Mummys, and Vampires, and the body parts of several reanimated criminals, oh my! (And a shark)

A Shared (Collapsing) Universe 

One happy family

A "shared universe" is the hip new cool thing to have. Everyone's got one, from the Avengers and the Justice League, to Godzilla and King Kong, and now Universal is banking on The Mummy being the tentpole film for their Dark Universe. The Dark Universe is set to comprise of resurrecting the vintage Universal monsters of the black and white period. This means, pending good box office returns (not so much critics, sorry The Mummy) we are set to see Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, Invisible Man, and The Creature of the Black Lagoon return to the silver screen. 

But doesn't this beg the question: aren't we a bit fatigued by this whole shared universe idea though? Can't a film just stand on its own two feet, propelling its own narrative forward without having to make concessions to another 6 potential movies, some that many years off too? Whilst Marvel's cinematic universe has proven fertile ground for that company, I'm told that this is not without its missteps (Age of Ultron I hear was ,whilst enjoyable, far too baggy and beholden to future instalments). 

The poster says "Look upon my works ye mighty and despair" and so do the critics"

The Mummy too, it seems, has fallen prey to this overburdening issues as well as a host of other problems (it currently sits on 15% critical consensus and 43% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes). I was very much prepared to give this one a go, even in the face of some negative reviews. I realised from the first reviews released that this wasn't one I'd plague my friends into seeing, so I consigned it to be a solo trip to the cinema (side note: no shame there! don't miss out on a film for fear of looking like a creepy loner. I mean you'll have that look but I've done fairly well out of it!). However, the extent of the negative reviews has put this on the back burner to a view when it gets a release on home media. 

So this is not a blog reviewing The Mummy but it will instead take a look back at Universal's Monsters. Ironically the criticism that Universal Monsters getting a shared universe at this time is nothing more than a cynical cash grab is somewhat invalidated by the fact that Universal Monster's got in on that game a long time before the current pretenders to the throne. These films ran from 1931 to 1951 and encompassed a variety of characters that existed across multiple films including Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula both of which featured a crossover of both Frankenstein and Dracula. Van Helsing appearing across multiple films to fight evil was much like a geriatric Nick Fury. 

She wasn't a fan of public displays of affection.

I've got a few of these films on DVD and naturally in terms of all out terror these films do not have the same impact that they would have had at the time. There are stories of audience members watching Dracula for the firm time fleeing the cinema upon seeing a vampire bat fly into Lucy Harker's room (it is clearly a rubber bat on a fishing wire). Notwithstanding this tame nature there are solid films in the canon and occasionally stone cold classics. Frankenstein and the superior sequel Bride of Frankenstein are legends not just within the field of horror but outside it too (both sit on 100% on Rotten Tomatoes). They introduced the world to the classic Frankenstein monster look, with Boris Karloff's towering performance and Elsa Lanchester's white striped shock hairdo iconic to this day. 

The Universal Monster series also introduced the world to the actor you'd picture if you were asked to think of Dracula: Bela Lugosi. Widow's peak hairline, Transylvanian drawl, swirling cape. The look is all there. Christopher Lee may be brought the gore and sex to the Hammer Films later but Lugosi was there first, sinking his teeth into lines like "Children of the night, what music they make!"

When they heard they weren't in the new one...

The Universal Monster series lay dormant for a long time after the classic black and white pictures until Brendan Fraser in his heyday (where is he now?!) unwrapped The Mummy. The film, more in line with the Indiana Jones films than the original (although it does keep hold of the Mummy's undead love angle) is hardly a classic but looking to the trailers and the reception of the latest resurrection it looks positively sunny. It also bothers me somewhat that the new Mummy film is set in the present day. Part of the appeal of the classic universal monster movies is the time period and updating it to present day and turning it into an action flick with horror elements is somewhat dull. The Fraser Mummy film was certainly an action flick but along with its period setting it did dabble in horror every so often (those scarabs! stolen tongues and eyes! that fucking kid in the sequel!). In the mid-2000s we also had the Hugh Jackman lead Van Helsing that provided the monster mash up the new Mummy plans for but all in one film and the results were, well, a mixed bag (in short great opening, traditional loud noisy end). Much more successful, particularly the director's cut, was Benicio Del Toro's full blooded The Wolf Man, which was unfortunately enough of a flop to put the nail in the monster coffin until this year. 

Perhaps it is a bit much to ask for a big budget horror movie to be allowed out of the crypt in today's day and age of the almighty box office returns (sadly, apparently Alien: Covenant didn't quit hit the high notes for returns at the box office, potentially jeopardising planned sequels). Yet, on the small screen there was a bright light in the form of Penny Dreadful which, for my mind, already did the shared horror universe that The Mummy shambles about in the dark for (even sadder again, it seemed that by series 3 viewer numbers had sunk as the final episode seemed rushed as all hell, stinking of the rotten corpse of sudden cancellation). But seeing as this new big budget Frankenstein's monster of a film isn't wowing audience or the box office it may be time to go back to the drawing board and build something campy and creepy, raiding and recreating the classics of yore. 

It is still not safe to go back into the water

If you look close you can see the shark.

The Shallows was a little horror gem I missed out on seeing on the big screen but managed to track down online today, and it seems it is about as a far away from the bombing bombast that The Mummy seems to have become. 

This is unashamedly a B-movie and makes no bones about it in its subject matter: lady goes out surfboarding, shark comes in hungry. Yet the cinematography, pacing, and lead, almost the only performance bar one plucky seagull, by Blake Lively, elevate this from the, depths (pun), of B-movie hell.

The movie shows a great deal of restraint in its opening act, building tension to an almost unpleasant level. Any time the heroine put as much as a pinky into the crystalline blue waters my heart rate must have spiked. The very concept of a shark circling beneath, unseen, is enough to put me on the edge of my seat. Whether this was purely down to the film or rather a combination of that and a childhood fear that developed playing the early Tomb Raider games where as soon as I encountered a body of water in that game it was game over. No more progress. So great was the fear that in that silent abyss there was some aquatic beastie waiting to chow down on lady Lara that I couldn't progress any further. 

When the bite comes the first time it hits with some severity that the rest of the film can't quite match up. This represents one of the greatest challenges in a horror film. Once you've bottled up all that tension it takes true mastery not to let it all go once you hit that release valve for the first big scare (see The Descent for an immense amount of tension, a huge scare and then continued terror right up to the end, or The Witch, a film that manages to just keep wringing out the tension, intersperse minor scares before ending on the a true kicker of dread). 

So whilst The Shallows can't quite match its opening salvos it is by no means a wasted pursuit. Blake Lively is a powerhouse, acting against what I imagine is a combination of green-screen and real locales. She imbues her character with real emotional depth (pun) due to some backstory and provides grit and believability to her struggles. The way she vocalises and talks to herself through her trials is highly effective. 

In conclusion, whilst it may not be safe to go back into the water just yet, I propose that contrary to popular wisdom pick the Shallow film in this blog over the one which flirts with depth but just ends up tripping over its own bandages.