved "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." There are shots in "The Mummy" that are just unpleasant to watch. No sense of, well, anything.

Blunt and Ferguson benefit from better scripts, but I think both still fall into Cruise's inability to really let an actress reign superior over him. "The Mummy," of course, takes it to an extreme, creating an odd rape metaphor that plays itself out in the most awkward fashion throughout the movie until, ultimately, climaxing in what can only be described as a metaphorical heroic rape. Throughout the film, Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella) is French-kiss life-sucking her victims while trying desperately to turn Cruise into her sexual partner / superior demon-man. It's an odd take on mummy mythology of "lost and forbidden love," but it does help the film make Boutella into an object of desire rather than a scary monster, only to climax with Cruise accepting his role as her ultimate master and then French-kissing the life out of her. The subtext isn't exactly sub here, and while I don't think that speaks to Cruise's intent it certainly speaks to the lack of thought or effort put into the script by David Koepp, McQuarrie, and Dylan Kussman.

Nick: Ah, yes. "Van Helsing," in which Mr. Hyde resembles an angry steroidal Shrek. So the fourth aborted attempt at a Universal Monsters ... uh ... universe. My favorite line in "The Mummy" is "We're not looters! We are liberators of precious antiquities!" That sounds like a motivational mantra of studio development suits who keep trying to make fetch happen with this foolishness. I mean, we have "The Monster Squad." It is 82 minutes. It is a contemporary cinematic monster universe under one roof. It is fine.

The sexual assault metaphor is rather aggressive for a crowd-pleasing PG-13 movie, and surprising to see for sure. But it is thematically toothless outside of cheap cringe-comedy bits in which Cruise is physically dominated and spatially invaded by a more powerful woman. Don't forget at the same time the absurd idea that Ahmanet requires a male companion. She's able to lay waste to modern-day London quite well on her own (and in ways whose repercussions are never once addressed).

So ... as you say, the climax hinges on Cruise choosing to become a new god / monster in a world full of them. Even after he does the absolute right thing in killing those who need killing and reviving those who need reviving ... there's still a question of whether he's a force for good or ill. (Not to mention the cowardly inability to show us a transformed Cruise of any sort in full.) It's the ultimate laziness and perhaps the most grotesque exploitation yet of Cruise's considerable talents as a performer over the last 35 years (setting aside the questionable activities of his personal life): No one will ever really question this character's motives if the other threatened movies move forward because he's Tom Cruise. It represents the bland, often unchallenged rooting interest slapped on America's other favorite Tom by filmmakers too lazy to challenge him.

We've spoken quite a bit about this disaster, so I'll let you have the last word on this lousiness.

Evan: You point out that it is thematically toothless but over-aggressive, and I agree. Someone pointed out that vampire movies use sexual assault frequently, and, well, yeah. Many of those movies do. Sometimes they do them well; many don't, but at least those themes are relevant to the vampire mythology. A mummy? Not so much.

“Bland and unchallenging” is the best description I can think of regarding Dark Universe, and outside of their laziness regarding themes it's maybe the most damning of the franchise as a whole thanks to “The Mummy.” Who cares about Cruise traveling around as a pseudo-mummy? It's just terrible.

I think I'm out of things to say about “The Mummy.” Let it go forgotten into the bin of “so bad it isn't fun, so bad it's killing a franchise” movies like “Terminator: Genisys.”