An entertaining blend of classic movie-monster chills and tongue in cheek humour, the 2017 version of The Mummy may not be destined to be an all-time classic, but it’s a lot of fun for what it is, and an intriguing opening instalment to the proposed Dark Universe series.

Premise: While attempting to loot ancient treasures in Iraq using a map stolen from archaeologist Jennifer Halsey (Annabelle Wallis), Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) stumbles across the tomb of Egyptian Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella) and inadvertently activates the curse of the Mummy. Soon Ahmanet is free and searching for the ceremonial dagger than will enable Set, the Egyptian God of Death, to take human form.

Verdict:

First up, I think it’s worth making it absolutely clear that this is in no real sense a remake or reboot of the 1999 film starring Brendan Fraser, as some have suggested. The 1999 version of The Mummy was set in the 1920s, and had a swashbuckling action/adventure tone. This 2017 film has a present day setting, all new characters, a completely different plot, and a far more horror-based tone. Given that there have been at least a dozen different “Mummy” films over the last century, this 2017 version is probably closer in tone (if not story) to Boris Karloff’s original film in 1932 than it is to the 1999 film.

This 2017 version embraces the horror elements of the concept, and earns its certificate-15 rating with a handful of fairly chilling scenes. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that it’s an out-and-out horror film, but equally, it’s certainly not suitable for younger children either, with its depictions of a decayed and misshapen Ahmanet, her desiccated undead followers (presumably inspired by the “fast zombies” in recent horror films), and there’s even a decomposing ghost thrown in for good measure.

“…the film knows how preposterous it is, so undercuts the melodrama with levity…”

On the other hand, the film has a lot of humour in it, and doesn’t take itself too seriously. The film knows how preposterous the subject matter is, so undercuts the melodrama with some light-hearted levity, whether that’s a character completely freaking out with fear, or subverting the audience’s expectations in an action scene.

In a similar vein, my fear that Tom Cruise would simply be playing an infallible action hero character were entirely unfounded. In fact, it’s quite the opposite, as Nick Morton is a fairly useless and unpleasant character at times (but just about manages to get away with it thanks to Cruise’s playful charm). Even though he’s a soldier, Nick isn’t some Special Forces alpha male, and he actually proves himself pretty inept in a number of action scenes (which came as a very refreshing surprise). During the course of the film, we see that Nick is reckless (and not in a “he’s reckless but he’s always right” kind of way, more of a “he’s reckless and he would’ve got people killed if not for outside help” kind of way), and that he’s a cowardly, selfish, lying thief. Both his best friend, Chris Vail (played by the ever-reliable Jake Johnson), and the archaeologist whose map he stole (Annabelle Wallis), call him on his character flaws, but it all falls on deaf ears.

“...Russell Crowe is clearly having fun…”

This sets up Nick as an interestingly self-centred person to view the events of the film through, as he finds himself drawn into a new “world of Gods and Monsters” after falling foul of the Mummy’s curse. It’s only once Nick unleashes the Mummy that he learns of the existence of Prodigium, a secret organisation investigating otherworldly threats, headed up by the mysterious scientist Dr Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe). Russell Crowe is clearly having fun in his extended cameo as Dr Jekyll, who presumably is being established as a connecting element (along with Prodigium) for future films in the Dark Universe series. (For those of you who haven’t heard, Universal is planning to build a shared cinematic universe of “classic monster” films under the Dark Universe banner, following on from The Mummy and featuring the likes of Frankenstein’s Monster (Javier Bardem) and the Invisible Man (Johnny Depp)).

In that regard, I think it’s fair to say that The Mummy succeeds where other “franchise spawning” films have failed, because the film works on its own as a standalone movie and doesn’t feel like it’s just going through the motions to set up future films (which was a criticism levelled at other recent films like Warcraft: The Beginning and Assassin’s Creed). You could watch this film in total isolation and still enjoy it, as the elements like Dr Jekyll and Prodigium work just as well within the confines of this film as they do in the wider Dark Universe film series. The film also contains fun nods and Easter eggs relating to other classic movie-monster films, such as a vampire’s skull and a hand from Creature from the Black Lagoon.

“…there’s a real thrill to be had in seeing Cruise and Crowe together on the big screen…”

All in all, the awkward way in which the exposition is delivered (largely by Crowe’s Jekyll), and the slightly disjointed tonal shifts between horror jump-scares and banter-filled action, mean that The Mummy falls short of being an unqualified success. That said, there's a real thrill to be had in seeing Cruise and Crowe together on the big screen, and separately, Cruise is great playing against type and Crowe’s clearly having a ball. Add to that Sofia Boutella making a real impression with relatively little (non-CGI) screen time, managing to be fearsome but still strangely sympathetic – and the end result is a cheesy, enjoyably chilling, couple of hours of (pop)corny entertainment.