The Mummy: Resurrection is a British horror that comes from writer/director Steve Lawson (Jekyll and Hyde, Ripper Untold, Pentagram). Even if I hadn't known the director I would have easily been able to figure it out as this has an extremely similar style to his other films set in Victorian era London. Due to the similarities and a slightly wasted premise, this one didn't really do too much to excel.
Felix (Melvyn Rawlinson), a famed archaeologist, discovers the hidden burial place of an Egyptian princess, whose sarcophagus is said to be cursed. Fast forward to six months later and the elderly man has summoned his two nephews to his London home to announce that he is soon to pass away. Archie (Rafe Bird) is a bookish man whose study of the sciences have gave him the knowledge to be able to resurrect the recently deceased. The other nephew, Everett (Chris Bell - Ripper Untold) is an unscrupulous waster who has gotten into deep debt with a local murderous loan shark. Felix explains to the two men that he has the cursed sarcophagus hidden in his basement, and that it is to be bricked up upon his death. After Felix suddenly dies that night, after accidental exposure to the sarcophagus, Archie realises that the Egyptian curse actually has a scientific explanation, and is down to a toxin the coffin is coated in. Meanwhile, desperate to raise money to pay off his loan shark, Everett decides to blackmail Archie into assisting him. Their bizarre plan is to use Archie's knowledge of bringing the dead back to life, in order to resurrect the Egyptian princess' body and put her on display.
The reason this film felt so similar to Lawson's others is the exact same type of method used to simulate the film taking place in Victorian London. The main way this is done is by only featuring exterior shots of buildings, typically the top corner of one. Aside from that, and one tiny scene set in an alleyway, the entirety of The Mummy: Resurrection takes place in dimly lit singular rooms. This gives it a unified look that made it look so similar to the other films that at a glance it would be near impossible to identify them. The plot here felt a little stupid, the protagonist Archie may be painted as a hero type, yet he is very morally grey even without Everett's blackmail. This made him hard to really root for, in their own ways they were as bad as each other. Then you have Archie's love interest, Felix's maid, strangely continuing her job as a maid despite forming an attachment with the scientist whose house she works at.
I was expecting a modern day B-movie about a killer mummy, and instead we got something that was far less than that. This felt like a mash-up between Frankenstein and a mummy film. Outside of a few nightmare sequences, the titular mummy only makes a living appearance deep into the third act. Before that, the perfectly preserved corpse (that looks nothing like the misleading cover art) just lays there. It wasn't that the film was terrible, more that the format began to feel extremely familiar. Where I was more lenient before in my reviews, here it just felt almost pointless making yet another in this ilk. I appreciate it probably saves a heck of a lot on cost using the same techniques and seemingly same locations to film, but it doesn't make for a memorable movie. Lawson showed promise with Pentagram, so he is able to come up with compelling ideas.
Despite my over familiarity with the look of the movie, there is something of a guilty pleasure to be had watching it. The performances were perfectly suited, Bell in particular played his role well, but the plot was a little silly, and it was mainly light on any type of horror. The Mummy: Resurrection was due for release at the start of this month, thanks to High Fliers Films.
SCORE:
No comments:
Post a Comment