From a 50+ perspective: Thumbs Up

Rating: 8/10 (2 August 2008)

Since we saw Mummy III and Hellboy II as a drive-in double bill we're doing sort of a twofer - reviewing both movies simultaneously and posting under both titles - because we discovered that we were actually watching the same movie twice. It was a fascinating way to see these films; giving us the opportunity to directly compare and contrast them and analyze why one succeeded and the other failed.
Synopsis: Ancient Relic must be returned to Undead Villain so that Villain might be reanimated in order to summon his Demon Army and destroy the World. Hero's task is to thwart this process. In the course of attempting to prevent Armageddon, Hero is nearly killed but is saved at the last minute by Love. Hero's power is not great enough to stop Villain, so secondary characters must make the Ultimate Sacrifice in order to dispatch Villain and Save the World. The End. If it all sounds familiar it's because it's also the plot of nearly every superhero or fantasy movie made over the last umpteen years. Note to Hollywood: It's time to come up with a new plot line, OK? Please?
We were expecting to enjoy Mummy III. First, there was Brendan Fraser and most of the cast of the previous Mummy films. Then there was the rich potential of the setting - the Terra Cotta Warriors, the mystery and lore of China...even a trip to Shangri-La and Yetis. The table was set for a feast of mystery, wonder and enchantment. How could they not produce an entertaining film out of all this?
One word: Writing. We're always amazed when megabuck films apparently cap the writing budget at a buck ninety-seven. Early on, didn't anyone involved in this say, "Hey, the script we're working from really stinks!"? The rich mythology available to them was utterly wasted by the writers. Shangri-La was a cheesy set that served only as a platform for one of the progressive plot elements. The Yeti, though well done, performed their little shtick and left the scene. One appearance by the shape-shifting villain as a three-headed dragon and so much for the fascinating potential of Chinese dragon lore. The hero's skeletal army could have offered another little tribute to Ray Harryhausen (as was done so well in the first Mummy), but no, why bother? And the dialogue was uniformly clumsy, blunt and contributed nothing to either character development or plot movement.
The writers in Mummy III were obviously in video game mode. Video games need progressive plot tasks. So the Relic is returned to the Villain. But wait - now the Villain must carry a jewel to the mountains that will reveal the location of Shangri-La. But wait - now the Villain must enter the waters of Shangri-La to be fully restored. But wait - now the Villain must return to his tomb and summon his Terra Cotta Army. But wait - now the Army must make it over the Great Wall in order to achieve immortality. And so it goes. Played out like the levels of a video game, and with even less explanation of the rationale than you'd get in a video game. These are game levels rather than story elements, and since the audience's need to be informed isn't fulfilled, it winds up not understanding - and consequently not caring about - what's going on.
In Hellboy II director/writer del Toro had the more difficult task. Without a wealth of Chinese mythology to squander, he had to invent his own...but he does it so very well (to see what we mean, watch Pan's Labyrinth - please!). Del Toro is an imaginative story teller and myth maker and proves it in Hellboy II. He also appreciates something the writers of Mummy III don't - the wonder of small magic. The single moment in Mummy III that made my wife "Ooooh!" was the transformation of the egg-thing that awakened the emperor. Beautifully done - but the only thing of its kind in the movie. Everything else was bigger than life, overblown. In contrast, del Toro is full of small magic. From tooth fairies to troll markets to wheels within wheels, he understands that an audience can be just as enchanted by the small wonder as by the huge spectacle. It's the difference between stage and close-up magic. Make an airliner disappear and I will only wonder about the mechanics of how you did it. Make a coin float in mid-air before my eyes and I will be mystified.
A hallmark of both the Mummy and the Hellboy franchises is the effective use of humor. Mummy fell flat at every attempt. thanks to inept writing. Hellboy pulled it off very well - two love stricken, clueless guys getting plastered to Barry Manilow's "Can't Smile Without You" was delightful. We also have to mention del Toro's mastery of lighting, set design and mood. His movies are consistently visually evocative, which makes a good movie even better.
The movies shared one flaw with several other recent movies: climactic action scenes that go into visual and auditory overload, causing the eyes to glaze over and reducing the ability to comprehend what's going on. When we lose the ability to take in what you're showing us this is a bad thing. Please don't toss everything at us at once just because you can - let us absorb your work so we can fully appreciate it. Had the intense action not drenched us a few times in Hellboy II it would have another star.
In summary, both movies had capable casts and premises with wonderful potential. Mummy III failed, sadly, to capitalize while Hellboy II succeeded very well. The difference was the quality of the writing and the talent of the directing. We only wish the Mummy III crew could take a mulligan, sit down and take a few lessons from del Toro and try again. It's a shame that can't happen.