First Impressions: Mummies (2023)

 

2023 has been off to a rather slow start for animated movies. Sure we have a lot of anticipated releases, but that will be starting in April, January to now have had very few mainstream releases, really there was The Amazing Maurice and The Magician's Elephant, and I really only count those because other animation reviewers talked about them. Mummies is the first animated movie of the year to be released theatrically, at least for me. It is interesting to think, of the amazing amount of hyped releases, the first one to get the theatrical release is a movie that I don't really think anyone was anticipating, but maybe it will be like a hidden gem, a potential overlooked classic, so what did I think of Mummies?

Well, good news, it isn't the worst movie I've seen, and I have doubts it will end up as the worst animated movie of 2023, but it was pretty bad. Mostly due to the plot, and how clichéd it is. I don't mean that as "Oh this plot is overdone" kind of thing, I mean this plot is full of clichés. Name them, Dance Party Ending, Lovestruck idiots babbling, Fake out death, False Climax, Mopey Dopey broken hearted misunderstandings, all of that is in this movie. Oh, and the plot is centered around a couple that "absolutely do not love each other, and never will be in love because they obviously and forever will always dislike each other". I guess on the one hand there are some clichés they do avoid, like the main character isn't a generic everyman at the bottom of society who wants more in life, he's a former celebrity, and rather than making him vain, narcissistic and pining for the glory days that are so clearly behind him, they actually set him up as a fairly nice person. Though, the Princess character is as standard as they can come.

Speaking of characters, the voice actors did okay, I think my only issue was Sean Bean as the Pharaoh, not that he does a bad performance, but because the character's design was very clearly begging for a Patrick Stewart or a Brian Blessed, someone with a deep and powerful voice. I miss Christopher Lee. Anyway, the actors all do decent jobs, can't complain too much, even if the performances don't add a whole lot to the characters. That being said, the animation is also partly to blame for that. The animation is standard, not to visually impressive. It looks... kinda like Wonder Park actually. It isn't technically bad animation, it just looks generic and doesn't really "pop", I guess that's the right word. It looks like how I would imagine Illumination movies looking.

I think the only saving grave of this movie is the humour, and even then only one joke really got a big laugh out of me. It was a reference to the infamous botched restoration of the Jesus portrait, you know the one. Other than that one visual gag, nothing really got much of a laugh out of me. I think little kids might find it appealing, but I can't imagine it really sticking with them. With the amount of anticipated releases coming out, I would expect this movie to be forgotten rather quickly. I guess the music isn't that bad either, the major pop song that this movie was clearly built around is tolerable, but this movie plays Nickelback, and not only that, but "Far Away", that is... easily one of my least favourite songs I've heard, not their worst ("Something In Your Mouth" has it beat by a mile), but I can't stand it. And before anyone asks, yes, they play "Walk Like an Egyptian" by The Bangles. That is something someone would suggest as a joke, not in earnest.

Again, I can't say this is an awful movie, on a scale from one to five, with one being mediocre and five being hot flaming garbage, I'd rank this movie at a two. It is a very clichéd, generic looking, mediocre movie. I think it is mostly harmless for children, but I don't think "mostly harmless" is really that ringing an endorsement, not even for a planet. I guess dull and boring can be worse than actively terrible, but I'd rather watch a harmless movie I'll forget about than a genuinely unwatchable movie that sticks with me and makes me angry just thinking about. So if this is the worst animated movie of the year, this may turn out to be the best year for animated movies of the 2020s, but I ain't holding my breath on that one.

The Magic Voyage (1992/1993) - An Annoying Movie That is Too Strange for its Own Good

 

So, I originally wanted to to a review of Wonder Park last week to coincide with its four year anniversary and to see if my original opinions still held up. Unfortunately, that plan didn't quite go as anticipated, so I'm going to take a look at another movie in my collection. You never know what you'll find when you go looking for anything to add to your collections. Speaking as someone who is collection a bunch of things, if you go into second-hand shops or search online for just anything, you'll find some interesting things you never would have thought about. For example, who would ever look for a movie like The Magic Voyage? The Magic Voyage is a German animated film from 1992 that tells a fantastical version of Columbus' journey to America, and I mean fantastical in more than just, "Columbus discovered America", I mean full on talking animals and fairies. With all that said, is this movie worth checking out?

Disclosure, for this review I watched the 1993 English dub by Hemdale Film Corporation. There is, allegedly another dub out there by Atlas Film, but it's apparently rare and probably not all that better.

The story follow Christopher Columbus, as he sails across the Atlantic ocean to find passage to East Asia, along the way he encounters many fantastical creatures in a... wait... no sorry I was describing the story of this movie if it was done right. See, in this movie Columbus doesn't believe the Earth is round, he is told this by a woodworm named Pico, and before they sail off to sea, Pico falls in love with a Moon Sprite named Mairlyn, well, this dub calls her a Moon Sprite, other sources say Firefly, so I don't know, call her a Johnny for all I care. Anyway, Marilyn gets kidnapped by this Swarm Lord and taken back to their kingdom in the west, which just so happens to be where America is. So, forgetting that this movie factually inaccurate, people knew the Earth was round in the fifteenth century, the addition of Pico and Marilyn and the Swarm Lord makes me connect this movie to The Tom and Jerry movie from around the same time, where they just, for whatever reason felt the need to add in unnecessary stuff when the basic bones they have should have been enough to tell a good story.

I mean, no, a movie about Columbus would still be historically inaccurate, but adding in Pico and Marilyn and a romance between those two is exactly like adding an orphaned girl looking for her father while escaping her greedy abusive aunt to a movie about Tom and Jerry. Like, you have a good base already, you don't need to add more to it, when you do this, all you have is a stick on a baseball field. You have a decent enough base for a movie, you don't need this extra stuff. Though it also doesn't help that the movie has a lot of padding, plenty of scenes that just exist to pad out the story, and serve no purpose to the plot, like some seagulls fighting over a fish, or Pico making faces in some crystals.

However, the story is not the worst thing about this movie. That honour goes directly to the dubbing. I have to ask, were dub jobs always of a mediocre or bad quality before the late 90s and early 2000s? because this dubbing makes the Vampire Hunter D dubbing look like the English Dub of Whisper of the Heart. Characters talk when their mouths are closed, they make a whole lot of random noises that don't even sound like they're being emoted, and there is literally a scene where Christopher Columbus is supposed to be sea-sick and maybe is meant to throw up over the side of the ship? I say that because the acting is so poor that it does not come off as such at all. The real shame here is that they got some genuine talent for this dubbing, Dom Deluise, Irene Cara, Corey Feldman, they even got Mickey Rooney to narrate the movie, but none of them give a good performance, except for maybe Mickey Rooney. Easily, this is the worst part of this movie.

Then again, the performances are not the only problem with the audio, because again, like with Felix the Cat, there are very few moments of silence throughout the entire damn movie. There are some moments where the background music takes center stage, but throughout most of the movie characters have to be making noises, objects have to be making noises, characters have to be singing. Oh goodness, the musical numbers in this movie are dreadful. They are not the worst songs I've heard in a movie, but they are up there. None of these actors can sing in this movie, and I know that is ironic considering Corey Feldman went on to have a musical career, most notably the infamous album Angelic 2 The Core, but with the voice he's using and the character he's playing, it just sounds awful. The same to be said for Dom DeLuise. This is easily one of the worst movies when it comes to the audio.

The animation of this movie is... strange. The character designs are pretty cartoony, but not too bad, I can see them being somewhat appealing. Character movements look cartoony, and again the lip sync is a very noticeable problem, but as a whole the animation isn't that bad. There are times when it just looks like the animation cels are just being dragged across the camera lens, and there are a few errors here and there, but after Silver Circle, 1990s 2D hand-drawn animation, even of a mediocre quality, is very welcome. I can't say this is quality animation, but it is enough for a passing grade, sadly one passing grade does not make a good report card.

This movie was a pain to sit through, the awful dubbing and absolutely bizarre story are just the tip of the iceberg for the problems with this movie. Poor performances from some quality actors, lots of unnecessary padding, god-awful music and singing. Only the animation is of any quality, and again it's mediocre, especially compared to other movies from the same time period. Forget that this movie is historically inaccurate, if the movie is entertaining enough I can let that slide. The Greatest Showman, Bohemian Rhapsody, Anastasia, Tombstone, these movies have plenty of inaccuracies and people still love them. The problem is, this movie offers very little else, to the point where I would very much rather watch a movie about the real Christopher Columbus, I'd say this movie is as bad as the Felix the Cat movie, and since there is not the caveat that few people actually care about the subject of this movie, I can give this movie the rating I should have given Felix the Cat, just skip this movie.

Disney Live Action Trudge: 101 Dalmatians (1996)

 

There are four words that, when said in succession, can invoke the deepest feelings of hatred, sadness and tiredness in any animation fan, "Disney Live Action Remake". The reason these words make animation fans upset is because Disney is synonymous with animation. Disney was a lot of peoples introduction to the medium, and they have done so much for it, from popularizing technologies and techniques, to innovating television animation, to producing the first Computer Generated animated feature film, it really is saddening to see THE animation company remake so many of their movies into a medium that is not fit to tell certain stories. That being said, I've not actually watched that many of them, so I can't actually judge them. Are they all actually soulless attempts to make easy money without putting in much risk or effort? Or are there some movies in there that are genuinely good? Keep in mind, this is not going to be me comparing the animated originals to the live action remakes, this is predominately going to be me looking at these movies on their own, though there may be some comparisons here and there. So, let's begin my trudge through Disney's Live Action remakes... pray for me.

Okay, so I wanted to start this in February with the 1994 movie "Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book", which wasn't really a remake, but still a retelling of a story Disney already told. Unfortunately, that is not available on Disney+ for me as of yet, so I'll be starting with the next movie in the line-up, 1996's 101 Dalmatians, the first proper remake in the line-up. Immediately, there are somethings that just don't sit right with the idea of remaking 101 Dalmatians into a live-action movie, first off, that was a lot of dogs to animate, so imagine how many that would be to find and train. Secondly, the dogs talked in the original movie, which does seem like a non-issue, but then you remember that movies like Babe are actually the exception to the rule that talking animals in live action movies always look fake. So, barring those two, teeny tiny blue whale sized hurdles, how does the live-action 101 Dalmatians movie stand?

Admittedly, this movie does begin a bit slow, not that there isn't some good comedy and goofy acting, but it's mostly there to set up Roger and Anita's relationship, Roger's storyline about trying to design a video game, Anita's relationship with Cruella and where Cruella gets the idea to make a Dalmatian fur coat. It is all necessary, mostly, and I do like the idea of Anita being an employee of Cruella's, it can be a bit slow and unengaging though. Honestly, I'm quite impressed with how loyal they were in recreating scenes from the original, the midnight bark, Roger and Anita falling into the pond, those scenes are here, but they are different in their own ways.

The casting in this movie is quite excellent, Jeff Daniels and Joely Richardson do a good job as the everyfolk Roger and Anita, and Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams are superb as Jasper and Horace, I probably should have guessed Hugh Laurie was good at physical acting since his most iconic role has him limping, then again that isn't really the same as slapstick. However, the show stealer really is Glenn Close as Cruella de Vil, she just chews the scenery, she really is just the fashionable lunatic and I loved every demented minute of her on screen. My favourite scene with her was when she was just screaming at a bunch of farm animals, like at this point you can tell she's lost her mind, or what was left of it. I think she's a bit more entertaining than she is in the original movie, mostly because in the original movie she just kind of comes off as... a Karen, she's a total Karen. She's bitchy and whines about not getting her way, acting as if not getting what she wants is a personal attack, original movie Cruella is totally the kind of woman who shouted to employees and threatened having them fired. The only difference is Cruella has more fashion sense. This movie's Cruella is just a crazy lunatic and that is much more enjoyable to watch.

I also do like some of the little details this movie incorporates, like the video game Roger is making with graphics that look like the original movie's animation, I actually think there was an actual PC game that, if not based on this bit from the movie, then the bit from the movie was based around. I also always find it amusing when Disney has their characters watching their own stuff, so having the Dalmatians switch the channel from AristoCats to Homeward Bound, it made me chuckle. Speaking of which, this movie has John Hughes as a writer and producer, knowing his work on movies like National Lampoon's Vacation, Home Alone and like... dozens of classic 80s comedies, you can probably tell this movie is going for a more comedic tone, and whether or not you find this funny, will probably depend on how much you like slapstick comedy, there were bits I found funny, like Jasper and Horace over the electric fence, and Cruella in the molasses, though there are some pretty lame jokes too. At points, it does also feel like a weaker Home Alone, Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams even kinda look like Daniel Stern and Joe Pesci as Harry and Marv at points.

So, how does this movie stand up? It's not awful, in fact if you're in the mood for a dumb comedy, I'd say give this one a shot. As a movie on its own, it's watchable, and I think your enjoyment of it is really going to depend on how much you like John Hughes style of comedy, and especially slapstick comedy. If you're a big fan of the original, I can see you having some strong opinions, but if you keep in mind that these are two separate movies going for two separate ways of telling the story, I think you can find some enjoyment. It's like comparing the two versions of DuckTales, they very much are their own entities. All in all, this movie is fine, was it worth being made, eh, but I can't imagine this movie causing any harm or really upsetting anyone by existing. It has it's moments, it's a solid movie, it ain't bad.

Normally this is where I'd give this movie a recommendation rating, but since that isn't really the point of this side blog, I'll just leave it as is. Next on my list is 2010's Alice in Wonderland, not officially counted as a Live Action Remake, but still worth talking about. I will get to Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book at another time, if I find a copy or it comes out on Disney+, I will get to it then.

Editorial - A for Artificial

The 2020s has been a wild year for entertainment, and one of the wildest controversies to occur is the rise of A.I. generated art and animation. Ask any artist about A.I. Art and they will have some opinions, and since it is now seeping its way into animation, if it hasn't been already, maybe now is a good time to discuss why A.I. art is, and I'm being as polite as I can, absolutely worthless and should not be a thing anybody supports.

I don't think I need to explain what A.I. is, right? It's artificial intelligence usually programmed to perform one single task. Scan videos to see which ones aren't suitable for our website, beat Super Mario Bros without dying, make products to these specifications. They're simple programs designed to run a simple and repetitive task. How they work is very... complicated, but basic coding boils it all down, "If this, than that", so imagine an A.I. designed to monitor a firepit and kill the fire when something non desirable gets to close to the pit, like a piece of plastic or a soda can. "If clear, than fire. If not clear, than no fire." Over time, that A.I. would need to take other things into incorporation, and that's where it would get complicated, but that's my understanding anyway.

So, why is A.I. art a bad thing? Well, let's talk about what art is, and I mean that seriously. Ultimately, I believe that art is a form of communication, communicating desires, communicating stories, communicating ideas, communicating feelings, sure we have art that serves a purpose, but beyond that, it is primarily, in my belief, to serve as a form of communication. Think about it, think of the layout and décor of your personal space, what does it say about you? How does it convey your personality? Is it full of collectibles? Is it organized and clean? Why are the walls coloured the colours they are, and would you change them? These are all the elements of art that is made to communicate, and what it's all trying to communicate is very personal to the artist.

How would Pink Floyd's The Wall have been had Roger Waters' life turned out differently? If Syd Barrett never had to disappear from the face of the Earth, if his father never died in war, if Thatcher was never elected? How would the story of The Wall change? How would Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood have changed if Fred Rogers never turned on the TV? or if a different program, one that he didn't despise, was playing? How different would James Rolfe's life be if he never had a Nintendo Entertainment System? You look at all these pieces of art and what they're communicating, themes of pain and isolation, themes of kindness and love, themes of childhood anger and nostalgia gone sour, and you think about how the artists personal lives were influencing their work.

You don't get that with A.I., it's not personal, it's not communicating anything about what the artist feels or thinks. Sure, someone programmed the A.I., but that's not the same thing. The artist can't tell the A.I. to make something like they would, because that would destroy the purpose of the A.I., an A.I. could write an album about Thatcher era England and comparing it to Nazi Germany, but then any of the details inspired by Roger Waters' personal life and experiences wouldn't be there, and it'd be completely different. It's easy to assume it'd be the same, but that is hindsight talking, because The Wall was released in 1979, so it's easy to believe it wouldn't be different when it's become such a big piece of modern day culture.

So, okay, it's not personal, but corporate art does exist. Art that doesn't communicate ideas, but more serves a function. Okay, what function does A.I. Art serve? And no, "To look pretty" isn't a valid reason. I have seen posters that look pretty, but I never bought them because they weren't posters I wanted. I do have posters that look pretty, but they're also for things I like, Pink Floyd, The Crow, Daft Punk, Steven Universe, so even though the art may not communicate itself, it still communicates something about me. Now, think about all the other types of Functional Art, architecture, cooking, automobile design, landscaping, they all serve a purpose that A.I. art does not.

So, what purpose does it serve? Maybe it makes Art more accessible to people? Then you realize, there has never been a point that art has never been accessible to anyone, not to make and not to see. People have been using random things they've crushed up to paint cave walls, paint their faces and dye clothes for thousands of years, potentially even millions. Anyone who has access to a tool to make a mark with, and something to mark on, can make art. A stick and some sand, a pencil and paper, a keyboard and computer, and everyone can see all manner of art nowadays, thanks to online places and social media. People will say, "I can't draw" or "I can't write like you", and the truth is, they've probably never tried, because it's the old saying, "the master has failed more times than the student has even tried."

So it fails to communicate any real ideas, it fails to serve any real purpose, and it fails to make art more accessible because art never was inaccessible to anyone. So, why do people like A.I. art? Well, personally, and I must stress I don't know anyone else to who thinks this, but I think it's because people want art, but they don't want to pay people for it. A.I. gives people a chance to have art for themselves without having to deal with an artist who "Has other commissions on hold", or "Needs to pay their bills", or "Doesn't do NSFW", because nobody sees a worker as another person, they're just servants to others. The person behind the counter at the coffee shop doesn't have their own life, they only exist to serve the person ordering the coffee and pastry, they don't really exist outside of the coffee shop do they? It's the same with artists, they don't really exist outside of the Twitter-sphere, even though Twitter is where a lot of people, including artists, talk about personal things and beliefs.

A.I. art is an issue, and beyond allegations of art theft and plagiarism, it's a problem because it has the ability to take the value away from traditional artists. Imagine, why would someone pay $500 for a piece of fan-art, when an A.I. could do it for $25? I've always been worried about A.I. taking our jobs and nothing coming quick enough to replace them, and A.I. art really gets to the core of that fear, if people can't rely on making art for a living, when all the jobs are gone, what can we do? At this point, I'm almost on the side of A.I. taking all our jobs, because when the corporate fatheads realize that we need money in order for them to make money, they'll panic and probably all drop dead, but that's wishful thinking. I don't think I need to say this, but A.I. is troubling, in a world where, "In Gold We Trust", we need to replace the jobs we're filling with A.I., before the only people with money are the people who never spend it.

Silver Circle (2013) - A Mediocre piece of Found Lost Media

 

Something I didn't get the chance to talk about recently has been Lost Media. Especially since the 2020s, so far has been incredible for Lost Media discoveries, in 2022 alone such pieces as the 1982 Macy's thanksgiving day parade footage, Quantum Quest, the 1964 Jeopardy pilot and the Sesame Street episode with Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch were found and that's barely scratching the surface. So, with all the exciting discoveries of lost media being found, I thought I'd take a look at a piece of lost media that has since been found. Silver Circle, an animated thriller from 2013 that saw a limited release in theatres before releasing on several now defunct digital platforms. As of November 29, 2021, a LostMediaWiki user uploaded a copy of the movie to MEGA, making the movie public, so special thanks to flashfire42, but was the effort worth it?

Okay, normally I pose a question like that and then get on with the review, but I just want to say, good or not, it is a good thing this movie is available. There are very few pieces of media that I think really should stay lost, and most of those are like, footage of horrible deaths and atrocities, yeah the Lost Media community has its share of weirdos and sickos. Any piece of art or media can give us a good glimpse into the culture and beliefs of the artist and/or the era they were creating in, so I'm glad that this movie is available as of now, even though it is really, really bad.

The movie follows a federal agent named Jay Nelson, as he investigates an arson, meeting an attractive woman named Zoe Taylor while asking some questions. However, the investigation is a bit more than it seems. It's a standard mystery thriller, with one small, itty bitty detail, it is hugely libertarian. This is a... topic I don't want to touch, since my own political beliefs are complicated, I'm not even going to try and discuss this movie's political beliefs, just know that one of the main criticisms of this movie is the political stance, whether or not that is fair is... a question for another day, I'm just stating the fact that this movie is based in libertarianist politics. The plot isn't bad, it's just not wholly interesting. I guess I should talk a little about the politics of this movie, especially since this movie got an endorsement from Ron Paul, but like, what can I really bring up other than saying, "it's there"? The movie makes commentary about inflation and the worth of the American dollar, and it just kind gives off the vibe that this movie was made for the message before much else.

Characters are... mixed. On the one hand, they're pretty generic and boring, but on the other hand, they do have some small quips and jabs that are, not exactly realistic, but makes their interactions a bit more believable. It would probably be more believable if most of the dialogue didn't come off as exposition, plain old boring ass exposition. I guess it wouldn't sound so much as exposition if the voice actors were better than okay. I swear mot of the male characters have the same or similar sounding voices, and some are given annoying accents. The performances themselves aren't bad, but they aren't special, they're just your standard, "Doing what's asked of me and not much else" kind of performance

The Animation is bad, almost mockbuster quality, but with the attempt to make it look cel shaded. Characters move in an uncanny way that is too natural to be a cartoon, but too mechanical to be human. Environmental details literally only exist as part of the texture, leaves on the ground don't move when something moves over them. On top of that, for a dystopic future, I'm not really seeing much of the "Future", like I get this isn't like a Star Trek, Blade Runner or Red Dwarf style future, but like, even The Terminator had some futuristic elements to it, this movie's future doesn't even have smartphones which were a thing back in 2013, they've been a thing since the 2000s. Every synopsis I can find for the movie says it's set in a dystopian future, and I see a lot of the dystopian, but it just looks like a dystopian current day setting. Character models are ugly, with weird lumps and bumps all over their faces, I guess to indicate facial structure and age, but it just looks ugly, and the facial animations, I mean you could pause this movie at any random shot and get a weird, hilarious or uncanny facial expression. I haven't seen facial animation this bad since that Hercules and Xena movie I reviewed back in 2019.

Ultimately, while it is good this movie is available for people to watch, I can't really recommend anyone watch it. It's not offensively bad, it's just kind of averagely boring. It has some moments of amusement, and I think it could be interesting to the right audience, but for any casual viewer, it's not that great. Not very interesting characters, mediocre at best plot, bad animation and okay at best voice acting. I can't really imagine anyone really changing their political beliefs over this movie. It's kind of the perfect example of something that is a political statement before it's art or entertainment. This is not one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but it's pretty bad. If you're an archivist, it may be worth digging up, but for anyone else, save the hard drive space for something else.