rparham

Horror sequels are a tricky thing. By their very nature, horror films are supposed to shock and surprise, yet a sequel's nature often is to give you more of what was provided by the first round. The outcome is that usually a horror sequel is at best a watered down rehash of what came before, and at worst a disaster that makes the original film feel worse than it was when you watched it the first time. Rings isn't quite the latter, but at times it comes close.

At the opening of Rings we are treated to a sequence in which an individual who had viewed the infamous video of antagonist Samara is traveling by airplane and believing being in a public space will keep him safe from harm since his 7 days are up. Oh, so wrong, for him and his fellow passengers. Next, the film introduces the leads, Julia (Matilda Lutz) and boyfriend Holt (Alex Roe) as he is headed off to college in a distant city. At first they keep in touch by Skype, but Holt first acts weird and then is unresponsive to Julia's attempts to reach him. Concerned, she drives to his school and via some sleuthing, discovers that Holt has fallen under the sway of a professor (Johnny Galecki, who just can't seem to break away from an academic setting) who has created a cult of sorts around the Samara video and is trying to research it to accomplish . . . something (there is some dialogue alluding to the professor's goals, but frankly it's all just rubbish).

When Holt, who has seen the video, is fast approaching his seven day deadline, Julia takes the hit of watching the video, starting a new cycle. But this time something odd has happened when copying the video and visions that Julia keeps seeing leads her and Holt to a small city where Samara once lived believing this will help find the key to Julia's salvation.

Despite a moment or two of off kilter imagery, Rings is not the least bit scary. Perhaps some of the reason for that is because the proverbial cat has been let out of the bag regarding the story's key "hook" (watch disturbing video, seven days later you meet a gruesome demise) and that all the original film's power to scare is gone and we are left with lukewarm leftovers. But the simple fact is, director F. Javier Gutierrez and screenwriters David Loucka, Jacob Estes and Akiva Goldsman just don't seem to be trying. Rings feels less like an out and out horror film and more like an occasionally creepy mystery drama, and isn't helped by the fact that the mystery aspects of the film aren't engaging. At least one "twist" is so obviously telegraphed that you wonder if any audience member would be surprised by it, which represents about all this tepid film can produce.

The acting is generally middle of the road. Lutz and Roe fill the typical slots of fresh meat for the grinder, not generating much interest of likability. The screenplay wants us to root for them, but it's a forced affection. Johnny Galecki is briefly vacating his Big Bang Theory sitcom cocoon, and his character has a bit of intrigue to him, but there isn't that much for him to work with. Vincent D'Onofrio makes a late film appearance as a local priest, and while he always brings something to pretty much any role he takes, there is nothing particularly remarkable here to make him stand out aside from being one of the few recognizable names in the cast.

Rings exists because, as has been common in filmmaking in recent years, this is a recognizable and familiar franchise that Paramount owns the rights to and can churn out another entry on the cheap and hopefully make a few bucks on. It is a rather depressing state of affairs that that is all that is necessary to warrant a film from a major Hollywood studio be produced these days, and that might be the most horrifying thing about Rings.

In Hollywood's current insatiable drive to build "franchises" and therefore guarantee some degree of repeat box office success by plumbing the wallets of ravenous fanboys (and girls), Universal has joined the derby that Disney, with it's Marvel Cinematic Universe and Star Wars, and Warner Bros., with the DC Extended Universe, has been dominating thus far (although Disney has quite the leg up on Warners). Universal's answer is what they are calling the "Dark Universe", an intertwined conglomeration of their famous movie monsters that were first birthed in the 1930s. The inaugural entry to kick off this franchise is a new version of The Mummy, and if this film is any indication of what is to follow, the Dark Universe may be in trouble.

Unlike previous iterations of The Mummy, this one doesn't just have the obligatory backstory set in ancient Egypt, but throws other, somewhat inexplicable, elements into the screenplay blender involving Knights of the Crusade entombed beneath London. Their last resting place contains a jewel that, when combined with a specific dagger, will allow the God of death, Set, to possess a human body (why are ancient curses like cake recipes: leave out one crucial ingredient and your dead won't rise). We are also introduced to Egyptian Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella) who thousands of years ago decides to commit patricide and infanticide against her father and brother (step-brother I think, but the screenplay is a little fuzzy on that) because she wasn't going to be the "rightful" heir to the Egyptian throne. For her crimes she is mummified alive and condemned to an underground prison in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) because the Egyptians decided they didn't want to throw out their trash in their own backyard. Cut to modern day and Nick Morton (Tom Cruise), a long range reconnaissance officer who uses his role to also procure rare antiquities, he claims to rescue them from destruction, but more accurately to line his pockets. With his partner in crime, Chris Vail (Jake Johnson), they unwittingly discover Ahmanet's prison. Along with archaeologist Jenny (Annabelle Wallis), whom Nick had a one night stand with, they retrieve Ahmanet's remains and airlift them to London.

En route, a flock of crazed birds assault their plane, leading to its crash in the English countryside, but even though Jenny was the only one to parachute to safety, Nick isn't dead. He is revealed to now Ahmanet's "chosen" that she will use the aforementioned dagger and jewel on to bring Set to corporeal life. Nick learns this with the help of one Dr. Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe), the head of the mysterious organization that Jenny works for, who in addition to keeping Ahmanet under control has his hands full submerging his dark side. Needless to say, Ahmanet doesn't go quietly, and various degrees of chaos ensues, including zombies and sandstorms as she pursues both Nick and the jewel for her dagger.

The Mummy is Hollywood blockbuster filmmaking on pure autopilot: grab an A-list star (although, outside of the Mission: Impossible entries, Cruise is no longer the guaranteed draw he once was), throw in a striking villain, a respected thespian in a supporting role, a sexy love interest, some occasional one-liners and a bunch of elaborate computer enhanced action sequences, and viola, a movie is given life. But just as when something mass-produced misses the touch of craftsmanship, The Mummy lacks any real reason for being than the hope that the pre-sold notion of a title and promise of future entries will put butts in seats. The script also lacks internal logic often, with certain events occurring that seem inexplicable if you were to follow what was stated earlier in the film.

It doesn't help that there are very few endearing character elements in place in The Mummy. Cruise flashes his famous smile, but his Nick is so self-involved and unlikeable that Cruise's usual charm comes across as more like smarm this time. His "romance" with Wallis' Jenny is completely dead on arrival, neither actor selling any degree of chemistry or real affection, so that when dialogue and actions suggest a devotion to each other later in the film, it comes across as patently false. Boutella, who made a distinct impression as the murderous henchwoman in Kingsman: The Secret Service and as Jaylah in last summer's Star Trek Beyond, is given little of note to do here than slink around in limited clothing and look menacing (it would have been a nice break from the norm for the standard prologues to flesh her out a bit, but alas, no such luck). The one bright spot is when Crowe temporarily lets his Mr. Hyde out and brandishes a thick Cockney accent and revels in chewing the scenery. The visual and makeup effects for the transformation underwhelm (he primarily just turns . . . purple), but Crowe seems to be enjoying himself.

Perhaps most disappointed will be audience members coming in search of an actual horror film, since that is what all these creatures were originally featured in during their heyday at Universal. Those films were pieces of mood, atmosphere and lighting, awash in elements of German expressionism. Aside from a few tepid shock scares, the only thing terrifying here is that respected screenwriters David Koepp and Christopher McQuarrie have their names attached to what will be a lackluster entry on their resumes (hopefully the payday was worth it). To produce something actually scary would have potentially affected box offices grosses, so that would be a distinct no-no.

There are a few things here and there that are decent about The Mummy, some of the action sequences are well staged, Brian Tyler's orchestral score is engaging as usual, but overall we are treated to a movie as product, where quality is sacrificed to hear the sound of cash registers ringing. The sad reality is, by putting out such a second rate film, Universal execs will most likely hear that ringing less than they could have.

One thing is for certain, Sabotage will not be winning any awards for "feel good" movie of the year. Co-written and directed by David Ayer, Sabotage is a dark, at times practically nihilistic police thriller that proves to be the most downbeat film Arnold Schwarzenegger has been associated with in most of his acting career. In general, dark films don't immediately turn me off, but Sabotage is such a dour affair, with a limited amount of attention to character and a script that seems to be a bit confused at times that it leaves you wanting more from this film.

Sabotage focuses on "Breacher" (Schwarzenegger), the head of an elite DEA tactical team that is made up of a number of proverbial "bad boys" and one "bad girl": Monster (Sam Worthington), Sugar (Terrence Howard), Pyro (Max Martini), Grinder (Joe Mangeniello), Neck (Josh Holloway), Tripod (Kevin Vance), Smoke (Mark Schlegel) and Lizzie (Mirelle Enos). Tattooed, grungy and seemingly perpetually intoxicated, the team is called into action to take down a load of money belonging to a drug lord, but in the process appropriates $10 million for themselves. When the team returns to retrieve the money later, they find it missing. After an intensive interrogation and investigation by the DEA where no evidence can be located, Breacher and his team return to their routine. However, shortly thereafter, the team members begin getting picked off one by one in some rather gruesome ways. Homicide detective Caroline (Olivia Williams) begins investigating the murders, but deduces there is more than meets the eye to these crimes.

Sabotage represents a departure of sorts for Schwarzenegger. While he has at times been involved in the past in films with darker premises, such as Collateral Damage and End of Days, Sabotage is easily the grittiest role he has taken on in a long time, perhaps ever. Breacher is a morally ambiguous, complex character and while Schwarzenegger will probably never be able to completely overcome his acting limitations, with Breacher he is at least stretching beyond his normal boundaries.

However, Sabotage's problems aren't with Schwarzenegger, but the script and, to a certain extent, the film's direction. Intended as a whodunnit when the characters start dropping off, Sabotage runs afoul of a number of issues, primarily the fact that the characters are so underdeveloped that we are left watching a film where many of the individuals are no better than passing faces and the few that are given some depth are generally unpleasant. Aside from Breacher, almost all the leads aren't given much to work with, leaving actors such as Terrence Howard rather underutilized in their roles. The one exception is Lizzie, the drug addled female member of the squad, but the problem with her is that, in an attempt to make her a "warrior woman" Ayer and actress Enos stretch too far. Lizzie is about as over the top as you can get, pushing the limits of her character and transforming her into a caricature rather than a three dimensional human being. I'm sure Enos revelled in the opportunity to sink her teeth into a role that many women performers don't get, but she simply ends up as a distraction at times.

For the most part, Sabotage doesn't represent anything really new for director Ayer, who has largely made his career out of dark police procedural films, but even with a number of outings under his belt, Sabotage at times feels almost amateurish. Perhaps it is a combination of the hand held, high def video camera work (which still at times can't match the look of real film) combined with some rather outlandish dialogue that makes it often feel that Sabotage is being made by a bunch of guys with a camcorder who revel in overripe profanity as a stunt to fill their free time. Also, as the film starts winding down, the narrative takes a number of turns that make what came before more and more confused and almost pointless. Add to that the thin characterization, and, in the end, you are left with a rather unpalatable concoction.