rate the last movie you saw

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3046 Post by AndyDursin » Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:07 am

FANTASTIC 4 (2015)
3/10

One of the few movies Fox would not send review copies out for, I finally caught up with the 2015 FANTASTIC 4 -- all 20 minutes that I could stomach -- before fast-forwarding to the end. This is, as was described, a total misfire that's almost impossible to judge because the editing and transparent reshooting obviously compromised whatever movie Josh Trank had made. Now, it's entirely likely his movie was going to be humorless and awful, but this "middle of the road" blend of his cut and reshoots is a total dud.

The most entertaining element is Kate Mara's hair -- the platinum blonde wig she used for reshoots doesn't match, at all, the hair she has in other scenes, making it easy to spot all the added material. It's actually incredible nobody was paying enough attention to this insanely obvious continuity error.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3047 Post by Eric Paddon » Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:13 pm

I spent the last couple days listening to the old Criterion commentary tracks for the first three Bond films. The nice thing is the films are so familiar that they make for easy mp3 listening now. The first two I had heard a lot back in the day since I had the CAV Laser Discs right when they came out. It took me years to get a copy of "Goldfinger" (after the prices finally collapsed) and I only listened to the commentary once back then (by then, we'd been getting the new releases with new tracks on LD and DVD).

Listening to them together, they have the effect of being like going to an old-fashioned mens club and hearing stories told over brandy and cigars as we listen to the recollections of so many important people in the early history of Bond who are long gone now (Terence Young, Peter Hunt, Richard Maibaum, Ken Adam). They speak in a decidedly non-PC vernacular that wouldn't pass muster at all in today's culture. Their recollections are not necessarily going to be perfect (Guy Hamilton for instance says Jack Lord wasn't available for "Goldfinger" because he'd "found success in Hawaii" but that show wouldn't debut for another four years!) but it still makes for fascinating listening as time goes by.

What time I don't think is kind to is the undercurrent of disdain for the Roger Moore era that isn't present in the recollections but which becomes more evident in the narrations by Bruce Eder and Steven Jay Rubin. That isn't surprising considering how both were big boosters of Kevin McClory and his renegade Bond project (Eder's liner notes for Goldfinger, I think was the ultimate reason why the LD's were pulled since he crossed a line and said essentially that "For Your Eyes Only" was great but had the wrong guy in the part). A quarter century of more perspective I think makes it more clear that the Moore films were right for their time to help the franchise continue just as Connery's films were right for their time in making Bond a phenomenon. It's because of that, that I'm kind of glad that we got new commentary tracks later on in the later release that didn't give us this renegade undercurrent (I'd also note that Eder in his "Dr. No" commmentary not only pushes the old myth of John Barry writing the entire Bond theme from scratch but implies that Barry wrote the entire "Dr. No" underscore as well!)

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3048 Post by AndyDursin » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:12 am

TOM SAWYER
8/10

HUCKLEBERRY FINN
6.5/10

Image

After being treated shoddily on DVD by MGM a decade ago, Twilight Time does right by both of the Sherman Brothers’ Mark Twain musicals – the wonderful 1973 adaptation of TOM SAWYER and its inferior, though not unworthy, follow-up HUCKLEBERRY FINN – which bow together as part of the label’s 3000-copy Blu-Ray limited editions this month.

After being issued in terrific laserdisc editions back in the early ‘90s, MGM cropped both films for their 2005 DVD releases, robbing viewers of their original Panavision cinematography and much of each film’s impact. Twilight Time’s single-disc Blu-Ray crams an awful lot of content onto their release, reprising all of the laserdisc’s extras while adding a new commentary, isolated mono score tracks (minus song vocals), and best of all, detailed 1080p (2.35) AVC encoded high-definition transfers.

On their own terms, the two movies are highly entertaining, especially the 1973 “Tom Sawyer.” Starring “Family Affair”’s Johnny Whittaker as Tom, Jodie Foster as Becky, future Clark Kent Jeff East as Huck Finn, and veterans Celeste Holm and Warren Oates, director Don Taylor’s movie benefits from a spirited Sherman Brothers score -- marvelously adapted and underscored by John Williams -- and exceptional scope cinematography. The opening sequence alone is worth the price of the disc – Williams’ underscoring (his final “Supervised”/”Adapted” credit) beautifully matches shots of young Tom running along the banks of the Mississippi River, with director Don Taylor’s camera utilizing overhead shots to produce a glorious image that memorably captures a romanticized time and place.

This Reader’s Digest presentation was one of the Sherman Brothers’ first projects they set up after leaving Disney, where they had penned scores for “The Jungle Book” and “Mary Poppins” among many others. Their script is an effective distillation of the source material and benefitted from tuneful songs (some sung, others told over montages, almost as if they were leveraging the decline in the genre’s popularity by the early ‘70s) and fine performances across the board. It’s not an exaggeration to say, however, that Williams’ work elevated the entire project – giving the songs a wonderful “Reivers”-esque flavor, the soundtrack boasts a splendid sense of Americana, and while Williams may not have written the songs, the backing he gives to all of them – as well as their interpolation throughout his score – is purely indicative of his musical genius.

Image

“Huckleberry Finn” was filmed the subsequent year, and it’s a comparatively disjointed, inferior follow-up, with East reprising Huck Finn and Paul Winfield co-starring as Jim, the runaway slave our wayward young hero befriends and attempts to help. Director J. Lee Thompson proved to be a less-than-satisfactory replacement for Taylor, and what’s worse, Fred Werner proved to be a less than stellar replacement for Williams, who by 1974 was well on his way to major scoring assignments like “The Towering Inferno” with “Jaws” looming just a short time later.

The movie, though, isn’t a total loss, especially its evocative opening sequence (the film’s high point, in fact) showing black slaves working in the field set to the Shermans’ lovely ballad “Freedom,” splendidly performed by Roberta Flack. Thompson was wise to close the film with the song as well, but while those images and the respective performances of Winfield and East are commendable, the movie otherwise is flabby, running on for a full two hours and lacking both the musical conviction and overall entertainment of its predecessor. Given the passing of producer Arthur P. Jacobs during shooting and Thompson’s reported difficulty working in a genre he was unfamiliar with, perhaps it’s no surprise the finished product has a number of flaws. That said, “Huck” is still worthwhile as an interesting, if substantially more problematic, companion piece to its predecessor.

Twilight Time’s Blu-Ray does a very good job considering the amount of content it houses on one disc. There are times the bit-rate drops under 15 mbps but the compression is quite good for the most part, and the 1080p (2.35) transfers, by themselves, are well executed, with wear and tear (and some discoloration) only present in the opening credit sequences of each film.

“Tom Sawyer” features no less than three soundtracks for the film: the original 2-channel stereo mix, as well as newly remastered 5.1 and 4.0 DTS MA offerings. The latter two mixes offer a broader stage for the music with discrete separation, though I found the dialogue a little bit clearer in the original 2.0 stereo mix, which is also present here. No matter which way you go, Williams’ Overture and Exit Music is presented as an option to view in conjunction with the movie. “Huckleberry Finn” solely contains the movie’s 2.0 DTS MA stereo mix and a transfer in generally not quite as healthy a condition as “Tom Sawyer,” but it’s still quite good and a welcome presentation considering it hasn’t been seen in scope since its laserdisc release over 20 years ago.

For supplements, in addition to the isolated scores, Twilight Time’s major new extra is a commentary between Richard M. Sherman and Bruce Kimmel, which touches upon both “Tom Saywer” and “Huckleberry Finn”’s rocky production as well. Carried over from the laserdisc is a wonderful, vintage commentary track with the Shermans and Don Taylor, plus brief rehearsal footage of Williams and the Shermans, an unintentionally funny promotional featurette from 1973, and the original trailer. “Huckleberry Finn” also offers its trailer in a disc that should come as a warm and welcome release for musical lovers and devotees of both the Sherman Brothers and maestro Williams.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3049 Post by Eric Paddon » Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:12 pm

Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory (1971) 6 of 10

-I revisited this after finding the Blu-Ray in a bargain bin for $6. Unlike "Mary Poppins" I had seen this on TV as a child and then had gone out and read Roald Dahl's book (these were the pre-VCR days where if you liked seeing a movie your only alternative to experience it again was to read the book!) It's heart is in the right place and it produced two great songs, and yet even more so than "Mary Poppins" there are some things about it that from a more cynical adult perspective don't sit well with me. The "Slugworth" plot line actually forces a bigger change from the book than people realize because it means that rather than Charlie winning just from the goodness of his persona and the fact he *doesn't* break any of the rules we instead have to get this other forced gimmick (to compensate for the fact that Charlies was technically "guilty" as the other kids) that isn't clearly well-developed script-wise (which can probably be blamed on the fact that it was a late rewrite to the script by first-time screenwriter David Seltzer doing revisions on Dahl's script).

I'll resist the temptation to note how the fact that Wonka closed his factory to the outside world and brought in the Oompa Loompas to do all the work makes him the earliest known screen practitioner of outsourcing jobs to cheap foreign labor. :D (and really their repetitive song gets very annoying)

The commentary by the grown-up kids was a fun listen (though the cultural barrier minimized the participation of the German kid who played Augustus who clearly didn't have as much to say).

Eric Paddon
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3050 Post by Eric Paddon » Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:28 am

As a postscript, it just occurred to me that the whole Veruca Salt character and her musical number would have worked perfectly in a satirical sketch where Hillary Clinton is Veruca! :) (Sorry, I had to say it)

Eric Paddon
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3051 Post by Eric Paddon » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:20 pm

The Island Of Dr. Moreau (1977) 6.25 of 10

-One of my bargain buys from Kino Lorber. The location photography is great and there's a sense of greater isolation that wasn't in the 1932 original, but the overall take on the story is much less effective than 32. Lancaster is going for a different approach to Moreau than Laughton did, who was the epitome of sinister and it works okay in the context of the reimagining but is ultimately less compelling from a story standpoint. Ironically, Richard Basehart (he must have *really* needed a paycheck to go under the makeup for his part as the "Sayer of the Law") would probably have been more effective in the title role!

-But we come to the film's biggest flaw and that was its hasty editing of the ending to obscure something that surely EVERYONE who went into this film was expecting to see and that was the final payoff regarding Barbara Carrera. The film's poster with its transformation depiction tells us we should expect this, and there are so many less than subtle clues earlier in the film that point to this so why did they get cold feet at the last second and do the re-edit to give us a false note "happy" ending? (The Marvel comics adaptation I'd note does show what was clearly intended). Rosenthal's final music cue as they faded out is music for a shocking twist and the fact they didn't change that is even further proof of how hasty the decision was. The Blu-Ray supplement shows us a still of Carrera that one can also find on IMDB and it says this ending *was* shown on the network TV airing. Too bad there are no copies floating around that could confirm this.

-I have no intention of checking out Brando and Kilmer's version.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5043
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3052 Post by Monterey Jack » Fri Aug 04, 2017 10:50 pm

-One Million Years B.C. (1966): 8.5/10

Image

Jeez, how could I have missed seeing this one growing up?! :shock: I would have gone CRAZY for this as a kid, although I would have been more jazzed for Ray Harryhausen's still-marvelous stop-motion dinosaurs than for seeing an icky girl like Raquel Welch in a skimpy fur bikini. :lol: For all its prehistoric silliness, it's actually a very well-made film (with a superb Mario Nascimbene score), and it's amusing to theorize that Stanley Kubrick saw a matinee of this B-movie and cribbed ideas for his "Dawn Of Man" sequence from 2001: A Space Odyssey two years later. Terrific Creature Double Feature fun.


 
Last edited by Monterey Jack on Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3053 Post by Eric Paddon » Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:48 pm

Welcome to the club! :mrgreen:

I was really happy to see the film finally get some long overdue justice with the recent Blu-Ray release. Not just with both cuts presented in beautiful quality but the commentary track also treated the film with respect instead of going off into the potentially snarky kind of what "this is so camp!" tone I'm used to seeing in so many reviews of the film. It isn't true authenticity the film strikes, but an aura of ersatz believability in the universe it creates that lets us enjoy what we see on-screen. For that, the credit goes to Harryhausen for his wonderful creations, Nascimbene for his haunting score, the great location photography and also give credit to the actors for throwing themselves into their parts. Raquel ultimately became an icon from this film not simply because she looked great in the costume but because she brought a larger force of nature presence when wearing the costume that made her seem authentically at home in the surroundings. She rings true in the same way those actresses who have succeeded in bringing comic book costumed heroines to life on the screen have made their characters ring true while looking great.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 5043
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3054 Post by Monterey Jack » Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:06 am

Yeah, there's a surprising level of craft and thoughtfulness for a movie that was obviously sold as nothing more than Raquelsploitation...it ain't "art", but for this kind of thing, it's about as good as it gets, with a lot of purely visual storytelling that's elegantly shot and handled. And those Harryhausen F/X are just terrific. Hard to believe some of his work was actually taken out for the truncated U.S. cut. :? You get a movie with Raquel and dinosaurs, and you cut some of the dinosaurs out? It'd be like CG shots from Jurassic Park being left on the cutting room floor...that's 90% of the reason you're there, especially for the juvenile audiences this was aimed at. Awesome transfer from Kino Lorber, and it's nice that the U.S. cut was included as well (I'm very keen on the "original theatrical version" to be preserved for every movie, even if that version was cut by the studio prior to it hitting the screen and is technically inferior). Hope the rest of my KL sale blind buys are as good as this.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3055 Post by Eric Paddon » Sat Aug 05, 2017 1:00 pm

I can understand US censors cutting some of the non-FX moments like the extended ape-men fight which gets real violent, and maybe they thought the moment where Tumak tastes the paint would give kids the wrong idea? :) But I agree, I don't get shortening the FX sequences. One FX sequence I wish Harryhausen thought of was maybe having a big dino killed during the final sequence and subliminally we might get the message "this is the end of the age of the Dinos".

One of the fallacies people have about the movie is they think every female in sight is just like Raquel so they think they're getting a "Dr. Goldfoot" parade of beauties but when you get down to it you just have two overall in Raquel and Martine Beswicke, plus the pretty good girl in the one piece outfit (Lisa Thomas I think her name was. She looks just like Carol Lynley). The rest of the females are mostly middle-aged!

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 4140
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3056 Post by Paul MacLean » Sun Aug 06, 2017 5:21 pm

The Skeleton Key

Despite the tepid box office figures and generally negative reviews which greeted this (mostly forgotten) movie, I gave it try. It proved a surprisingly effective and creepy thriller, with moments of genuine horror. Kate Hudson really shines in the lead, helped in no small measure by high-pedigree supporting players John Hurt and Gena Rowlands. The script bears some influence of Angel Heart; however what struck me the most was how much last year's Get Out owes to The Skeleton Key -- to such a heavy extant I'd almost call Get Out a remake.

Edward Shearmer's score is often-strident and non-melodic, but it's a real score for orchestra (by someone who knows how to write for orchestra). I really can't say enough good about Kate Hudson's performance, which is sincere, sympathetic and really draws the viewer into her character's plight. I wish I knew what happened to Hudson's career -- she was one of the most promising young actors a decade ago, and now's she's in direct-to-home video movies. :?

The Skeleton Key is by no means a "forgotten classic". It's not an especially remarkable movie, and I admit I didn't care for the ending (though it did fit the overall tone of film, and was effective -- if disturbing). But the film works, and works well (and is considerably better than the overrated Get Out!).

Image

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3057 Post by AndyDursin » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:21 am

KING ARTHUR
5/10

One of the year’s largest box-office casualties, this baffling Guy Ritchie take on the Arthurian legend struggles to find, much less maintain, a consistent cinematic vision.

Ritchie, Lionel Wigram and Joby Harold’s wildly uneven script stars Charlie Hunnam as Arthur – here an orphaned son of a slain king (Eric Bana) whose conniving brother (Jude Law) has taken over Camelot. Arthur’s uprising, with the help of a mage (Astrid Berges-Frisby), one of his father’s seasoned warriors (Djimon Hounsou) and a virtual group of Merry Men — who seem like they belong in a Robin Hood movie – takes the fight of the common folks against magic-wielding sorcerers, with a few weird CGI creatures thrown in just because.

It’s not hard to understand why “King Arthur” failed to generate an audience – this is one of those bizarre projects that seems to have been greenlit simply on the basis of Ritchie’s clout. While it boasts some of the director’s patented “dialogue bits” and humor, other scenes give off a “Warcraft” vibe with occasional, mostly fleeting appearances by CGI creatures and uneasy mix of fairy-tale revisionism and gritty violence. Hunnam has charisma to spare in the title role, and the cinematography is filled with splashes of color, but “King Arthur” ends up as loud, dumb and pointless as most of this summer’s would-be tentpole fare, setting up a franchise that’s never going to make it to a second installment.

Warner’s UHD presentation, though, is marvelous: this 4K transfer (2.41) makes dynamic use of HDR and is highly satisfying on a visual scale. Colors, especially reds, bounce right off the screen, and blacks are deep and perfectly set, making for a surprisingly varied visual presentation. It’s a disc one can forsee 4K owners using as a nice reference point for HDR, even if the film itself is lukewarm. Dolby Atmos audio (on both the UHD and standard Blu-Ray) is finely engineered if predictable in its rock ‘n roll sound courtesy of Daniel Pemberton’s score. Extras include a handful of behind-the-scenes featurettes and a Digital HD copy.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3058 Post by AndyDursin » Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:26 am

FREEBIE AND THE BEAN
6/10

Image

One of the seminal “cop buddy” pictures, FREEBIE AND THE BEAN is nevertheless a loud, strained affair that’s mostly dated – in a bad way. Robert Kaufman’s script – based on a story by executive producer Floyd Mutrux -- pairs unorthodox San Francisco cops Freebie Waters (James Caan) and “Bean” Vasquez (Alan Arkin) as they’re forced to safeguard a mobster (Jack Kruschen) they’re investigating after learning a hit man is out to take him down.

Mass chaos ensues in much of Richard Rush’s film, including a quartet of extensive chase sequences that were intended to top prior genre staples “Bullitt” and “The French Connection.” On a technical level, “Freebie” is certainly impressive in the scope of its demolition, with Rush’s action sequences making great use of the Panavision frame and the movie offering plenty of ‘70s atmosphere courtesy of its location lensing.

The issue is the story and its thin, at-times stereotypical characterizations – for example, Valerie Harper plays Bean’s philandering Latina wife, in a role that kind of symbolizes the picture in general. Beyond the questionable ethnic portrayals, much of the humor in the film is reliant on the mileage one gets from its lead characters alternately bickering and yelling at each other. Rush turns up the energy and Caan and Arkin respond in kind, but the terrific stars are saddled with material they can elevate only so much. After sampling a few minutes and its impressive – if tedious – car chases, you might find the overlong, redundant “Freebie” to be a relic of its era that should’ve stayed there.

That said, for fans of the movie who do find the picture funny – or viewers just nostalgic for Saul Bass’ Warner logo and Dominic Frontiere’s “’70s” score – Warner’s Archive Blu-Ray is a beaut. The remastered 1080p (2.41) transfer is spectacularly detailed with a healthy DTS MA mono soundtrack and the trailer rounding out a technically faultless presentation.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3059 Post by AndyDursin » Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:32 am

NIGHT MOVES
7/10

Image

One of those “’70s movies” you frequently see critics raving about, Arthur Penn’s NIGHT MOVES is a convoluted and overpraised detective thriller that’s still consistently watchable because of Gene Hackman’s central performance.

Less a revisionist commentary on its genre than Robert Altman’s more durable “The Long Goodbye,” and not as aesthetically compelling as Roman Polanski’s classic “Chinatown,” “Night Moves” finds Hackman’s sad-sack L.A. detective, Harry Moseby, hired to find the nubile teen daughter (Melanie Griffith) of an aging actress. Facing an already failing marriage to his cheating wife (Susan Clark), Harry travels to south Florida to retrieve the impetuous girl, and eventually stumbles into a smuggling ring that he unfortunately becomes an unwitting part of.

Alan Sharp’s original script and Penn’s direction want to say “something important” about the Watergate era, in the context of a modern film noir. That’s all fine and good, except “Night Moves”’s plot becomes increasingly, and unnecessarily, complicated after a straightforward start. The editing is choppy and only after a couple of viewings does the story become clearer, elements that prevent this film from really being the classic some critics claim that it is. Hackman, though, is terrific throughout, giving his character a sympathetic dimension in spite of his flaws, and it’s fun to watch Griffith and a young James Woods just starting their careers in key supporting roles.

Debuting from the Warner Archive this month on Blu-Ray, “Night Moves” has been treated to a high bit-rate, wonderfully detailed 1080p (1.78) AVC encoded transfer. Bruce Surtees’ cinematography is surprisingly plain in its approach for the most part, but the transfer itself is excellent, while the pungent DTS MA mono sound houses a jazzy score by Michael Small that’s unmistakably the work of its composer. The trailer and the vintage featurette “The Day of the Director” (in standard-def) are also included.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 22491
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3060 Post by AndyDursin » Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:54 pm

THE MUMMY (2017)
5/10

Image

A box-office dud in the U.S. that seemed to sum up the disinterest audiences had with much of Hollywood’s Summer ’17 offerings, the Tom Cruise version of THE MUMMY makes a fast track to home video next week, hoping there will be a more interested set of viewers for its meager brand of “contemporary monster fantasy.”

An uneasy marriage of a modern “Mummy” reboot, a would-be franchise starter for Universal’s so-called “Dark Universe” and a “Tom Cruise Movie” all at once, this thoroughly underwhelming adventure finds Cruise’s rogue-ish army captain and his compatriot (“New Girl”’s Jake Johnson) stumbling upon the ancient tomb of a cursed princess (Sofia Boutella) who killed her father and his infant son in order to claim power over their Egyptian kingdom. Unwittingly setting the female Mummy free, Ahmanet raises an army of the undead in London, where the mysterious Dr. Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe) and his associate (Annabelle Wallis) preside over a secret-team of researchers included to connect this “Mummy” with future Universal Monster reworkings – presuming any of those films now get made.

Boasting no less than a half-dozen credited screenwriters, this “Mummy” offers little of the rousing fun of Steven Sommers’ “Raiders”-esque period adventures, which were far more popular with audiences back in 1999 and 2001. Cruise tries extremely hard to inject some “fun” into Alex Kurtzman’s direction, but this is not a particularly well-executed film, showing strain from its thrifty (considering the material) budget and set-pieces completely by-the-numbers in their execution. Unimpressive special effects – look, underwater zombies! – and shockingly drab, mundane cinematography result in a dreary looking movie that doesn’t even make for an attractive 4K UHD presentation.

Throughout this film, I kept thinking back to the last time someone attempted a would-be franchise starter filled with classical “monster” characters – that being the last time Sean Connery was on-screen, in Fox’s 2003 disappointment “The League of Extraordinary Gentleman.” That film didn’t entirely work, but at least it was a more ambitious and exciting picture than this one. The idea of making a modern, female-centric “Mummy” isn’t unappealing on the surface, and perhaps Jon Spaights’ original concept was promising on paper. The final result, though, is a movie that feels like it’s being pulled in specific, contrasting directions (no surprise with Cruise surrogates David Koepp and Christopher McQuarrie among the movie’s writing staff): the Russell Crowe sequences stop the movie dead, there’s no chemistry between Cruise and either Wallis or Boutella, and the ending is a total whiff, setting up future adventures for Cruise’s reborn Monster God (or whatever he’s supposed to be) while failing to provide this particular story with a satisfying climax. It’s the total embodiment of a film being used as a commercial prop for a prospective series as opposed to a living, breathing cinematic entity of its own – a new kind of cinematic Mummy in all the wrong ways.

4K Rundown: Universal’s 4K UHD of “The Mummy” streets next week. As a result of the picture’s unappealing visual design, this is a competent yet mostly unremarkable UHD presentation that doesn’t offer a whole lot of pop or color texture in its HDR attributes. There are the occasional moments when flickering light or a splash of brightness makes the HDR stand out, but this disc is not one you’ll likely be reaching for to show off the benefits of 4K UHD to your friends (in fact, there’s more HDR “zing” in Universal’s 4K UHD releases of the original “Mummy Trilogy”). The Dolby Atmos audio is expectedly robust but also not entirely as aggressive as one might expect, while ample extras include a commentary track, deleted/extended sequences, a handful of featurettes taking viewers behind the scenes, the Blu-Ray release (whose transfer isn’t far removed from the UHD at all) and a Digital HD copy.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest