The 10 Most (Unintentionally) Hilarious “Documentaries” Ever Made.

1) Overlords of the UFO (1976)

Dir: G. Brook Stanford
One of the most insane pieces of film making ever committed to celluloid. It’s really hard to describe Overlords of the UFO, because it rarely makes any sense.  There is a five minute section devoted to show casing Uri Geller’s amazing “psychic” abilities; he bends a couple of keys and restarts a couple of watches. How does this relate to the subject of UFOS?  Well, apparently Geller witnessed a UFO a few years earlier. There are very little facts on display, but endless speculation which we are assured is “some of the best.”

 Here are just some of the highlights:

1) A simulated conversation between to airline pilots as they discuss UFOs. This is achieved through stock footage of an airplane and voice overs.

2) Footage of an obviously fake UFO trailing after a commercial airliner.

3) The Uri Geller sequence.

4) A letter from NASA that reads, "It is not in our charter to investigate the UFO."

5) The Space Voyage From Ummo sequence. Supposedly, an alien race from the planet Ummo contacted a select few people on Earth. 

2) The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark (1993)

Dir: Henning Schlerrup
One of the funniest programs ever broadcasted on network television, The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark is hosted by an overly enthusiastic Darren McGavin, as he, with entire array of biblical scholars and eye witnesses, prove once and for all that Noah’s Ark is real and that it lies on top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey. The viewers are treated to some awe-inspiring re-enactment of Noah and his family as they build the ark, and by “awe-inspiring” I mean laugh inducing, as I have seen high school plays with better production values than this program.  It is all incredibly cheap looking with horrible make up and extremely stiff performances.

 This “documentary” made headlines when it was revealed that one of its main witnesses, Charles Jammal, was a hoaxer. In his eye witness testimony, Jammal recounts he discovered the Ark with a friend and the plans they had in store once they got back to civilization, but all that was dashed when his best friend plummeted to his death, while trying to get a better picture of the Ark.  He carelessly took one too many steps backwards and fell to his death. Distraught, Jammal couldn’t go through with the plans, but he did take a piece of the Ark as a souvenir.  It was later revealed that this souvenir was, in fact, a piece of wood soaked in teriyaki sauce and baked in an oven to give it an ancient look. As history, The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark is pure rubbish, as a comedy, it’s one of the best.

3) Bigfoot: Man or Beast? (1975)

Dir: Lawrence Crowley
I haven’t actually seen this documentary in many years, but there are also two things that always stuck out to me:
1) The annoying harmonica soundtrack. Whenever there is a driving sequence, the filmmakers will blare this on the soundtrack hoping that it will quicken the pace; instead it is more likely to give you a splitting head ache.

2) All of the “exciting” things occur off camera. This is a recurring trend in this movie: an expedition member will talk about how they saw something in the woods, while the camera was recording something else; usually two other members as they argue about what their next move should be. 

There is also the usual gallery of eye witnesses; one lady claims that she used to play catch with Bigfoot. The viewer is constantly teased into believing something exciting is about to happen, only to have their hopes completely deflated. The movie ends with the expedition having to pack up due to a huge forest fire. Nothing is achieved!  Bigfoot: Man or Beasts? is the precursor to such modern documentaries like Monster Quest and Finding Bigfoot.  These shows are the ultimate form of ballyhoo; they promise something big, but always disappoint. Monster Quest, despite its hype and flashy CGI recreations, always ends on an anti-climactic note; a Cryptozoologist will turn to camera and say, “Just because we didn't find evidence of Bigfoot, it doesn't mean he’s not real.”

4) Star Wars: The Magic and the Mystery (1997)

Dir: Thomas C. Grane
This special aired on FOX in 1997 to promote the upcoming re-release of Stars Wars. It was also the first sign that George Lucas had completely lost his mind; this is when he unleashed the special editions onto the unsuspecting world. It's a nice piece of propaganda that assures  Stars Wars faithful that they will absolutely LOVE the new additions Lucas has made. Everyone kisses George Lucas's ass!!!  The only time anything negative is uttered is to express just how lame the original Star Wars was. 

However, none of that can compare to the hilariously stiff narration provided by Howie Long. In the opening, Long tells the viewer how excited he is that Star Wars is back in the theatres. Sure you are, Howie! Long strikes me as the kind of guy that habitually beat up on Star Wars fans back in the heyday (He was in high school when the first one came out). I can just picture a young Howie Long giving a swirly to an awkward teenager wearing a Luke Skywalker T-shirt. You’re not fooling any one, Howie!   Still, the sight of him struggling to read cue cards is truly a sight to behold.  “Twenty years ago….Star Wars swept..the..country….”

5) The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972)

Dir: Charles B. Pierce
It might not be fair to include The Legend of Boggy Creek on this list because, unlike Bigfoot: Man or Beast?, it never really sets out to prove the existence of the Fouke monster (The Skunk Ape), but rather recount the numerous sighting of the creature throughout the decades.  There is no pointless expedition to find the beast, just lots of cheesy re-enactments for our viewing pleasure.  However, since it is told in a documentary like fashion (interviews, re-enactments), it is definitely deserving of our derision, especially once it was revealed that the interviewees in the film are really actors playing local townsfolk. Oddly enough, there are some genuinely effective moments in the film; like the Fouke Monster laying siege to two teenage girls in a trailer house.  On the other hand, it also has one of the funniest moments in horror history; the Fouke Monster trying to get at a guy, decked in long johns, on the toilet.  The camera lingers on the outside of the house for a few seconds; the man's head is framed though a window as he does his business.  Suddenly, a hairy hand pops into frame and knocks the window out of its frame, thus scaring the poor guy completely shitless, and I mean that in a literal sense. The hillbilly pulls up his long johns and tumbles out of the bathroom.

6) Mysteries of the Ancient World (1994)

Dir: Doug Campbell

The kind of documentary that asks a lot of questions, but doesn't offer up a single answer, Mysteries of the Ancient World tackles four distinct subjects:  The Pyramids of Giza, Nostradamus, The Bermuda Triangle, and the Shroud of Turin, and completely poo poos the scientific community.  For instance, Mysteries of the Ancient World, advocates the idea that it was ancient aliens (in this case, martians) that built the pyramids, while casually dismissing the claims of Egyptologists, you know, people that actually spent their entire careers studying Ancient Egypt.  The ancient alien proponents are given significantly more screen time than traditional scholars and presented in much more favorable light; the interview with the sole Egyptologist is edited in a such way that she comes off as completely stubborn and closed minded.  Whenever, we see her dismiss other possible theories, we naturally want to see her get knocked off her high horse. The documentary gives the appearance of being balanced in its opinions, yet the Egyptologist is never given any real opportunity to present her case. Darren McGavin (why?) once again is given hosting duties and does them in a remarkably efficient and straight faced manner.  

7-10) Ancient Prophecies I-IV (1994 -1996) 

Dir: Graeme Whifler
 A dour David McCallum warns us that, “time may be running out,” and various people from all walks of life share their visions about the upcoming apocalypse.  From 1994 to 1997, NBC aired four Ancient Prophecies specials to cash in on the “Y2K” trend.  Most of the “prophets” that are interviewed all point to the year 2000 as being a pivotal moment in human history. The predictions range from the vague (“Earthquakes will hit the west coast.”) to the ridiculously absurd (“Atlantis will rise up out of the ocean.”) It wouldn’t be an ancient prophecies documentary without a reference to the most famous prophet of them all, Nostradamus. Naturally, the “experts” on his writings all offer up their interpretations as to what he has to say about the future and, not too surprisingly, they are in a complete disagreement. It’s amazing how Nostradamus predictions only make sense after the fact, but that is a different article altogether.   What I find amazing about this documentary is this: not a single one of these psychics that were interviewed predicted 9/11 and the war on terror. These psychics pride themselves on their ability to forecast the future, yet none of these interviewees were able to predict one of the greatest disasters in United States history.  Amazing!  

Batman (1943)

What is Ming the Merciless doing in a Batman movie? Playing a gun toting miner, of course. This is one of many surprises that pop up in the 1943 movie serial Batman.  Ming was played by the great character actor, Charles Middleton, and it’s rather amusing to see him in a rather incidental role as opposed to the main villain (which was his specialty). He turns up just long enough to be blown up in a mine explosion.                

Batman was the first screen adaptation of the comic book and, as a result, it’s a rather raw take on the character; he is not the dark, brooding vigilante that we know today, but rather a fairly jovial and extremely fallible super hero.  In the Christopher Nolan adaptations, Batman is able take out the villain’s henchmen without breaking a sweat, but in this serial he is constantly getting his ass handed to him. The biggest flaw of this Batman is that he is pure impulse; he almost never takes the time to scope out the area and strategize a plan for capturing the villains. Instead, he just rushes head first into a room and naturally assumes that he can handle the situation on his own. It would certainly be beneficial for him to know how many men are in a room, or where the villains have hidden Linda Page, his supposed fiancée.  He is completely oblivious to the dangers that are in store for him and is too reliant on Robin to bail him out. This is a typical scene: Batman and Robin spot one of Daka’s lackeys walking into the building. Batman runs in after him and gets knocked out for his efforts. The lackeys leave Batman to his grisly fate, Robin arrives just in the nick of time to save him. It is amazing in a serial titled Batman that Robin is the one who ends up saving the day. 

That’s right; Batman isn't allowed to be the hero in his first screen appearance. It is a rather baffling decision on the part of writers and the director. Who wants to watch a movie where Robin triumphs at the end? The answer: NO ONE. Of course, I can only speak for myself, as a kid I absolutely loathed the character of Robin and hated how he compromised the sheer awesomeness of Batman. Why is The Dark Knight hanging around with this annoying little bastard? Granted, Robin in this serial (as portrayed by Douglas Croft) is not nearly as abrasive as Burt Ward’s interpretation in the sixties television series, but still, he does grow a bit tiresome as the story progresses.  

It should also be noted that Batman’s code of not killing is nowhere to be found in this film. In fact, the film has a fairly high body count; Daka loses almost half of his henchmen due to Batman’s interference. Though, most of the deaths are an indirect consequence of Batman's actions. There is, however, a scene in which Batman knocks out two men in the back of an armored car and makes no attempt to save them as it goes careening off a cliff. Though, this was fairly common place in the Batman comic books at the time, as well. There’s actually one story, “Dr. Hugo Strange and the Mutant Monsters,” where Batman hangs one of Strange’s creations at the climax. 

Lewis Wilson was the first actor (and still the youngest) to play Batman on the big screen and his casting is a double edged sword; he makes for a terrific Bruce Wayne. He looks uncannily like the Bruce Wayne in the comic books at the time.  There is also a fun section in the serial in which he disguises himself as a hoodlum, Chuck White, so he can infiltrate Daka’s criminal underworld. Wilson is absolutely a joy to watch in these moments; his Bruce Wayne is a rather lazy and foppish fellow, and is largely played for laughs.

Unfortunately, once he dons the cape and cowl, our suspension of disbelief evaporates right in front of our eyes. Wilson was a handsome actor, but a model for physical fitness he was not. It doesn’t help that he’s laden with a chintzy costume that accentuates his flabby physique. This is one case where adding fake muscles to the costume would have greatly benefited the actor. Though, it does help explain why Batman is constantly getting owned by puny henchmen…well, except for at the serial’s climax when he has no problem handling a group of them. 

 Wilson would retire from acting at a fairly young age and, reportedly, was complete embarrassment by his involvement in this serial. It is too bad as he gives, despite his paunch belly, a rather lively performance.  He may lack the intensity (and the ripped physique) of Christian Bale, but he’s a lot more fun to watch.

J. Carrol Naish hams it up as the sadistic villain, Prince Daka. This serial was made during the height of World War II, so it’s not too surprising that its main villain is mad Japanese doctor out to control the world. It is a fairly xenophobic piece of work and it’s filled with all kinds of racial slurs; in the serial’s opening the narrator refers to Japanese people as being “shifty eyed” and when Linda Page meets Daka for the first time, she exclaims in sheer terror, “A Jap!”  These scenes are fairly uncomfortable for modern day viewers, though they are so ridiculously over the top that it’s hard to take them seriously.  Daka has developed a machine that can transform people into super strong zombies that obey only his commands, yet he only uses it on two elderly gentlemen and Linda Page. He is about to brainwash Batman, but Robin intervenes.  His main goal is to get his hands on a supply of radium that he needs to power his super ray gun. He also has a colorful way of disposing of his enemies; dropping them into a pit of alligators.  Hmmmm…I wonder if that is somehow going to play a part in his demise?  Also, in a fairly clever touch, Daka’s layer is hidden inside a House of Horrors.

Shirley Patterson is a beautiful actress and does what the script asks of her, which isn’t very much. The character of Linda Page is a fairly useless and forgettable; her main function is to get captured so Batman can rescue her.  In fact, her engagement to Bruce Wayne comes off as an afterthought; it isn’t until Chapter 13 that it is revealed she is his fiancée.  Up until this revelation, it is never made clear what their relationship is to one another. How does she know Bruce?  Half of the time, Linda seems to have the utmost contempt for Bruce Wayne and his “leisurely” lifestyle. Why the hell would she agree to marry such a guy? When her character isn't stumbling into trouble, she is nowhere to be seen.  The whole fiancée subplot is totally contrived and doesn't feel natural to the overall story line; Linda and Bruce are engaged because the script demands it.  Interestingly enough, Patterson, using the name of Shawn Smith, would experience her greatest success in the fifties, starring in the Universal thriller, The Land Unknown, and the cult classic, It! The Terror From Beyond Space.

Douglas Croft is probably the best realized screen Robin; it helps that he is actually the right age. Robin is an irritating character, but Croft makes the most of the material he is given. It is to his credit that you don’t roll your eyes ever time Robin utters a line.  Hell, at least he is of actual use to Batman as opposed to other incarnations of Robin, whom mainly just got in the way.  Croft, sadly, passed away at the young age of 37. 

Batman is far from being a great piece of cinema and, especially when compared to the action films of today, it is often extremely corny and dated. Yet, part of its charm is that it offers the modern day a viewer a glimpse into the world (and mindset) of 1943. It may not overwhelm you, but it moves along at a fairly fast pace (thanks to Lambert Hillyer’s efficient direction) and is actually more tightly plotted that most movie serials from the time period. It is definitely worth a look as a piece of nostalgia. Also, it is more beneficial to watch it over the course of a couple of days, instead in one sitting; it will seem far less redundant.

Credits

Cast: Lewis Wilson (Bruce Wayne/Chuck White/Batman), Douglas Croft (Dick Grayson/Robin), J. Carrol Naish (Prince Daka), Shirley Patterson (Linda Page), William Austin (Alfred), Charles Middleton (Ken Colton), Charles C. Wilson (Police Captain Arnold).

Director: Lambert Hillyer
Screenplay: Victor McLeod, Leslie Swabacker, Harry L. Fraser. Based off the comic book character by Bob Kane. 

Running Time: 260 min [15 episodes]

The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)

I am not a religious person, yet I absolute enjoy biblical epics.  There are two primary reasons for this:

1)      Nostalgia. I grew up in a Christian home and watching The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur was an Easter tradition in my family. The Ten Commandments had far greater appeal for me as a kid, because it was the more colorful of the two movies. 

2)      Spectacle.  Biblical epics are rarely great pieces of art, in fact, for all their moralizing they tend to be a bit hollow. The really appeal in these films in this the spectacle on display; the exotic locations, huge sets, big casts, and, most important of all, the larger than life characters. Biblical epics are essentially super hero movies set ancient times; the only difference is that instead of taking on colorful super heroes, the protagonists in these films are often pitted against tyrannical rulers.  In The Ten Commandments, it was Moses vs. Rameses. In Ben-Hur, it was Judah Ben-Hur  vs. the Roman Massala. And in The Greatest Story Ever Told, it is Jesus vs. well just about everyone.  

The Greatest Story Ever Told was not the first movie to chronicle the life of Christ, Cecil B. DeMille directed The King of Kings in 1927, nor is it even the best, Franco Zeffirelli’s mini-series Jesus of Nazareth and the DeMille movie are vastly superior, but it is arguably the most compelling movie out of the bunch, largely due to all the talent both in front and behind the camera.  It was directed by a top flight filmmaker in George Stevens, who had helmed such classics like Gunga Din, A Place in the Sun, Giant, and The Diary of Anne Frank. It was Stevens goal to create the definitive version of the life of Jesus by doing it in a straight forward manner; earlier adaptations were usually laden with unnecessary subplots (Nicholas Ray’s King of Kings), or Jesus was usually a supporting character and the film revolved around how he affected a change in the main character (Ben-Hur, The Robe).  The DeMille film, as entertaining as it is, surprisingly omits some of the more memorable aspects of the Christ story line; it glosses over the virgin birth, there is no nativity scene, and the character of John the Baptist is nowhere to be found.  Stevens wanted to make his adaptation as authentic as possible; he drew his main inspiration from the scriptures themselves. 

The greatest strength of the earlier adaptations was their ability to condense the gospels into a cohesive narrative; unfortunately, this does not apply to The Greatest Story Ever Told. It is often a very muddled and, for what was a very personal project, aloof in its presentation.  It’s a beautiful movie to look at (not surprising since Stevens began his career as a cameraman), but it’s an extremely overpopulated film, the film is often too busy playing “spot the star” that, as a result, many crucial characterizations suffer because they are giving no room to breathe.  This is the biggest criticism that is leveled against The Greatest Story Ever Told; it’s all star cast often has the effect of negating an entire scene. Take the crucifixion scene:  Stevens effectively depicts the darkest moment in Jesus (and humankind’s) life by very subtly turning the sky dark; the scene is done one long take. What should be very sad moment and touching moment is, instead, reduced to unintended comedy, when you a hear John Wayne’s voice (he plays a Roman Centurion) drawl on the soundtrack, “Truly this man was the son of God.”  It completely takes you out of the scene and undermines the mood that Stevens so effectively capture on film. 

This is problem that plagues the entire film, because a lot of the big name actors don’t really have a role to play, they are just there to be seen.  On other hand, some of the stunt casting is surprisingly effective, especially Charlton Heston as the prophet, John the Baptist. At this point in his career, Heston had already played Moses and, even though he won an Oscar for Ben-Hur, it was (and still is) his most signature role, and it’s clear that Stevens had this in mind when he cast Heston in the role of John the Baptist. While Heston is, technically, playing the role the John the Baptist, we as an audience see it mores as Moses handing the reins over to Jesus (Max von Sydow). It’s a scene that plays on the audience’s familiarity with Heston’s earlier films and it works extraordinarily well. 

Other performance that I like: Donald Pleasance is sufficiently creepy as Satan.  Sal Mineo is extremely convincing as Uriah, the cripple that Jesus heals.  Joseph Schildkraut brings a lot of warmth to the character of Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin that is sympathetic to Jesus’ cause. Interestingly enough, Schildkraut played Judas in DeMille’s The King of Kings. He was effectively slimy in that film, while in The Greatest Story Ever Told, he is beacon of kindness. Gary Raymond is fairly effective as Peter, especially in the scene in which he denies Christ three times before the “cock crows.”  Best of all is Jose Ferrer as the decadent rule Herod Antipas, the man who has John the Baptist beheaded. The acting, overall, is fairly efficient; the main problem is that a lot of performances get lost in the shuffle.  For example, Roddy McDowall is a good actor, but he’s absolutely wasted in the role of the Matthew. He makes a pretty strong impression in his first scene and then is promptly forgotten about. David McCallum is miscast as Judas, but  give it his all. The problem is that film never really offers a convincing explanation as to why Judas would betray Jesus; it happens in a blink of an eye. Dorothy McGuire is a good actress, but she’s a poor choice for the role of the Virgin Mary. She certainly isn’t helped by the script; she has practically no dialogue and is relegated to a piece of scenery. Stevens could have easily replaced her with a wax sculpture and no one would be any the wiser.

Max von Sydow was certainly an odd choice to play the role of Jesus, but he is pretty effective in the role, though his Jesus is often a very distant character; lacking the warmth that H.B. Warner and Robert Powell managed to bring to the role.  His most effective moment is when he sheds a tear after he is confronted by Martha, the sister of Lazarus. Lazarus has just died and Martha wonders how Jesus could be neglectful towards a friend, while jumping to the aid of complete strangers. It’s one of the few affecting moments in the film; Jesus is at a complete loss for words, sheds a tear, and then proceeds to resurrect Lazarus. 

As spectacle The Greatest Story Ever Told in, indeed, a sight to behold. Its visuals are beautiful to look at and even awe-inspiring at times.  My favorite scene being: the camera gives us a bird’s eye view of Jerusalem and then, through a series of dissolves, tracks over to a remote spot in the desert where John the Baptist is baptizing new converts, while preaching the word of God.  It’s an extremely effective transition and offers up a nice way to introduce a new character to the story. The other moment that stands out is the resurrection of Lazarus; Stevens doesn't actually show the resurrection itself, but rather focuses on the witnesses to the event and how it affects them.  We are shown close ups of different spectators, then three of them (Uriah, Old Aram, and Bar Amand) take off to inform the people of the miracle that had just witnessed.

Yet, as effective as The Greatest Story Ever Told is as spectacle, it is absolutely falls flat in the dramatic department. It is, surprisingly, uninvolving at times, especially in the first half hour. The problem I have with the film is that there really is no character the audience can empathize with; the characters of Mary and Joseph are so poorly defined that it’s really hard to care about their plight. Stevens is banking on the audience’s familiarity with the Gospels and is hoping they will fill in the blanks, essentially he is saying, “To hell with character development.”  The film tells us very little about the actual characters, but we’re supposed to care about them because the Bible tells us so.  It’s interesting to compare The Greatest Story Ever Told to the much superior Jesus of Nazareth; they are similar in a few respects, both are directed by acclaimed filmmakers and feature an all star cast, but the latter is a much more moving experience (despite its six hour length), because Franco Zeffirelli actually takes the time to develop the characters. The first hour of the movie is devoted to the characters of Joseph and Mary. The audience genuinely fears for their safety, because the film has given us their back story.  Plus, it also helps that Yorgo Voyagis gives a likable and compassionate performance as Joseph.  Robert Loggia, on the other hand, mutters a few lines and then disappears from the movie.

This is the extent of Robert Loggia's performance. 

George Stevens, very curiously, uses very little closes up in the entire movie; almost everything is done in long shots and extended takes. This works extremely well in crowd scenes, like in the crucifixion and the Last Supper, but becomes a hindrance during smaller, more dramatic scenes that are cluttered with dialogue. It’s often hard to make out who is doing the talking. For instance, the scene in which Jesus heals a leper woman (Shelley Winters) is an epic failure, because:

1)      We have no idea who the woman is until she proclaims, “I’m cured!”  There’s nothing to distinguish her from the rest of the crowd, Jesus just happens to bump into her and the next thing you know she is praising him aloud.

2)      Jesus’ reaction to the miracle is one of complete indifference. He tells the lady that her faith has cured and the goes on his way.

The Greatest Story Ever Told should be the kind of film that elicits tears and applause from the audience, instead we kind of just shrug our shoulders and say, “That was okay.”  The Greatest Ever Told is on par with sitting in the nose bleeds seats of heavily hyped sporting event. At first you are revved to be there, but very soon boredom settles in because you can't tell what is going on in the game. Occasionally something exciting will happen, but then the doldrums set back in. It's not a complete waste of your time, but given the talent involved, it should have been phenomenal.  

Credits

Cast: Max von Sydow (Jesus), Charlton Heston (John the Baptist), Dorothy McGuire (The Virgin Mary), Jose Ferrer (Herod Antipas), Gary Raymond (Peter),  David McCallum (Judas), Martin Landau (Caiaphas), Telly Savalas (Pontius Pilate), Sal Mineo (Uriah), Joanna Dunham (Mary Magdalene), Victor Buono (Sarak), Donald Pleasance (The Dark Hermit-Satan), Ina Balin (Martha of Bethany), Janet Margolin (Mary of Bethany), Michael Tolan (Lazarus), Michael Anderson, Jr. (James the Younger), Joseph Schildkraut (Nicodemus), Van Heflin (Bar Amand), Ed Wynn (Old Aram), Claude Rains (King Herod),Robert Loggia (Joseph), John Considine (John), Roddy McDowall (Matthew), Sidney Poitier (Simon of Cyrene), Angela Lansbury (Claudia),  Abraham Sofaer (Joseph of Arimathaea), Robert Blake (Simon the zealot), Jamie Farr (Thaddeus), Paul Stewart (Questor), John Wayne (Roman at crucifixion), Shelley Winters (Woman who is healed), Nehemiah Persoff (Shemiah), Carroll Baker (Veronica), Richard Conte (Barrabas), Pat Boone (Angel at tomb), Russell Johnson (Scribe), Frank Silvera (Caspar).

Director: George Stevens
Screenplay: James Lee Barrett, George Stevens, Carl Sandburg (uncredited).
Running Time:  199 min. 

The Mummy (1999)

How does Stephen Sommers manage to get quality actors to star in his movies? This is a question that has often puzzled me. Sommers is, at best, a poor man's Steven Spielberg. It is clear he has spent a lot of his time studying Spielberg's movies, but has learned very little from them. The Mummy is one of those rare films where an excellent cast is able to salvage a ridiculous screenplay and make it immensely entertaining. In fact, the cast is so good that they often make  Sommers look like a competent director. It's no coincidence that the The Mummy is the best (and only good) movie Sommers ever made.

The Mummy is a remake of the 1932 classic starring the great Boris Karloff, but whereas that film was a tragic, supernatural romance, Sommers' version is an adventure film in the vein of Indiana Jones. There is tons of action, but very little scares.  In fact, the weakest aspect of the film is the mummy itself, as played by Arnold Vosloo. Vosloo actually has a pretty good screen presence, but he isn't really given much to do until the last half hour of the film. Unfortunately for a significant portion of the film, the mummy is brought to life with extremely unconvincing CGI. A lot of time was spent on designing the look of the mummy, but in the end it looks more like an Altered Beast  reject than an actual movie villain.

There are a couple of odd decisions that Sommers makes in his screenplay, like how Imhotep's resurrection could, in essence, bring about the end of the world. In the 1999 film, Imhotep's resurrection brings about plagues on the Egyptian people, escalating in them being covered with boils and turned into mindless zombies controlled by Imhotep. You can argue that it ups the stakes, but it's rather silly plot device that the characters essentially shrug off.  In fact, The Mummy's biggest asset, its quirky sense of humor, is often its biggest drawback as well; it's hard to develop any sense of urgency when your  lead characters are constantly cracking jokes and remain in high spirits the entire time. I was also never able to buy that Imhotep would mistake Evelyn for a reincarnation of Anck-Su-Namun, largely for the fact that the two look nothing alike. It also doesn't help that in the sequel, The Mummy Returns, Sommers completely negates this plot point by having Meela, the real reincarnation of Anck-Su-Namum, showing up and, even more inexplicably, revealing that Evelyn is actually the reincarnation of Seti's daughter. 

The 1932 film, as well as the 1959 Hammer remake, were much more limited in their scope; neither Imhotep (Boris Karloff) nor Kharis (Christopher Lee in the remake) wanted to bring about the end of the world, they were motivated by love and loyalty; Imhotep wants to be reunited with his long lost love Ankh-es-en-Amon while Kharis seeks to punish those they have defiled the tomb of princess Ananka.  Kharis is aided in his revenge by the fez wearing Mehemmet Bey, a member of a religious sect that has made it their mission to protect the tomb of Ananka. It's interesting to note that the 1959 film is more of a reworking of Universal Mummy films from the 40s (The Mummy's Hand, The Mummy's Tomb, The Mummy's Ghost, and The Mummy's Curse) than the Karloff original. In each successive film, the mummy of Kharis (played by Tom Tyler in the first film, Lon Chaney, Jr. in the sequels) sets about murdering those responsible for opening the tomb of Ananka and is abetted by a fez wearing cultist; his journeys take him from the sands of Egypt to the swamps of Louisiana. 

In fact, Sommers' movie owes a greater debt to the The Mummy's Hand than it does to the Karloff original.  The Mummy's Hand begins on a flashback set in Ancient Egypt and shows how Kharis attempted to resurrect his beloved Ananka, only to be punished for his efforts. Sommers begins his movie in a similar fashion; Imhotep is having an affair with Anck-Su-Namun, the mistress of Pharaoh Seti I. It comes to an abrupt end when Seti wises up to their love and is then stabbed to death by both of them. Imhotep flees, while Anck-Su-Namun commits suicide. Imhotep's attempt to resurrect her are interrupted by Seti's guards and he is buried alive with fleshing eating scarabs. 

The original 1932  movie begins with an archaeological expedition, lead by Sir Joseph Whemple, discovering Imhotep's mummy. While Sir Joseph and his friend, Dr. Muller, are outside having a discussion, Whemple's impatient assistant reads from the Scroll of Thoth and revives Imhotep; this encounter with the living mummy drives him insane and it is later revealed  that he died laughing in an asylum. It's a nice bit of understated direction by Karl Freund; Imhotep is never actually shown rising from his sarcophagus, instead his resurrection is hinted at by a small glint in his eyes and slight movement of his right arm. This is in direct contrast to the fire and brimstone that signals Imhotep's revival in the 1999 remake. 

In The Mummy's Hand there's a secret cult trying to protect the secret of Ananka's tomb, one of their members happens to be Professor Andoheb, curator of the Cairo Museum. When an expedition led by archaeologist Steve Banning sets out to find Ananka's tomb, Andoheb, by burning tana leaves, resurrects Kharis and orders him to kill members of the party. Sommers does a slight variation of the plot in his remake; the Madjei are a religious order devoted to keeping the location of Hamunaptra (where Imhotep attempted to resurrect Anck-Su-Namum) secret; one of them happens to be Dr. Terrance Bey, curator of the Cairo Museum. The Medjai, however, are actually good guys and their leader, Ardeth Bay, aids Rick and Evelyn in defeating Imhotep. In the Karloff version, Imhotep (in the guise of Ardeth Bay) actually helps Frank Whemple (Sir Joseph's son) find the tomb of Ankh-es-en-Amon. The idea of a mummy exacting his revenge on those that defiled his beloved princess' tomb is taken from The Mummy's Hand. In the 1932 movie, Imhotep only kills those who stand in the way of him being reunited with Ankh-es-en-Amon; he is a much more sympathetic character than Kharis in the four Universal films (and Hammer remake) and Imhotep in the remake. In his remake, Stephen Sommers essentially took the character of Imhotep and injected him with steroids; he is extremely buffed and dispatches of his victims by sucking the life force from their bodies. He can also change shapes (he turns into sand a couple of times) and control the elements of nature. 

The strongest similarity between The Mummy's Hand and 1999 remake is that they both are laden with comedy relief.  In the former,  it comes in the forms of Banning's assistant Babe Jenson and The Great Solvani, a magician who happens to be touring Egypt and agrees to fund their expedition. In the latter, it comes in the forms of the backstabbing Beni and Jonathan, Evelyn's never do well older brother.  Banning strikes up a romance with Solvani's daughter, Marta, while in the remake, Rick O' Connell, strikes up a romance with Evelyn. The romantic subplot is the one area that Sommers vastly improves on; in the original the romantic lead was the rather dull actor David Manners (who also co-starred in Dracula and The Black Cat) . Imhotep is a much more interesting character than Frank Whemple, therefore we find it frustrating that Helen (the reincarnation of Ankh-es-en-Amon) would fall for such a bore; he's a bigger stiff than Imhotep in mummy form. The romance in The Mummy's Hand feels rather forced; Marta goes from disliking Steve to falling in love with him in a span of five minutes. The romance between Rick and Evelyn, on the other hand, feels natural to the story line and is extremely believable due to the chemistry of the actors - it is easily the best part of the movie. 

I rather like The Mummy, despite Sommers' hackneyed screenplay and unimaginative direction. Whatever limitations Sommers has as a filmmaker, he some how managed to hit the jack pot with the actors he assembled for this film; Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, and John Hannah could have easily phoned in their performances and collected paycheck, but they manage to bring such warmth to their roles that we (or at least I) don't really mind that Imhotep is nowhere to be seen in the first hour (except in the prologue).  In fact, had Sommers dropped the whole Mummy angle and just focused on the misadventures of these three characters, it would probably be one of my all time favorite films. Oh well, at least it makes for an entertaining two hours.  Brendan Fraser is probably one of the most frustrating actors in movie history; he is a talented actor and can often wow you with an amazing dramatic performance (he managed to hold his own opposite Ian McKellan in Gods and Monsters) only to follow it up with a vehicle that is not worthy of his talents (Monkeybone, Dudley Do Right, etc.) It's quite a shame. Rachel Weisz is equally lovable as the slightly clumsy, but brilliant Evelyn. After Evelyn has accidentally resurrected Imhotep, she accepts full blame and makes it her goal to right her wrong. Too often summer blockbuster movies will gloss over the fact that the lead character is often to blame for everything that has gone wrong, The Mummy, on the other hand, doesn't take the easy out and holds its characters responsible. John Hannah steals the film with his comic portrayal as Jonathan, who also happens to be an exceptional pickpocket. Jonathan is probably the most interesting character in the film, he's a complete scoundrel and has never done an honest day's work in his entire life, but we suspect that underneath that somewhat slimy exterior there is a decent guy waiting to emerge. That's why the ending is extremely satisfying, because instead of giving Jonathan a "heroic" death, Sommers allows for him to survive at the end. 



Credits
Cast: Brendan Fraser (Rick O' Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evy Carnahan), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Kevin J. O' Conner (Beni), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bey), Jonathan Hyde (Dr. Allen Chamberlain), Erick Avari (Dr. Terrence Bey), Patricia Velasquez (Anck Su Namun), Stephen Dunham (Mr. Henderson), Corey Johnston (Mr. Daniels), Tuc Watkins (Mr. Burns), Bernard Fox (Winston Havlock).

Director: Stephen Sommers.
Screenplay: Stephen Sommers.  Stephen Sommers, Lloyd Fonvielle, Kevin Jarre. (screen story)
Running Time: 125 min.