OSCARS 2023: The Whale (2022)

When it was announced that Darren Aronofsky would direct an adaptation of Samuel D. Hunter's play, “The Whale,” the project was met with equal parts excitement and trepidation.  Aronofsky remains a beloved auteur in many circles, though his reputation grown more divisive over the years. The film was spotlighted early on as a likely awards contender for Brendan Fraser, a prediction that has held true. At the same time, “The Whale” was derided even before it was released as fatphobic. A24, a company who pride themselves on selling unsellable arthouse fair to savvy viewers, seemed to base the entire advertising campaign around a single image. This prompted suggestions the project might be a fiasco. When reviews started to roll in, they were mixed, with raves coming alongside accusations that “The Whale” is a miserablist slog. The film remains hotly debated, though the Academy saw fit to give it three nominations. 

Eight years ago, English professor Charlie would leave his wife and daughter, Ellie, to pursue a relationship with Alan, a male student. Due to his family's religious background, Alan would eventually commit suicide. Heartbroken, Charlie would begin to binge eat. Now morbidly obese and confined to his home, Charlie teaches his class remotely and refuses to show his face. His only friend is Liz, his nurse and Alan's brother, who knows Charlie's congestive heart failure will end his life soon. Following an appearance from Thomas, a missionary from the same church Alan came from, Charlie makes one last desperate attempt to reach out to a now teenage Ellie. She still resents her father but, seesawing between hope and despair, Charlie attempts to break through her thorny exterior. 

“The Whale” contains emotions to match the size of its protagonists. By which I mean that this is a melodrama with a capital M. Characters cry and weep, in agony and joy. They scream and swear at each other, blowing all their anger and frustration at one another. Every thought and feeling is expressed in very big, showy manners. Ellie and Charlie's interactions are never less than fraught with lifelong resentment. When his ex-wife finally appears on-screen, the history between the two comes right up to the surface. Liz gives a monologue to Thomas midway through the film, explaining her and Alan's background, that is an Oscar clip moment if I've ever seen one. This approach will put many viewers off, “The Whale” coming across as an over-the-top display of ghastly emotion.

Yet melodrama has its place, on the stage most of all. I actually find the emotions in “The Whale”  rather effective. This is a movie determined to get tears out of the audience, to make you cry from the sheer pathetic humanity on-display. In service of that goal, the script hammers the viewer over the head with its themes. Charlie repeatedly expresses the importance of honesty, of being truthful to yourself and with others. Despite this being a movie where plenty of cruelty is shown, it's ultimately a story about forgiveness and acceptance. About how people are, ultimately, good and kind. If you, by some chance, missed these ideas, the characters outright say them into the camera several times. 

If you've got a taste for melodrama that wears its ambitions and emotions right on its plus-sized sleeves, than “The Whale” will definitely activate your waterworks. Yet the film often gave me reason to doubt its sincerity. Darren Aronofsky's directorial style is claustrophobic and grungy, bringing his work on “Requiem for a Dream” to mind. That movie was a punishing gauntlet for the viewer. “The Whale” often operates in a similar vein. The screaming volume of its emotional content can't help but make you uncomfortable. An oppressive atmosphere of smothering despair hangs over much of the proceedings, emphasized by how cramped and disorderly Charlie's apartment is. (The film is set against the backdrop of the 2016 election, with talks of the end time from Thomas, furthering this apocalyptic feeling.)  

Perhaps Aronofsky was seeking to make the audience feel the same way Charlie does, suffocating under his own mass. It certainly draws lots of attention to his physical appearance. His sweaty, greasy folds and mounds of fat are made as grotesque as possible. We see him in various states of undress, his gut practically dragging on the floor. He's always covered in flop sweat, his hair sticking to his head, whether he's choking on a meatball sub or just sitting on his couch. That sense that “The Whale” is as much freakish geek show as it is exploration of human failings reaches its nadir during a scene of Charlie binge-eating in depression, climaxing with him vomiting into a bucket. Those who prematurely accused “The Whale” of fatphobia were, I'm afraid, right to be concerned. As much as Aronofsky claims to want to show Charlie's humanity, it reacts at disgust to his body as much as several characters do throughout the film.

Whether you find “The Whale's” approach off-putting, overbearing, or dishonest, it remains a display for its cast. Brendan Fraser always exuded an incredible sincerity, whether it was a serious drama like “School Ties” or “Gods & Monsters” or light-hearted comedies like “Encino Man” or “George of the Jungle.”  This is probably why so many people on the internet have come to cheer him on during his comeback, likely to reach fruition with his Oscar win for this performance. It's a good use of Fraser, who sells the gasping-emotions of Charlie as he faces down his final days. Even if Fraser is much more believable when delivering Charlie's dissertations on kindness, than he is when wallowing in self-loathing. Fraser is given strong support from Sadie Sink, who keeps up a prickly exterior that's clearly hiding a vulnerable inner child. As well as Hong Chau as Liz, a practical woman who is desperately trying to hold it together in the face of inevitable tragedy.

“The Whale's” overwrought melodrama continues up until the final moment, which is by far the film's most ponderous scene. It's a hard film to like, Aronofsky's edge-lord tendencies betraying him more than once as he stops to focus on the humiliating, dehumanizing elements of Charlie's struggle. Or in Ellie's frankly bitchy behavior. This can't help but undermine a script that is trying to find the best in everyone. The result is a movie that feels depressing and off-putting for its own sake. This makes it all the odder that Aronofsky retains all the sappy elements from the original play. The result is a movie I'm not sure at all how to respond to, beyond admiring the performances. “The Whale” is either well-intentioned but wildly misguided or deeply cynical to its core and I can't tell which. [6/10]

Director Report Card: Michael Lehmann (1994)

4. Airheads

How do you come back from making one of the most notorious critical punching bags of the nineties? This was the question facing... Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski, after writing the widely loathed “Problem Child” films. The screenwriters found themselves emphasizing with a man widely considered the worst filmmaker of all time: Edward D. Wood Jr. They wrote a script about the man, that celebrated him, instead of mocking him. The duo found a kindred spirit in Michael Lehman, whose own career had been stained by making “Hudson Hawk.” The project would've been a fitting comeback vehicle for Lehman. The “Ed Wood” script ended up in the hands of Tim Burton, who loved it and desperately wanted to produce it... But only if he could direct it too. And, I guess, if you had to choose between the guy who made “Batman” directing your movie and the guy who made “Hudson Hawk,” you'd choose Burton too. 

Instead of “Ed Wood,” Lehmann chose a goofy comedy script from Rich Wilkes as his next project. “Airheads” follows Chazz, would-be rock star and lead singer of struggling metal band The Lone Rangers. After another failed attempt to get a record exec's attention, and getting dumped by his girlfriend, Chazz and his band mates – scheming bassist Rex and simpleton drummer Pip – get desperate. Armed with water pistols filled with hot sauce, the trio break into radio station KPPX. Things accidentally escalate into a hostage situation. Left on the air, the band tries to locate a playable copy of their demo, struggle with their newfound infamy, butt heads with the cops, reconnect with the women in their lives, and become rock folk heroes. 

There's an underappreciated little subgenre that I'm unusually fond of. I call them “dude movies.” These are motion pictures, always within the comedy genre, that follow goofy best friends on some sort of wacky adventure. There are usually two of them. They are almost always male. (Though a “dude movie” starring women would be a really neat twist.) Frequently, though not always, these dudes are made dudes by their surfer slang and love of heavy metal music. “Bill & Ted” and “Wayne's World” are the superstars of this small subgenre. “Airheads” fits comfortably into the dudes template, even if it follows three metal-obsessed screwballs who get into some shenanigans. A built-in fondness for exactly this kind of wackiness means I might be more susceptible to “Airheads'” questionable charms then some might be. 

While many dude movies just use the metalhead aesthetic for ambiance, spinning their stories off in off-beat directions, “Airheads” is explicitly concerned with the value of rock music. Like all true rock 'n' roll movies, it's really about the struggle to maintain the integrity of the music. Chazz and his band mates consider themselves “real” rock musicians, compared to the posers that fill the scene. Upon discovering that KPPX is going to be converted into a soft jazz station, everyone is outraged. When their infamy as criminals seemingly secures the Lone Rangers a contract, he's ultimately aghast. He wants to be famous for his music, not his reputation! The film repeatedly puts these clueless rock wannabes in conflict with feckless executives and square authority figures. This puts “Airheads” in a long line of movies and stories in which rock musicians struggle for authenticity in an industry built upon selling out.

The dudes genre is, in many ways, forever linked to the eighties idea of what a rock star is. “Airheads” is too. At one point, Chazz dismisses the music coming out of Seattle at the time, which is obviously a reference to the grunge genre that would completely displace metal's prominence in popular culture for most of the decade. Yet, watching “Airheads” tonight, I can't help but feel it's one of the most nineties movies I've ever seen. The central trio wear a lot of sleeveless flannel, headbands, Doc Martens, and acid-wash jeans. CDs and cassette tapes are reoccurring plot points. Rex works in an unnamed toy store that is pretty clearly a Toys-R-Us, back in the days when that chain was a series of dingy warehouses. The shelves are lined with then relevant but now retro toy lines, like “Crash Test Dummies” or the 90s version of “Stretch Armstrong.” The film begins with a stop-motion animation opening credits scene, which just hangs heavy with the atmosphere of my youth. And Beavis and Butthead have a cameo. Through no intentional moves, “Airheads” became an amusing time capsule of a specific time. 

Watching “Airheads” after seeing Michael Lehmann's first three features, you don't see too many of his trademarks. The stylized production design and heightened cinematography of “Heathers” and “Meet the Applegates” is nowhere to be seen here. Cinematographer John Schwartzman and production designer David Nichols do largely forgettable work. Yet there is a little taste of “Heathers” in “Airheads,” largely thanks to its frequently surreal dialogue. The metalheads toss around a number of bizarre insults, such as shouting “penis” in a weird way or referring to each other derisively as “femmes.” The script even mocks its own weird language, in a moment when the radio station owner attempts to replicate the style of speech. There's nothing here as iconic as “Fuck me gently with a chainsaw” but someone does threaten to stab a person with his dick.

Truthfully, what ends up making “Airheads” really work for me is, I think, its cast. Years before Brendan Fraser would be critically reevaluated as an incredibly charming matinee idol, and even before the peak of his goofy action hero stardom, he made wacky comedies like this. There's no doubt that “Airheads” makes good use of Fraser's himbo charms. From any practical perspective, Chazz is sort of a dick. He does disregard his girlfriend's feelings in favor of obsessing over his rock star dream, which definitely seems increasingly pathetic as the story goes on. Yet Fraser manages to make him more lovable than not. Chazz is definitely a doof but Fraser also gives him a vulnerable side, allowing us to warm up to him and even root for him eventually. 

“Airheads” is also notable as an off-beat starring role for Steve Buschemi. Buscemi has starred in a couple of comedies over the years but he's not usually playing a long-haired metalhead type. Yet he's good casting in the role of Rex. Buscemi, after all, has an edgy, slightly unhinged quality. When you pair that with long hair and punk fashion, it really makes Rex look like a greasy weirdo. (A fitting addition to any metal band.) The character also fits comfortably into the kind of comedic roles Buscemi usually plays: That of someone who grossly overestimates his own brilliance and frequently rushes into plans without thinking them through. It's a good use of the eccentric character actor. 

If “Airheads” is remembered for nothing else, it's for being an early role for Adam Sandler. This one was released a year before “Billy Madison” came out, taking Sandler from a popular stand-up and beloved “SNL” cast member to the biggest comedy star of the decade. And even this early in Sandler's cinematic career, his screen persona was fairly well established. Pip is utterly child-like in his personality. He talks in a stilted way, often makes bizarre leaps in logic, and is prone to mistakes. The explosive rage and inexplicable talent Sandler characters usually have is, in Pip, replaced with an mysterious popularity with the ladies. Women find Pip irresistible, which plays like another one of “Airheads'” absurd jokes. Whether you find Sandler's act charming or obnoxious is a matter of opinion but he does provide a nice counterbalance to the other characters in the film.

Sandler isn't the only adored “Saturday Night Live” cast member of the nineties to appear in “Airheads.” Chris Farley appears as one of the cops assigned to meet the Lone Rangers' ridiculous demands. Farley steals the few scenes he's in, as a nervous guy who is eager to please and prone to occasional outbursts of genius. “Airheads” actually has a surprisingly stacked supporting cast. Ernie Hudson is Farley's commanding officer, doing a good job of being a straight man to the movie's wackiness. A young David Arquette has a largely unnecessary appearance as an oddball guy in the station, who doesn't contribute anything to the story but is appreciated. Michael McKean appears as the duplicitous manager of the radio station, who is suitably whiny and square. Joe Mantegna is well utilized as the deejay, who is sympathetic to the band's scheme and gets off a couple of good one-liners.

Another way you can tell “Airheads” was made in the nineties is that it contains an extended parody of “Die Hard.” And it stars Michael Richards, back when he could've parlayed his status as Kramer into some sort of stand alone career. Richards plays an incredibly neurotic radio employee who unwittingly ends up hiding in the ventilation system of the radio station, communicating with the cops on the outside. Richards gets to enact some amusing slapstick in these sequences, hurting himself in increasingly unlikely ways as he stumbles through the vents above. He also has a line to the cops on the outside, who – in a funny gag – constantly misunderstands what he's saying. Honestly, I could imagine someone trying to expand this entire concept into its own movie. In “Airheads,” it's just one amusingly silly component of the story. 

It's hard to say a movie like “Airheads” is really about anything. This is a gleefully dumb comedy and not one to be thought about that deeply. However, a theme of sorts does emerge. At the beginning of the story, Chazz doesn't really respect his girlfriend. He prioritizes his own ambitions over her's, expecting her to do all the work while he pursues his wild dream. Similarly, a minor character in the film is a police captain who is going through a psychotically tense break-up with his wife. Ya know, maybe it's just the standards of nineties comedies aimed at teenage boys, but it definitely feels like men having issues with women is a topic rolling around in this movie's empty head. Notably, Chazz' girlfriend comes to forgive him largely because he drops his macho demeanor and not so much because he changes his behavior, so don't think the film is progressive in any way. Yet it's kind of interesting. 

And, of course, it's only fitting that “Airheads” has a pretty good soundtrack. It features some choice cuts from White Zombie, Motorhead, Dim Stars, and Primus. (Rob Zombie and Lemmy both have cameos in the movie, to boot.) While mocked throughout the film, the Lone Rangers' single actually isn't a bad vaguely hardcore style punk/metal number. Despite seemingly having a lot in its favor, “Airheads” was not successful upon release. It grossed far less than its 11 million dollar budget at the box office. Critically, it was reviled and even made a couple of Worst Of lists at the end of the year. That definitely seems like a bit of an overreaction to me. “Airheads” is goofy, kind of dumb, and light-weight as can be. Yet it's also frequently charming, has a surprisingly good cast, and made me laugh a decent number of times. This has earned the movie a small cult following, that has kept it being totally forgotten. When watched on a lazy afternoon, with no expectations, it can definitely scratch an inch for a silly comedy. [Grade: B-]

Director Report Card: Joe Dante (2003)

16. Looney Tunes: Back in Action

In 1996, “Space Jam” was released. A feature film adaptation of a series of Nikes commercial, it was a commercial success. In the years since, the film has become something of a touch stone for nineties kid culture, an unironically beloved source of nostalgia for folks now in their late twenties and thirties. But I'm here to tell you that “Space Jam” sucks now and sucked back then. Even as a kid, I was utterly disappointed in that film. I wasn't the only one. Hardcore Looney Tunes fans hated “Space Jam” too, for the way it attempted to make the classic cartoon character “hip and edgy” for then-modern sensibilities. After various attempts to produce a direct sequel to “Space Jam” failed, someone had the idea to invite Joe Dante – obviously a huge fan of the classic cartoons – to make his own Looney Tunes feature. “Looney Tunes: Back in Action” would attempt to re-introduce these classic characters to audiences that had maybe forgotten about them.

“Looney Tunes: Back in Action” functions under the “Roger Rabbit”-like premise that Bugs, Daffy, and their follow toon cohorts are cartoon actors that interact with flesh-and-blood people and star in movies. During production of Bugs' latest project, Daffy feuds with Kate Houghton, vice president of Warner Brothers. The duck gets fired and is escorted off the set by security guard/aspiring stunt-double DJ Drake. DJ is the son of Damian Drake, a hugely popular star of spy movies... Who is an actual spy. DJ discovers his dad has been kidnapped by the villainous ACME Corporation, who search for a magical artifact called the Blue Monkey. At the same time, Kate realizes firing Daffy was a mistake and attempts to find the duck and Bugs Bunny again. Soon, all four of them are tossed together on an adventure.

From the beginning, the main goal of “Back in Action” was to make a new Looney Tunes film that was as faithful to the old cartoons as possible. This is a goal Dante's film succeeds wildly at. There is no attempt to modernize these characters, their personalities being willfully retro. Bugs is a smart-ass that is always ahead of his challengers, everything rolling off his back. Daffy is a manic clown who has an ego about him despite the universe constantly crapping on him. The film focuses in on these two toons, their rivalry and begrudgingly friendship, and the wonderful interplay they have. This allows “Back in Action” to build a long series of quick-witted one-liners and amusingly wacky sight gags.

In order to tie together its multiple gags, “Back in Action” creates a plot that is a goofy spoof of spy movies. Damian Drake is a James Bond-like figure and we know this because he's played by former Bond, Timothy Dalton. The largely inconsequential story follows the spy movie set-up of an evil villain and a group of good guys, locked in a race to retrieve a MacGuffin first. Riffing on spy formulas lead to a number of amusing gags. Such as a high-tech spy car with a number of overbearing features. Or the way Damian Drake is introduced, attempting a video call while shrugging his way through a series of stock henchmen. The tuxedos, martinis, and sexy female co-stars – such as Heather Locklear appearing as a Vegas showgirl and in a skin-tight cat suit – all make appearances and are gently mocked.

Making Bugs and Daffy the cartoon protagonists of “Back in Action” was probably a decent idea for a number of reasons. However, Dante and his gang of writers clearly wanted to squeeze in as many classic Looney Tunes characters as possible. So the loose plot sometimes feels like a series of cameos strung together. Some of these are more natural than others. Elmer Fudd and Marvin the Martian eventually being deployed by the ACME Corporation as enforcers makes a certain degree of sense. The Tazmanian Devil and Wile E. Coyote showing up in the same roles feel kind of random. Yosemite Sam's role, as the owner of a night club, feels like a somewhat unnatural pick for that character. Bit appearances from Foghorn Leghorn, Peppe le Pew, and Sylvester and Tweety feel included more because people would've been disappointed if they hadn't shown up.

The loose story has other disadvantages too. The plot of “Looney Tunes: Back in Action” reminds me a lot of the comedy scripts my friends and I would write back in middle school. It's a series of gags connected by almost nothing, the story bending in ever-wackier directions in order to justify crazier gags. I'm fine with this up to a point – and I have no doubt that “Back in Action” is way funnier than those old scripts of mine – but it does create some problems with pacing. Dante's film is only 91 minutes long but it's still unable to maintain that manic pacing the whole time. The movie starts to tire and ware on the audience right around the time Bugs Bunny turns a carrot into a lightsaber.

Whatever flaws “Back in Action” might have, the film definitely has its share of inspired gags. Its globe-trotting story eventually takes the characters to Paris, France. At this point, Elmer Fudd chases Bugs and Daffy into the Louve. The characters end up leaping into the various paintings, hoping to escape the hunter. The result is a hilarious series of sight gags, showing the classic cartoon character interacting with the different painting styles. So Bugs and Daffy melt and twist while running through the landscapes of Dali's “The Persistence of Memory.” Faces morph into exaggerated shrieks while stepping inside Munch's “The Scream.” They are rendered in the dotty Pointillism style while traveling inside Seurat's “A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte.” These are probably not the kind of jokes little kids would love but they cracked me up.

A similarly insular collection of gags occur in an earlier scene in the film. While wandering the desert – and making an amusingly product placement filled visit to Wal-Mart – the quartet enter Area 52. There's a goofy plot justification for this but it's mostly in the movie so Dante can insert as many references to classic sci-fi/horror as he can muster. And it's sort of beautiful. Robby the Robot is there. So is Kevin McCarthy, appearing in black-and-white and screaming about how “you're next.”  (Just to make sure the reference is understood, he's also shown carrying a pod.) Once the aliens are unleashed, Dante really goes into overdrive. Ro-Man, a Dalek, a Triffid, a delightfully squishy Metaluna Mutant, the Man from Planet X and the Fiend Without a Face all appear in quick succession. What an amazing monster movie mash-up. It's another brilliant series of gags that were unlikely to be appreciated by the kids watching this movie in 2003.

Many of the vintage Looney Tunes shorts had a fast-and-loose relationship with the fourth wall. “Duck Amuck” is only the most famous example of Daffy and the gang violating the border between the fictional world and the real world. “Back in Action” happily continues this tradition. More than once, Daffy and Bugs acknowledge the audience. They crack one-liners about the quality of the story or the jokes they are telling. At one point, a flying car stunt comes to a sudden end... Before Kate acknowledges the cartoon logic at work here, the car falling from the sky at that point. Most amusingly are the unexpected breaks of reality. Such as DJ Drake, played by Brendon Fraser, being the stunt double... For Brendon Fraser. (DJ's plot concluding with him punching out Fraser – Fraser knocking himself down – plays like some weird meta comment on the actor's own career.) Or a hilarious bit where cartoon Shaggy threatens real life Shaggy Matthew Lillard.

The animated parts of “Looney Tunes: Back in Action” were directed by Eric Goldberg, who previously animated Genie in Disney's “Aladdin.” The animation in “Back in Action” is excellent. The cartoon characters look and move just as you'd expect them too, even if they look a little more crisp and smooth than I'd prefer. What's even more impressive is how seamlessly the interactions between the live actors and the cartoons are. Never for a minute do you doubt that these characters, flesh and blood and ink and paint, are occupying the same space. Look at a fight scene between Fraser and the cartoon bodyguards of Sam's night club. That moment is certainly a lot smoother than a later moment, when Fraser fights a giant, CGI, robot watch-dog. As if you needed any further proof that cel animation is superior to computer animation.

“Space Jam” was undeniably a product of 1996. “Back in Action,” do to its blatant attempt to replicate older media, is not as immediately dated... Assuming you ignore who stars in it. This film was made during a brief period when Brendan Fraser and Jenna Elfman could've been considered viable box office stars. Surprisingly, both performers are perfectly on the film's wavelength. Both largely play the straight-men to their animated co-stars. Fraser is frequently very funny, a big guy that reacts with the right breed of absurd aggravation to the literal cartoons around him. Elfman, meanwhile, is similarly in-on-the-joke. Moreover, the two have good chemistry together.

The film has its share of cameos. From performers who were highly relevant at the time, like NASCAR Jeff Gordon or pro-wrestler Bill Goldberg. Others were clearly inserted at Dante's insistent, like Ron Perlman, Peter Graves as a secret agent, and his regulars Dick Miller, Robert Picardo, and Roger Corman. The other big star in the movie is Steve Martin, as the villainous Chairman of ACME Corporation. This was during that weird period when Martin was squandering all the good will he built up by starring in shit like “Bringing Down the House” and “The Pink Panther.” Martin is surprisingly awful here. Wearing an unflattering wig and glasses, he hams it up to uncomfortable levels.

Dante described the production of “Back in Action” as a rigorous one. The producers making the film did not understand the approach his fidelity to the source material, his insistence on maintaining the spirit of the Looney Tunes. He claims he had no creative control over the film at all. Knowing this, it's amazing that “Looney Tunes: Back in Action” ended up being a generally entertaining and consistently funny film. Audiences were not interested in the revival though. The film was a flop, grossing only 68 million worldwide against a 80 million dollar budget. This killed future plans for other Looney Tunes movies. It's only now that Warner Brothers is attempting another one and it's a much demanded (for some damn reason) follow-up to “Space Jam 2.” For true animation nerds, “Back in Action” is clearly the superior approach to Bugs, Daffy, and the gang. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Stephen Sommers (2009)

8. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

For years, blockbuster films have sold toys. With the success of Michael Bay's “Transformers,” studio execs suddenly had the realization that they could cut out the middle man and just make blockbusters about toys. “Transformers'” success led to a flurry of toy-based movies getting greenlit. A few of these – like “The LEGO Movie” or “Battleship” – made it to theater screens. Most of them – “M.A.S.K.,” a new “Clue,” a new "He-Man," “Frisbee,” a “Monopoly” movie directed by Ridley Scott for some reason – failed to materialize. As Hasbro's second biggest action brand after “Transformers,” a “G.I. Joe” film emerged as well. Unlike most of those toy lines, which barely had enough substance to support a film. “G.I. Joe” had years of cartoons and comic books to pull from. Though less popular than the giant robot movies, “G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra” still launched a franchise of sorts.

In the not too distant future, weapons manufacturer James McCullen has invented a frightening new type of war machine: Missiles equipped with nanobots, which can eat away at any metallic substance. Secretly, McCullen is the head of an terrorist cell and has used the technology to create an army of super-soldiers and hi-tech weapons. He has plans for world domination. Opposing him is G.I. Joe, a secret military organization. Duke and Ripcord, two regular soldiers, end up discovering the Joes and being recruited. Together, they work to stop McCullen and his cohorts' schemes. Duke, however, has an unexpected personal connection to the bad guys.

On paper, Stephen Sommers seems like a solid choice to direct a “G.I. Joe” movie. A lot of his films resemble Saturday morning cartoons already. “The Rise of Cobra” attempts to capture the spirit of a children's cartoon show. So there's a lot of plot points you're just not suppose to think about too hard. How can a covert operation as huge as the Joes operate in secret? How can the bad guys afford to build a huge underwater base and hundreds of vehicles? “Don't worry about it,” the movie whispers. However, “G.I. Joe” eventually becomes too dumb to be entertaining. A secret military group is one thing but how can it be secret when its agents rampage through a major city? How can G.I. Joe be so wide ranging but so easily infiltrated? Why do the villains not notice Duke activating a tracking device near the end? The film is ultimately too preposterous to be entertaining.

While I've been know to enjoy a “Transformers” action figure or cartoon show in my time, “Beast Wars” especially, I never had much fondness for “G.I. Joe.” Robots and dinosaurs trumped army guys, in my youthful eyes. I think my greatest attachment to the show was thinking the Baroness was really attractive. Yet even I can tell that “The Rise of Cobra” deviates greatly from the source material. The film attempts to build an origin story for Cobra, the Joes' enemies. Yet we have little reasons to care about how Destro, the Baroness, and Cobra Commander came to be when they barely resemble the versions we know. Many of the defining characteristics of the Joes are stripped away. Not to mention the visual design is vastly different and simply not as appealing.

While “The Rise of Cobra” is practically “G.I. Joe” in-name-only, the film is also hampered by an overemphasis on back story. The film frequently pauses the pace cold, in order to explain the character's origins. The movie opens with an irrelevant flashback, showing Destro's ancestor. Later, we learn all about Duke, his relationship with his girlfriend and his presumed dead brother-in-law. There are long moments explaining Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow's young adventures. “The Rise of Cobra” stops just short of explaining the life stories of everyone in the film. This stuff not only kills the story's forward-momentum, it also leads to a script that feels weirdly uneven.

I definitely recall “Joe” fans being concerned when it was announced that Marlon Wayans would star in the movie. The filmmakers assured the fans that Wayans' brand of broad comedy would not destroy the film. Fans' fears would be well-founded. The comic relief in “G.I. Joe” is painfully bad. Wayans' character, Ripcord, is so grossly incompetent that you don't know why he's allowed to stay on the team. While wearing a high-tech powered armor, he makes a mess in Paris and then cracks especially weak quips about it. He hits on a female co-worker in crude ways  that would surely classify as sexual harassment. Characters frequently make off-hand remarks and crack jokes, all of which take the viewer out of the film due to how weak they are.

Sommers was supposedly attracted to the material due to its resemblance to the “James Bond” franchise, a series he already pay homage to in “Van Helsing.”  However, this love for elaborate gadgets ends up derailing the film. Goofy vehicles and gimmicks obviously have their place in the “G.I. Joe” franchise but the movie possibly takes it too far. The film pauses to linger on fancy vehicles, like drilling submarines or overly complex jet-packs. One especially egregious example is a camouflage suit that makes its wearer all-but invisible. A character slips into the suit during a fight where it's almost useless. The prop is then never mentioned again. It seems a lot of this stuff was included just because the director thought it was cool.

As an action movie, “The Rise of Cobra” satisfies at least some of the time. The hand-to-hand combat scenes are well choreographed. There's a pretty cool moment where a fight breaks out during a vehicle chase, Snake Eyes reaching through a vehicle and being repeatedly blocked. The ninjas continue to be a source of decent action. During a flashback to their youthful days, Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow leap over a hot stove. Later, the two have a pretty neat sword fight near the end, leaping between bars of burning electricity. There's also a surprisingly brutal fist fight between Scarlet and Baroness.

However, many of the other action scenes are less satisfying. Sommers' tendency to lean on CGI effects continues in “G.I. Joe.”  The computer generated images are generally more convincing than those seen in “The Mummy Returns” and “Van Helsing.” The green fart clouds of nanites look pretty bad but, otherwise, it's okay. Instead, CGI is used to casually violate the laws of physics. The film's own frail sense of reality is foiled but the overly elaborate effects. Like the entire sequence devoted to the Accelerator Suits, likely included to ride 'Iron Man's” coattails. Characters leap through the air, while surrounded by increasingly larger explosions, in a way that becomes cartoonish. A later submarine chase has a similar problems, the film becoming completely detach from believably.

Even more disconcerting is how unpolished many of those action scenes are. This is not Sommers best directed movie. He's smart enough to stay focused on the big CGI set pieces and the decently prepared melee fights. However, the movie largely lacks the energetic and clear direction that distinguished his work up to now. The Paris chase scene is frequently difficult to follow, especially once the pursuers enter a train station. The concluding raid on Cobra's aquatic base is overly dark and blurry. There's even a few instances of shaky-cam! There's at least one moment of slow-mo too, though thankfully no crash zooms.

The film's cast is another problem. Channing Tatum stars as Duke. This was before Tatum reinvent himself as America's lovably doofy older brother. At this point in his career, he was just a slab of bland, hunky meat. As Duke, Tatum is never convincing. He is unable to bring any life or personality to a thinly defined character. Tatum isn't the only talented actor wasted in the film. Rachel Nichols' Scarlet is treated terribly. She parades around in revealing outfits, the film lingering on her cleavage. Despite supposedly being a highly trained agent, Scarlet is repeatedly beaten, outsmarted, or made a fool of. It's embarrassing and I feel bad that this was what Nichols was given to work with. (Considering another female character is brutally killed on-screen, “G.I. Joe” ends up feeling distressingly sexist.)

The rest of the cast is more varied. Dennis Quaid does an amusing John Wayne impersonation as Hawk, the Joes' commanding officer. Most of the villains seem to be having fun. Christopher Eccleston and Joseph Gordon Levitt happily ham it up as the soon-to-be Destro and Cobra Commander. Arnold Vosloo enjoys his sadistic villainy as Zartan while Lee Byung-hun is intense and intimidating as Storm Shadow. Yet for every enjoyable performance, there's an underwhelming one. Like Wayans, who nearly destroys the movie single-handedly. Or Sienna Miller, as the Baroness, who seems way out of her element. (Sommers sneaks in cameos for Brenden Fraser and Kevin J. O'Conner, in case you were wondering.)

Following “Transformers'” lead, Paramount and Hasbro hoped to launch a franchise with “G.I. Joe.” The film is peppered with sequel hooks. By the end, Duke and Ripcord are established as Joes, Cobra has risen as a formidable foe, and the President has been replaced with an evil doppelganger. The film was a financial success but was poorly received by fans and critics. The eventual sequel ejected, killed off, or flat-out ignored many of the original's characters and story points. And was likely better for it. I actually sort of liked “Rise of Cobra” the first time I saw it, enjoying it for a brainless popcorn flick. I guess I've gotten grouchier in the last eight years, as I found this to be one of Sommers' weakest films upon re-watch. [Grade: C] 

RECENT WATCHES: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

“The Mummy Returns” made lots of money but the franchise, for the most part, seemed to have run its course. Universal didn't seem to think so. In 2006, they randomly announced a Rick O'Connell solo movie, presumably focusing on his pre-”Mummy” adventures. This project quickly morphed into a third “Mummy” movie. Stephen Sommers and Rachel Weisz both opted out but the project continued forward anyway, with “The Fast and the Furious” and “xXx's” Rob Cohen directing. “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” promised to relaunch the franchise. Well, the movie also made money but fans hated it, forcing Universal to put the Mummy on ice for ten years and finish this iteration of the franchise altogether.

Set thirteen years after the events of “The Mummy Returns,” Rick and Evey O'Connell are now retired from a career as World War II-era spies. Evie now writes romance novels based on their adventures while Rick, uneasily, settles into a domestic life. Their son, Alex, is now twenty and has grown into an adventurer himself. In China, he uncovers the tomb of the Dragon Emperor. The emperor built the Great Wall of China, mastered the five elements, and sought to become immortal but was cursed to become a deathless mummy instead. Naturally, a conspiracy awakens the Dragon Emperor, forcing the O'Connells to team up with the guardians of the emperor's tomb and save the world again.

I can't believe I'm saying this: Rob Cohen's direction makes me yearn for the comparatively subtle filmmaking of Stephen Sommers. For a man who has directed some enormous hits, I'm shocked at how clumsy Cohen's direction is. While exploring the titular tomb – which actually plays a small role in the film – Alex and his friends set off some booby traps. One, a spinning death disc that somehow seeks out its victims, seems to literally come out of nowhere. Later, the Dragon Emperor decapitates a minor villain. We never actually see the blow. We only see the guy's head fly through the air in slow-motion. Throughout the film, Cohen employs some deeply tacky visual stunts. In addition to his abuse of slow-motion and shakycam, Cohen is also fond of tossing shit into the camera. Sommers did the same thing in his two “Mummy” films but Cohen takes it so far, that the audience feels like their eyes are being gouged out.

Scripting-wise, “Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” is really no more or less silly or dumb than Sommers' “Mummy” films. The story is another lame MacGuffin chase that features successively bigger scenes of CGI-assisted action. There's even some conceptually fun ideas in the film. Such as Jet Li kicking a rocket into a trolley train. Some of the goofiness seems like a natural extension of the Chinese setting. Such as the field goal kicking yetis, the Terracotta soldiers, or the Dragon Emperor turning into both King Ghidorah and King Caesar. The execution of these ideas, however, leave something to be desire. As “The Mummy” trilogy went on, the CGI somehow got worst. The yetis look unnaturally light-weight. The Emperor's mummy form is stiff and doll-like. The various transformations are cartoonish. The army of good mummy soldiers that show up at the end look like Playstation 2 era cut scenes. How does a movie made in 1999 have better digital effects than a movie made in 2007? The mind baffles.

“Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” does have a pretty good cast. Getting Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh in the sequel should've been big deals. Yeoh is as radiant as ever but the script has her dully barking exposition. Li, meanwhile, is mostly replaced with CGI, reducing his natural charisma. As for the other new additions to the cast, they fare worst. Alex O'Connell is ten years older but still super annoying. Luke Ford plays him as a posturing, would-be macho bad ass that gets on the audience's nerves. Maria Bello, on paper, seems like a decent replacement for Rachel Weisz. In practice, Bello goes for exaggerated camp, instead of Weisz' sweet sincerity. Brenden Fraser, meanwhile, just seems tired. John Hannah, returning as Jonathan, struggles to get laughs out of dire material, such as falling in love with a yak puppet.

Expanding the “Mummy” franchise past Egypt is kind of a neat idea. This one covers China. The final scene promises a fourth adventure in Central America. You can envision a further sequel inspired by the bog mummies of Europe. Sadly, “Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” is a trite, weary affair. None of the cast members want to be there. The script is lame. The effects are terrible and the action is a mess. The sequel provides further proof that some things – evil mummies, over-the-hill action franchises – should stay dead. [5/10]

Director Report Card: Stephen Sommers (2001)

6. The Mummy Returns

Stephen Sommers' “The Mummy” would gross over 400 million dollars, which was an even bigger number in 1999. Supposedly, the day after the film opened in theaters, Universal executives called the director up, demanding he make a sequel. Sommers went right to work on “The Mummy Returns.” The sequel would have a surprisingly fast production, coming out only two years after the first film. “The Mummy Returns” would nearly match the “The Mummy's” box office and launch the career of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Reviews, however, were not especially kind at the time, most critics calling it inferior to the first. Certain fans, however, love part two just as much as part one. I shared that opinion as a kid but it's fair to say my taste have evolved a bit since then.

Ten years after the events of “The Mummy,” Rick O'Connel and Evie have married. Their son, Alex, is just as precocious as his parents. Through their adventures, they uncover a magical bracelet related to the Scorpion King. An ancient warlord, the Scorpion King made a deal with the god Anubis, granting him terrible powers. Now, it's said that whoever controls the Scorpion King's powers will tumble empires. A group of villains resurrect Imhotep, with the goal of killing the Scorpion King and ruling the world. Alex ends up with the magical bracelet strapped to his arms. The bad guys take him and his parents have to rescue him, along with stopping the Mummy and defeating the Scorpion King.

“The Mummy Returns” is the purest definition of an excessive sequel. The movie sets out to top the spectacle of the original in every way. It outright references many of the first film's beloved gags. Meanwhile, it piles on the CGI, subplots, monsters and madness. Sommers' sequel is so determined to be bigger than the original in every way, that many of the elements that made the first film charming are left out. Characters are lost in a sea of special effects and sloppy writing. That last point especially sticks in my teeth. Many times, it becomes apparent that “The Mummy Returns” was written and produced quickly, to cash in on the original while it was still fresh in the public's mind.

The first “Mummy” had a MacGuffin or two. It threw in some poorly explained lore. The sequel, meanwhile, is practically built upon these things. There's at least three magical artifacts. There's a number of mythological events that must be completed for the plot to advance. If this person isn't in this location by this time, they'll die. If you do this to this person, this other thing will happen. Characters gain and loose superpowers as the script demands it. Exposition is heaped on the viewer by the bucket load. The script is a tangled mess of bullshit that barely makes any sense within its own universe, much less our's.

There's a story troupe I dislike that “The Mummy Returns” is especially guilty off. All the characters are connected by some grand destiny. In the sequel, we discover that Evie is the reincarnation of an Egyptian princess. But not just any princess but the daughter of the Pharaoh that Imhotep killed. Turns out she had a rivalry with Anck-Su-Namun, which is reignited when Evie meets her reincarnated soul. This is a real ass-pull of a plot point, barely justify by a brief line in the original where Evie mentions she has Egyptian blood. "The Mummy Returns" doesn't stop there. Rick, we learn, has a significant tattoo that marks him as a Medjai, part of a sacred order of chosen warriors. Funny that didn't come up in the first movie, isn't it? It's all too neat and smacks of a writer who has run out of ideas.

What's another desperate move sequels make when they are out of ideas? How about we introduce a kid? Alex O'Connel is as brilliant as his mom and has his dad's smart mouth. A precocious kid is the last thing this overstuffed sequel needed. As is usually the case with child character, Alex is fucking annoying. Most of the movie is his fault, as he just couldn't resist a shiny bracelet. He spends the majority of the film annoying a fearsome warrior, who is wholly justified in his desire to murder him. Freddie Boath, who turned down “Harry Potter” for this movie, is super aggravating. He puts too much childish zest into every line, coming off as entirely obnoxious.

“The Mummy Returns” is smart enough to bring back every major player from the first film. The overstuffed script pushes the limits of Brendan Fraser's charm. He is actively, visibly baffled by the events happening around him. Despite this, Fraser's skill with a joke is still present. So is his chemistry with Rachel Weisz. Evie has transformed from a dowdy librarian to a sexy she-warrior in this film, kicking nearly as much ass as her husband. Weisz actually excels as this, embracing the stunts. John Hannah and Oded Fehr are back as Jonathan and Ardith Bey. Hannah happily hams it up while Fehr plays a more sensitive version of his hero. As the title promises, Arnold Vosloo returns as well, glaring and flexing as much as he did the first time.

Sadly, the many new additions to the film add very little. Patricia Velasquez served her role in “The Mummy,” appearing in the opening flashback as the living Anck-Su-Namun, prancing around briefly in a loincloth and body paint. Elevated to a regular character here, the limits of Velasquez' range become apparent. She's a wooden actress stuck in an empty character. There's far too many villains in this one. The exceptionally voweled Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje shows up as a heavy, grunting and swinging a sword. Alun Armstrong appears as an evil museum curator. There's a whole collection of grave robbers, all of them annoyingly broad. Among the good guys, we're also introduced to Shaun Parkes' Izzy. Parkes' mugs furiously in every scene, mostly existing to get our heroes from point A to point B. The cast is stuffed to the breaking point, these newcomers having only the most superficial personalities.

“The Mummy” had its share of CGI shenanigans. However, the computer generated effects were mostly well utilized. The sequel, however, overdoes it in a serious way. Despite having a bigger budget than the first and being made further along in the age of CGI, the effects in “The Mummy Returns” actually look way worst. An early scene has mummies leaping around the walls of buildings in a way that looks super cheesy. Later, Imhotep controls a wall of water, his face appearing in the waves. This looks egregiously bad, the actors clearly never being in the same place as the effects. Once the pygmy mummies and humanoid-scorpion monster shows up, “The Mummy Returns” has left any semblance of reality behind. None of these effects are convincing.

As with everything else, “The Mummy Returns” features far more action than “The Mummy.” There's a shoot-out in the O'Connel residence, a shoot-out in the museum, a chase scene in a double decker bus, just for starters. Some of these action scenes seem especially forced in, like a duel in ancient Egypt utilizing Japanese sais. By the end, “The Mummy Returns” features an army of jackal-headed anubis warriors. These scenes are fitfully entertaining. However, Stephen Sommers' direction is busier. He employs far more slow-mo. This is most evident in the climatic fight between Rick, Imhotep, and the Scorpion King, which devolves into embarrassing “Matrix” style bullet time.

I've already criticized “The Mummy Returns'” screenplay. However, the bullshit writing choices on display in the last act deserve special attention. Rick and Alex outrun the rising sun, which is a level of ridiculousness too high even for this movie. A minor villain is brutally killed off for no reason. It's as if Sommers remembered this guy was still floating around and decided he had to go, somehow. A major character is killed off and then brought back to life in the cheapest, laziest way imaginable. Lastly, the unstoppable Scorpion King is killed off thanks to a blatant deus ex machina. What makes this plot point especially insulting is that how the heroes discover it. The way to kill the Scorpion King is printed on a wall... In his own temple! That seems like poor planning.

“The Mummy Returns” sets out to do about one hundred different things. Among those goals is introducing the Rock to the film-going public. Now, Dwayne Johnson is maybe the biggest movie star in the world. In 2001, he was merely a popular pro-wrestler, attempting to break into mainstream movies. Most of “The Mummy Returns'” advertising campaign was devoted to hyping up the Rock's Scorpion King character. He would receive his own spin-off the next year, which would spawn three direct-to-video sequels. Despite this, Johnson himself only appears in the opening scene. For the finale, he's replaced with a seriously underwhelming CGI creation. The massive charm and affable attitude that would make Johnson a star aren't very evident here. In fact, his delivery is stiff and unconvincing, even if his impressive physicality is already on display.

“The Mummy Returns” was certainly popular in its day, though wasn't quite as big a hit as the first. It's easy to see why kids loved it. It has just as much humor as the first but even more insane action. Yet, watching with adult eyes, it's obviously a weaker film. Sommers is trying too hard to top himself, resulting in a garbled script and overdone special effects. Most parties realized the series had run its course... Until Universal would crank out another “Mummy” movie, seven years later, that proved even worst than this one. As overstuffed as “The Mummy Returns” is, Stephen Sommers at least knew when to let sleeping mummies lie. [Grade: C-]

Director Report Card: Stephen Sommers (1999)

5. The Mummy

In the early nineties, somebody at Universal got the idea to revive “The Mummy.” The studio envisioned a low budget horror series. A number of promising names were attached. Clive Barker nearly delivered a kinky, mystical take on the character. Joe Dante's version was more of a direct remake and would've starred a brooding Daniel Day-Lewis. George Romero's interpretation would've been modernized but romantic and featured some zombie movie-style gore. Writers such as John Sayles, Mick Garris, and Frank Darabont did passes on the scripts. Ultimately, Stephen Sommers' promise of transforming the old monster movie into a blockbuster adventure is what sealed the deal. Sommers' approach worked. “The Mummy” would be a surprise hit in 1999. Though dismissed by most critics at the time, Sommers' “The Mummy” has attracted a faithful following, thanks to nostalgia from teenage millennial who grew up with the film. Is such nostalgia misplaced or is this “Mummy” actually worth remembering?

Sommers' film is a loose remake but maintains the basic idea. In ancient Egypt, the high priest Imhotep commits an unspeakable blasphemy. In this version, his love for Princess Anck-Su-Namun is consummated and they end up murdering the pharaoh. For his crime, Imhotep is mummified alive and cursed to live forever as an undead monster. From there, 1999's “The Mummy” goes off on a totally different direction. Set in 1926, the film follows librarian Evelyn and her swindler brother Jonathan. They discover a map to Hamunaptra, the fabled Egyptian city of the dead. They team up with former soldier and treasure hunter Rick O'Connor. They successfully discover the city, dig up Imhotep's mummy, and accidentally bring him back to life. Imhotep goes about killing people and inflicting the Ten Plagues of Egypt on the world, in order to revive his dead girlfriend and become all powerful.

While the previous filmmakers attached to remake “The Mummy” wanted to make a serious horror film, Stephen Sommers had a different vision for the remake. He wanted to fuse the classic monster movie with a pulpy, “Indiana Jones” style adventure. This approach, largely, works. Both genres, after all, have their roots in the 1930s. Sommers, just like an old-timey serial, keeps the pace speedy. The script is always throwing a new monster, boobie trap, or danger at the protagonists. The story is always escalating so the audience is never bored. The result is a tongue-in-cheek action/adventure flick that moves quickly and goes out of its way to entertain the audience.

Stephen Sommers' script is, one must admit, slightly tacky. He is not above setting up plot points that will be important later in the hastiest fashion possible. Early on, after Evie wrecks a library, her boss mentions the Ten Plagues of Egypt. This, naturally, proceeds the Mummy using the plagues as a weapon later in the film. After showing the map to the City of the Dead to the same man, it's mentioned that the city can sink into the sand at the slightest whim. This, of course, also happens before the story is over. Little details characters mention, like an off-hand reference to a key, set up plot turns later. This approach is a bit heavy-handed and comes dangerously close to spoon-feeding the audience. It is also undeniably concise. The film lays down most of the shit that's going to happen early on, satisfying the viewer when it does.

In order to smooth over a script this circular, Sommers makes sure to include plenty of humor and one-liners. Evie's brother Jonathan is often stumbling into a goofy situation, such as fooling a crowd of Imhotep's followers or struggling to read a magic book. Rick O'Connor is just as fast with a quib as he is with his pistol. Highlights include commenting on the juicy state of the mummy or threatening a friend-turned-enemy. That character, Beni, becomes a Renfield-like sidekick to the Mummy. He's also the film's primary comic relief. When first encountering the creature, he prayers to whatever deity he think will save him. He nonchalantly admits that the mummy wants Evie for his ritual. Kevin J. O'Connor, reappearing from “Deep Rising,” has a ball in the part, consistently making the audience laugh.

Despite focusing on action and humor, this “Mummy” does feature enough horror content to satisfy genre fans. Say what you will about his films but Stephen Sommer is undeniably a monster kid. Sommers engineers a number of jump scares, the best which focuses on Imhotep springing back to life after hundreds of years. The way he drains the life from his victims, sucking out eyes and tongues, slowly morphing from a rotting corpse to a human body, is pretty grisly, as far as PG-13 blockbusters go. Workers are sprayed with skin-rending salt baths. Hordes of flesh eating scarabs strip people down to the bones. And the film certainly doesn't skimp on the mummies, as Imhotep eventually raises a small army of mummified henchmen. None of its exactly scary but it is pretty cool.

Probably the best thing this “Mummy” has going for is its lead actors. “The Mummy” would birth that brief period in time when Brendan Fraser was a viable box office star. Though an unlikely action hero, Fraser is hugely amusing in this film. He has the handsome good looks, befitting a pulp hero. He has a way with a one-liner. He's also has an appealing physicality, working in the action scenes. Moreover, Fraiser has great chemistry with Rachel Weisz, future Academy Award winner, as Evie. Their relationship begins with an unsolicited kiss but Weisz is believably enamored with him. His feelings for her grow through a series of natural moments. A key scene, where she drinks too much and comes on to him, is quite cute. I'm entirely certain that “The Mummy” wouldn't have worked without the levity and charm Fraser and Weisz bring to the film.

The supporting cast is pretty strong too. Arnold Vosloo, previously of “Hard Target” and those direct-to-video “Darkman” sequels, plays Imhotep. Vosloo isn't very imposing but he brings enough intimidation to the part, making him a fitting horror villain. John Hannah is very amusing as Jonathan, bringing enough charm to the part of a not-quite-gutless con artist. Oded Fehr plays Ardith Bey. Originally Boris Karloff's alter-ego, Bey has become a protector of Imhotep's tomb. Fehr is solid in the part, making his ludicrous, exposition-rift dialogue sound natural. Character actor Bernard Fox, in his final cinematic role, is amusing as the drunken old pilot that O'Connor calls midway through the film.

Being a blockbuster from 1999, you'd think “The Mummy” would be filled with CGI that has aged badly. There are plenty of computer generated effects in the film. Surprisingly, most of it still looks okay. Imhotep, when he's a decomposing mummy, looks cartoonish but in a way that works for the film. Similarly, the mummy soldiers Imhotep calls upon in the last act don't look too bad. Really, only a few effects don't hold up to greater scrutiny. The various CGI sandstorms, which often contort into human faces, don't look very real. The mummies have this weird habit of stretching their jaws out, an effect that hasn't aged well. Otherwise, Sommers' “The Mummy” is pretty smart about fusing computer effects and practical effects, without pushing either too far.

Honestly, some of my favorite stuff in “The Mummy” revolves around the creepy crawlers. The flesh-eating scarabs were an inspired addition. Their introductory scene, which involves the bug crawling up into someone's body, got some squirms out of me in 1999. (The CGI is another example that hasn't aged well.) One cute scene has Imhotep munching a scarab that crawls into his still exposed, skeletal mouth. Incorporating the Ten Plagues of Egypt into this “Mummy” film raises some interesting questions, about how the Christian God and Gods of Ancient Egypt can coexist. But it's a pretty cool gimmick. A mummy that can call down balls of fire, raise a storm of locusts, flood the waters with blood, and controls a horde of henchmen covered with boils is certainly a more threatening villain than the slow, shambling, ineffective mummy Lon Chaney played.

As an action flick, “The Mummy” offers plenty of cool stuff too. The chase between Imhotep's giant sand face and an airplane is a solid sequence. The finale piles on a horde of mummies for Rick and Ardith to blast through, leading to a number of satisfying shoot-em-up scenes. The finale, where O'Connor picks up a sword to slice through a secession of mummy warriors, is especially amusing. Sommers' action direction is loopy. He delights in tossing torches, mummy faces, and explosions into the viewers' face. Honestly, it's a bit of a shame that his career dried up before the 3D fad of the late 2000s. He would've been perfect for it.

Granted, Sommers' screenwriting abilities are not rock steady. The plot is overly convoluted. Mythological nonsense are thrown around fast and loose. Who can keep track of which magical book is located where? Why are the rules of magical resurrection so damn complicated? Why is the mummy afraid of cats? Sommers throws in a clarifying line or two to justify this stuff. Yet it's obvious that these additions where mostly done to justify a plot move or a moment that director thought was cool. In addition to that, there are too many characters, most of them existing to become victims of the mummy.

Ultimately, “The Mummy” is a very silly movie. I don't mean that as an insult. The film is fun, entertaining, and fast enough that you don't mind the obvious plot holes. The cast is having a ball and the effects are cool. The blending of cheesy adventure troupes and classic horror elements were novel enough in 1999 to make me a fan. I think the recent reevaluation that this is the greatest mummy movie ever is going way too far. However, this “Mummy” still a very fine popcorn flick with a healthy sense of humor about its self. It is also, in all likelihood, Stephen Sommers' best film. [Grade: B+]

WHY DO I OWN THIS?: Encino Man (1992)

Welcome to a new feature here at Film Thoughts called “Why Do I Own This?” I’ve been collecting movies for quite some time. Over the years, my collection has grown to be rather large. When looking through all the titles I’ve acquired, occasionally I see something that truly baffles me. These are movies that are of… Questionable quality, with embarrassing reputations. They are the type of movies that I fear bring down the prestige of my entire collection. So I decided to pull these dubious titles off the shelves, give them a watch, and attempt to answer the central question: Why do I own this?

The inaugural edition of “Why Do I Own This?” is “Encino Man.” Dave is a high school student desperate to be liked. Specifically, he wants the attention of Robyn, a childhood crush that is now outside of his social strata, dating a jock named Matt. Dave’s eccentric friend Stoney certainly isn’t helping him get a date. Dave’s latest scheme to become popular has him digging a pool in his backyard. While doing so, he unearths a caveman frozen inside a block of ice. Soon, the Cro-Magnon man thaws out. A man out of time, the caveman is frightened and confused by the world he awakens into. Seeing an oppretunity, the teens train the caveman, who they name Link, to be the coolest new kid in school.

“Encino Man” has an incredibly dumb premise. It’s basically “Iceman” re-imagined as a doppy teen comedy. The film is obviously pitched at the twelve-to-fourteen crowd, as there’s none of the raunchy content you usually see in teen comedies. Sex is never truly referenced, romance being a more vague concept. Even when you have a character played by Pauly Shore named Stoney, no pot is smoked on-screen. (Though I suspect some was smoked in the writers’ room.) Instead, “Encino Man” is an obvious fish-out-of-water comedy that alternates between incredibly silly and incredibly stupid. The incredibly silly moments are the defrosted caveman fighting a mailman with a shovel, leaping down some high school steps, and impressing girls with his cave painting skills. Just a few of the incredibly stupid moments are the Encino Man failing his driver’s test, getting in a conga line at a club, dancing at prom, or performing kung-fu. The jokes in “Encino Man” are on such a broad level, the movie’s target audience must have been either children or incredibly non-discerning teens.

If “Encino Man” has any value at all, it’s as a time capsule of 1992. Yes, this movie stars Pauly Shore, a performers whose popular reign was incredibly short-lived. Shore is playing a variation on his trademark character, the Weasel. Yes, he says “bud-DEY” a lot. He rides a scooter, tells lame jokes, and teaches the Encino Man to love junk food. Aside from Shore’s presence – which is really the most obvious indicator that this was made in the early nineties – other factors root “Encino Man” in 1992. Everyone wears neon pastels. There’s a lot of torn denim, trench coats, teased hair, and white hip-hop kids. One sequence involves break-dancing. Another involves hair metal. The politics are obviously from a less enlightened time. The caveman goes up to some high school girls, grabs their hair, and puts his face next to their faces. This makes him popular and well-liked with the ladies. An extended stop in a club features some less-than-sensitive Mexican characters. Dave is openly, freely bullied by the jock. If you want to get an idea of what pop culture was like during my early childhood, give this one a spin.

As incredibly dumb as “Encino Man” is, I can’t exactly hate it. The movie is far too inoffensive to be truly bad. Tone down the jokes just a notch and you’ve basically got a Disney Channel Original. A thawed-out caveman becomes a cool party dude is about as hacky a premise as you can imagine. I’m not proud to admit that the some parts even made me laugh a little. “Encino Man’s” lasting contribution to pop culture is an internet GIF. Yes, that scene is funny. Brandon Fraiser, whose appeal has always been his wide-eyed goofiness, is well used. Honestly, a mostly physical but utterly light-weight role like this may be ideal for the actor. Dave’s parents utter disbelief but complete acceptance of the cave man is mildly amusing. I groaned a lot but the only time I hated “Encino Man” is when it reaches for totally unearned drama. Like when Dave and Stoney’s friendship comes to blow or Fraiser realizes he’s a man out of time. That stuff was truly embarrassing.

Why Do I Own This?: I used to have a VHS copy of this flick that I would occasionally watch with my older sister. Yes, she was a Pauly Shore fan. When I was mass upgrading my VHS collection to DVD, “Encino Man” somehow wound up on the “upgrade” pile. Why is probably out of a misguided nostalgia for a really dumb movie I watched a few times as a kid. I can’t defend my ownership of this, other then to say “Encino Man” is less awful then it is just silly. It’s also harmless, forgettable, disposable, and stars Pauly Shore. Which is still pretty bad, I guess. [5/10]