Watching a movie a day is kind of a stupid thing to do. It's occasionally a slog, and being a year into this thing I can't help but think that my time may be better spent on other pursuits. But at the same time, I kind of love it. And films like The Mummy Theme Park are a big reason why.
Don't get me wrong - Mummy is a bad, bad movie. But it's my kind of bad. Bad dubbing, cheesy (yet charming) & very over-used special effects, and a plot that makes you shake your head and laugh. I'm not a huge supporter of the term "so-bad-it's-good" - that's kind of an oversimplification. But it's a good catchall for a film that manages to be extremely enjoyable despite the fact that it doesn't succeed in what it sets out to do. Or, in the case of The Mummy Theme Park - maybe it does. It's a fun, fun movie. But maybe not in the way it's supposed to be.
There's also a little controversy here as well, I guess? I stumbled across The Mummy Theme Park (thanks Netflix algorithms) and rented it because the listed director is Massimiliano Cerchi - the filmmaker behind the fantastically entertaining (but very bad) American low, low budgeter Hellinger... and also (the just bad) Holy Terror. But how did a guy who made some bad American indies in the late 90s end up in Italy a few years later and get to make a strangely ambitious Jurassic Park rip-off? Cerchi's alias is Al Passeri... and there's a real Alvaro Passeri in Italy who did special effects for many Italian films. (And Mummy is filled to the brim with miniatures, rear-projection, and the like.) But thanks to some random internet confusion, the names are eternally linked. Even though the Mummy Theme Park DVD "Special Features" credits Cerchi as the director, it seems likely that the Italian Passeri actually made this film. I mean, both Hellinger and Mummy are great bad movies, but in wildly different ways.
So who knows? I'm not one of those bloggers that does any research or uncovers any lost truths. And I bet we are *maybe* in the double digits when it comes to the amount of people who would *actually* care about this. But maybe some day we'll know who actually directed The Mummy Theme Park. Or maybe they like being vague about it, because the truth is a might be a little embarrassing.
So what's it all about? In modern day Egypt (which could easily be confused with no-budget ancient Egypt) an earthquake opens a crack in the Earth and reveals a long lost city. A greedy sultan starts seeing dollar signs and thinks it would be a perfect spot for a... you guessed it... Mummy Theme Park. The infrastructure of the old city is there, and the Sultan builds a train line where theme park guests can ride and experience the "authentic wonders of ancient Egypt." But in a suspiciously Jurassic Park-type twist (we even get a "spared no expense" bit and a shot of a glass of water shaking), the Sultan has a scientist who (bear with me) had managed to reanimate mummies using some kind of mad science and putting a microchip in their heads. The mummies are then (somehow) prompted to give little presentations at various points throughout the train ride.
The Sultan is getting prepared to open the park, but needs some publicity shots to advertise it. Enter our heroes... Daniel is a big-shot photographer from an American firm. (Marvel at his iMac skills!) And since the Sultan is sparing no expense, he flies David and his assistant Julie to Egypt to capture pictures of his glorious theme park in action. But just like Jurassic Park - life (or, uh... afterlife) finds a way, and Havoc Ensues.
So, as I've mentioned The Mummy Theme Park is not a "good" movie. The story is a cheap rehash of Jurassic Park, the sets and costumes are often confusingly bad, and the tone clumsily alternates between screwball comedy and gross horror. But it's got a lot of charm. Mummy uses a crazy amount of practical effects. Miniatures, rear-projection, forced perspective... it's interesting that even though CGI would have been available that director Passeri decided to go old-school with the effects. And honestly, they are what makes the film a riot. They are not always good - check out these sets that are used all the time:
 |
| note the woman in the center |
 |
| why the "giant" stuffed lion? |
But still - more often than not they made me smile. I could watch the dancing skeleton (?) all day. And when it's all said and done, I guess that's what's important.
The awkward dubbing also ups the entertainment value. It does make it a bit difficult to judge the acting, but even though Daniel (Adam O'Neil in his only role) is kind of a doofus he serves his purpose as a lame hero. And Julie (Holly Laningham) is a good damsel in distress. I'm actually surprised this is one of her only two film roles. She has a good look and is obviously game to do stupid things - I would have expected at least a couple more B-horror movies on her resume at the very least.
Horror-wise? The whole film is so awkwardly put together that there isn't ever a sense of danger or tension. You can pretty easily tell that our heroes don't exist in the same physical space as many of the incoming threats, so you're never too worried about them. Most of the effects are more charming than scary, although every once and a while you'll get some surprisingly gory footage of a mummy (or some random guy - it's hard to tell) melting. I'm not sure, but I'd guess it was just test-footage that they decided to put in the movie. These gore scenes are certainly shot with a different camera/lens and have a much grimier look. So even though you don't know how, or why, or to whom it's happening to, it still looks pretty cool.
So ultimately, I had a very good time with The Mummy Theme Park. You'd have to have a high tolerance for crap to enjoy it, but if that sounds like your thing, it's worth checking out.
I would recommend this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment