The Mummy (2017)

#StokerScore 7/10

Let me start by saying that I have a problem with the concept of PG-13 horror movies. I think it is a contradiction in terms because how can an adult audience be horrified by something that struggles to scare a thirteen year old? And there it is, the core issue with these movies. But not for the reason you may think.

Just stop for a minute and consider what horrifies you....I guess we all have our own ideas but in cinematic terms it's the scares, the jumps, the feeling of impending doom, the make-up, the characters behaving against expectations, not knowing what's coming next, and yet it's possible to find those in PG-13 movies.

The fact is that Universal are not using the term 'horror', instead it is a Dark Universe and this allows them to approach their characters with the hope of appealing to a wider audience and therefore potentially more money taken. This is why Warner Bros. are looking at the supernatural side of comics with Justice League Dark, although it doesn't get much darker than Batman vs Superman. Still, recent discoveries that audiences do like to watch R-rated films have been discarded in favour of selling zombie mummy and God of Death plushies. Seemingly, where the monster movies of the thirties and forties, or the Hammer revivals in the sixties and seventies aimed to scare their adult audiences, Universal is now happy to try to scare/wow everyone.

It's fair to say, then, that I approached this movie with low expectations for horror and high expectations for a Tom Cruise movie whose recent choices have seen some excellent results; The Jack Reacher films, Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow and the last two Mission Impossibles have been good movies and so it was that in these respects I was respectively surprised and contented. 

There are more horror elements than I expected, inspired in no small way by American Werewolf in

London and for those of you who know the John Landis classic you'll spot them immediately. Sofia Boutella is very good as Princess Ahmanet, convincingly devious, and Cruise is in Edge of Tomorrow mode with his level of disbelief at what is going on around him as he slowly figures out what is patently obvious to the audience, even without the signposting from the trailer. Then again, better to enjoy the theme park ride and not wonder how it works.

The failures in the movie are in the character of Dr Henry Jekyll and Prodigium, the organisation for which he works? It's not explained anywhere near clearly enough what role the organisation plays, why it exists or why, given the levels of tech they seemingly have available to them, that Jekyll can't more effectively control his change into Edward Hyde who, by the way, may have arrived via dialect coaching from some of the 1930's Universal horror movie support cast. The only thing missing was a deep, East End fog that could have been referred to in his cock-er-ney accent as a "cor blimey, right old pea-souper and no mistake".

Visually the movie owes debts to Jeepers Creepers, Alien: Resurrection, Lifeforce, Brendan Fraser's Mummy, and the aforementioned American Werewolf in London, among others. The dialogue is decidedly dodgy at times, too and I couldn't help but grimace at Annabelle Wallace's shouting of "Get her, Nick!" which she immediately repeated.

Overall I enjoyed it. I didn't mind the references to future movies, Creature from the Black Lagoon's hand and vampire skull were two that I noticed, I liked skipping between Egypt, Iraq and London, but the key difference between these and the thirties movies were that they took themselves and their source material more seriously, it wasn't until the advent of Abbott and Costello that barrels could be heard being scraped. I'd prefer them to dial back the comedy and focus more on filling the audience with more unease but looking at some of the future movies lined up, which I hope they get the chance to make, I'm not convinced that will happen.

PS In case you're wondering, yes, Tom does a lot of running too.

Victor Frankenstein

#StokerScore 1/10

I have been reading horror stories ever since I can remember. My Nan and Pop (Grandparents, in the Geordie dialect) had a little book of northern tales that I came across during a stay at their house outside Durham and it contained the grisly story of "The Lambton Worm". This, along with having the surname of Stoker, was like a gateway into all that was fantastical and horrific in fiction and I devoured every piece of pulp horror I could find and, with the invention of VHS, did the same with movies too. No movie was too Z-grade for me. 

In novel and novella form I was a big fan of Stephen King, Shaun Hutson, Guy N. Smith, Clive Barker and Brian Lumley, as well as the compendiums you could buy too. I never forgot the classics either, the ones that provided all of the inspiration. As well as dear old Bram there was Sheridan Le Fanu, Edgar Allen Poe, H.P. Lovecraft and of course, Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley.

a doctor's worst nightmare that took a lot more than wire wool to get rid of

I was always aware of Frankenstein, even before reading the book. As a kid growing up in the 70's, the BBC would show occasional, late-night summer double-bills where they would pair a classic black-and-white horror from the 1930's with a contempory Hammer Horror. Such was Hammer's love for the classics, you could watch Boris Karloff, with the iconic square head and bolts, and then be blown away by the more visceral (Hammer movies were in colour) Christopher Lee.

I assume that because of the iconic nature of the visuals, Frankenstein eventually became the victim of parody, similar to other equally dark characters. 'Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein' was the end of the run for the character as something to make you squirm and cinemagoers would have to wait nine years for Hammer to revitalise the character and return him to something of his former glory.

The ensuing years saw Frankenstein's monster appear many times, but it wasn't until 1994 that we saw Shelley's character truly come to life through the eyes of Kenneth Brannagh and in the form of Robert de Niro. 

So how does this latest movie compare? Is it a new look at an old character? Well, it has certainly tried to take a different point of view, that of the maligned assistant Igor. But for all of that it is still lacking. The story of the monster, his creation and what it means to the worlds of science and theology, these are lost under overwhelming subplots of unfathomable revenge and unrequited love. It's a mess that even when pared back to the basics seems to lack a sense of direction, instead stumbling from one hackneyed scene to another.

Was the world ready for another Frankenstein movie? Well considering Universal's attempts to design a "Monster Universe" akin to marvel's superhero one, I have a feeling that it won't be too long before we get another one, whether we like it or not. Whether yet another telling of this tale can wash away the memory of Victor Frankenstein,  we'll have to wait and see. But if Dracula Untold and it's tacked-on ending are anything to go by, I won't be holding my breath.

I'll leave you with my favourite version of Frankenstein's assistant and the hopes that no-one ever tries to remake this