88 Minutes

I feel fairly confident in stating that veteran actor Al Pacino (“The Godfather” trilogy, “Any Given Sunday”, “Serpico”) is easily one of the greatest actors ever to appear on the silver screen. With that being said, is it just me or is anyone else scratching their head over one of Al’s recent releases, the supposed thriller “88 Minutes”, which has become the worst reviewed movie of Pacino’s illustrious career. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, once you do I’m sure you’ll join me and many others in wondering, “Why does a man as successful as Al Pacino debase himself by starring in this piece of cinematic garbage?”

“88 Minutes” follows one extremely stressful day in the life of forensic psychologist Jack Gramm (Al Pacino) as he receives a threatening phone call claiming that he only has 88 minutes to live (hence the name). To make things worse, a killer is leaving a trail of bodies that just so happen to be friends/colleagues or students of Gramm’s. Now, suspicions are on the rise that Jack may have snapped; all the while time is ticking away for Jack to discover who is committing these murders, which of his colleagues and/or students may be killed next, and most important of all, how he can survive the following 88 minutes of his day.

So, after viewing this less than thrilling thriller, which for some reason lasted nearly 20 minutes past the 88 minutes of story the movie actually has in store, I find myself pondering the question I posed a few moments ago, regarding Al’s questionable decision to star in such an obviously bad film that is nothing more than a pale imitation of a sub-par episode of any “CSI” or “Law and Order” series. Surely, the script read as poorly on paper as it sounded in the context of the movie. Well Al, can you answer my question or are you just as dumbfounded as the rest of us? That’s what I thought, you’re as dumbfounded by your decision to star in this garbage as we are (I felt like giving him the benefit of the doubt based on his numerous years of cinematic greatness that he has given us).

The story for “88 Minutes” holds promise early on, but by approximately 20 to 30 minutes into the film one quickly realizes that things are beginning to go awry and soon after that the material completely spirals out of control amidst a mess of more red herrings than an entire season of Scooby-Doo, a cornucopia of continuity errors, and impossible coincidences that are too obvious to ignore. Writer Gary Scott Thompson (TV’s “Las Vegas”) is not exactly a stranger to compelling drama, but for some reason he wasn’t able to squeeze any out of his script for this movie. I think the concept for the movie sounded good on paper, but when trying to flesh out the script Thompson most likely realized that the concept wouldn’t be able to hold up without relying on absurd coincidences. I believe Thompson, in an attempt to somewhat disguise the over-reliance on coincidences that are completely improbable, chose to introduce as many red herrings as he possibly could, to the point that as a viewer you eventually lose track of which ones you’ve eliminated as possible suspects and you just take a shot in the dark regarding who the guilty party may be. Whatever the case may actually be, one thing is for certain, the movie’s story is far too contrived and jumbled for any person to actually enjoy sitting through it from start to finish.

The continuity errors sprinkled all throughout “88 Minutes” could be attributed some to the writing, but in the end the director, Jon Avnet (“Righteous Kill”), does have control over what ones will be visible in the final product. This for me became a major distraction over the course of the movie; for instance, in one scene a car is shown vandalized, yet five to ten minutes later that very same vehicle is shown in completely pristine condition and the vandalism disappearing is never touched upon as being fixed and due to the 88 minute plot device, there was never any time for the car to be repaired, hence one major error that should have been caught on the set or in the script and wasn’t. One other example would be Al Pacino’s crazy hairstyle in this movie. I don’t normally pay too close of attention to an actor or actresses hair in a movie, but his was so odd and varying from moment to moment that it was hard to miss, and the hair seemed like it was almost alive and taking on a life all its own at times. Granted the former is a much bigger problem than the latter in terms of complaints about the movie; yet both serve as prime examples for a couple of instances where continuity was obviously ignored, and the problem permeated into almost every scene of the film.

Speaking of Al Pacino I normally enjoy his performances even in movies that aren’t always the greatest, he at least provides some semblance of entertainment. In this movie, Al seems hardly invested in the role, as if he’s just going through the motions to collect a paycheck that I hardly believe he was in such desperate need of to sign on to such a ridiculous project. Generally, in every Pacino movie there is a moment or two where Al kind of goes over-the-top, not to the point of bad acting, it’s just something you come to expect from him through his intense portrayal of his various roles, and in a way you kind of look forward to it; yet in this movie he maybe does it once, and not to the extent that any real intensity is conveyed. That lack of intensity gave me a clear indication of how little Al actually cared for the material he was being given to work with here.

Supporting Al’s uninspired performance were some fairly recognizable faces ranging from the always reliable character actor William Forsythe (“Gotti”), to former TV stars Amy Brenneman (“Judging Amy”) and Neil McDonough (“Boomtown”), to some of Hollywood’s obscure young talents Leelee Sobieski (“Joy Ride”) and Alicia Witt (“Urban Legend”). Most of the supporting cast was decent in their various roles, although Leelee Sobieski seemed a little forced in her performance, not feeling all that natural in her role as a student to Jack Gramm. Perhaps this was due to the fact that maybe she was aware of how ridiculous this movie actually was, I do not know, but whatever the reason, she just didn’t seem comfortable in her role from the moment her character was introduced.

What it all boils down to is this, “88 Minutes” is one of the worst movies, if not the worst movie of 2008, and by far is the worst movie in Al Pacino’s highly successful career. A poor story full of contrived plot points, inconsistencies, and a running time that doesn’t end soon enough, “88 Minutes” will have you bored and looking for the stop button long before the credits will begin to roll.

“88 Minutes” is rated R for violence and language.

The Mummy Returns

With the success of “The Mummy”, Universal Pictures was quick to put director Stephen Sommers once again back behind the camera for yet another installment. Universal was wise enough to realize that success of the sequel would most likely hinge upon the original cast returning, a story that was bigger and better, and of course a heftier budget with which to create the visual effects that should surpass those in the original, which were impressive enough. Even with all of those components in place, a success is never a guarantee, because one essential piece to the puzzle is now missing due to the fact that this movie is a sequel, and that piece is originality and/or surprise. With the first movie Universal was able to catch audiences by surprise with the humor, adventure, and visually stunning CGI; however, with a sequel people arrive with a preconceived notion for what they expect to see which could end up hurting the movie’s appeal.

“The Mummy Returns” takes place approximately 10 years after the events of “The Mummy”. Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser) and Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) are now married and have a young son named Alex. After a contrived series of events leads to the resurrection of the dreaded Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo) in London, Rick and Evelyn find themselves once more in a fight against an army of mummies and the fate of the world on their shoulders. As if Imhotep once again walking the Earth determined to fulfill his quest for immortality wasn’t enough to contend with; another force is threatening to be loosed upon the world. This force of darkness is one born out of the darkest rituals of ancient Egyptian mysticism, and is even more powerful than Imhotep; he is the mighty Scorpion King (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson).

With a bigger budget, original cast members, and the same director behind the camera “The Mummy Returns” had the potential to be just as good, if not better than its predecessor. However, as good as this movie was, it didn’t quite make the connection that the first one made with at least this particular audience member. Sure, it’s a fairly solid effort for a sequel, the humor and adventure is still in place, and the action sequences and visual effects attempt to be on a much grander scale; but, the story doesn’t feel as fresh to me, and at times it seemed that the big moments in the movie were hampered by the focus being shifted too much on Rick and Evelyn’s son Alex, who was an annoying addition to the film, and one that I wish hadn’t been included in the final product.

The story for “The Mummy Returns” as written by director Stephen Sommers is fairly fast-paced, but after awhile I felt the numerous flashbacks became irritating and distracting. The reason for this is that the flashbacks seemed to be rewriting numerous elements of the first movie, and in places seemed to cause the first movie to seem somewhat irrelevant. The inclusion of a certain character’s previous life being intertwined with that of Imhotep’s and Anck-Su-Namun’s felt out of place and didn’t explain why Imhotep didn’t recognize this character in the first movie; therefore, making the first one seem inconsistent with the storyline established in this movie. Other than that problem, and the even bigger one I mentioned above regarding Rick and Evelyn’s son Alex being too heavily focused upon, the story was a good follow-up to 1999’s “The Mummy”.

The cast mostly consisted of familiar faces from the original movie, all of which seemed to still be enjoying their roles as much as the first time. I still have to say that it is a bit disappointing whenever Imhotep takes on his human form instead of the CGI created mummy form. The addition of child actor Freddie Boath as Alex O’Connell was a mistake in my opinion; I personally felt the movie would have greatly benefited from the lack of the stereotypical mischief child with a heart of gold and an intellect far beyond his years, it is just too unbelievable. Dwayne Johnson makes his movie debut in the opening sequences of this film, and within the few short minutes his character is onscreen, I was instantly intrigued by this mysterious Scorpion King, and the lack of backstory only heightened the interest I had for this new character that I hoped could be explored further in later installments. As a matter of fact my hope was realized when the spin-off “The Scorpion King” was released to theaters; however, that movie was only average and didn’t quite grab me as I had hoped it would, and the character of the Scorpion King wasn’t nearly as interesting as I was led to believe in this movie.

Surprisingly, the element that was so eye-popping in the first movie is not quite as impressive this second time around. For some reason, the CGI appears to be all over the board in terms of quality and realism. There are moments where the CGI is unbelievable, but others look rushed and extremely fake that it’s surprising that Stephen Sommers allowed the movie to be released in such a state. I had read at one time that the effects were rushed to meet the deadline of the movie’s release, which would account for the inconsistent quality of the CGI. Whatever the case may be, this was just another aspect of the movie that should have been much better and by all accounts should have blown audiences away, but in the end left them slightly underwhelmed.

Overall, “The Mummy Returns” is a fairly solid, if not flawed sequel that doesn’t live up to its predecessor. I was pleased to see the original cast return for this film, but the addition of an annoying child, inconsistent visual effects, and a story that is good but not great causes this movie to be deemed as slightly above average when compared to the much stronger effort that preceded it.

“The Mummy Returns” is rated PG-13 for violence, brief language, and sensuality.

The Mummy

In the late nineties, Universal Pictures decided it was time to dust off one of their famous monsters of old, and give it a face-lift in order to hopefully deliver all-new thrills and chills to a new generation of moviegoers. To accomplish this, Universal chose a seemingly obscure director, to most audiences, by the name of Stephen Sommers (“Deep Rising”) to rejuvenate their classic monster, the mummy. So, with a not-so well known director, a fairly hefty budget, and a moderately well-known star in Brendan Fraser; Universal was prepared to place quite a lot of faith and clout behind their remake of “The Mummy”. But one problem still remains with this remake, can it possibly impress the older generation that grew up on the original, and can it muster enough thrills for the newer, more jaded generation?

“The Mummy” is the story of a 3,000 year old force of terror being unleashed upon Egypt. The force of nature, or the creature (Arnold Vosloo) as he is commonly known, is a former Egyptian priest named Imhotep, who betrayed his pharaoh when he struck up an affair with the pharoah’s wife. As punishment both Imhotep and his love were placed in a cursed tomb where they would forever remain. That is until a team of explorers lead by Rick (Brendan Fraser) and Evelyn (Rachel Weisz) accidentally release the monster and his wrath upon an unsuspecting Egypt.

Though expectations for “The Mummy” were decent, there was still plenty of skepticism surrounding the possible success of this remake. Earlier I posed the question that was present in many people’s minds in regards to this film, “Could this remake even hope to equal the original film and impress both old and new generations of moviegoers?” The answer is a resounding yes for both. Based on huge box office numbers and critical praise, it was clear that Universal’s gamble to resurrect their classic movie monster was not a mistake after all.

With the success of the film, actors Brendan Fraser (“Blast From the Past”) and Rachel Weisz (“The Fountain”) became very well-known amongst many movie audiences. Any praise or attention these two actors garnered from their respective roles were well earned, as both did excellent jobs bringing these tomb raiding adventurers to life on the big screen. Along with Brendan and Rachel, actor Arnold Vosloo (TV’s “24”) was great as the former high priest turned mummy, Imhotep. Arnold was clearly having fun as the vengeful creature and seemed to be reveling in all the chaos his character was bringing about; however, I must admit it was kind of a downer for me once his character became fully human in appearance, because ILM had done such a good job with the visual effects of bringing Imhotep to life in mummy form that he just wasn’t as thrilling as flesh and blood. Actor John Hannah provided many much needed moments of levity as Evelyn’s trouble-making brother, Jonathan. John’s presence in this movie could have been annoying, but writer/director Stephen Sommers was wise enough to not go overboard with the broad brand of comedy John’s character delivered.

The two lead actors weren’t the only ones benefiting from the huge success of “The Mummy”. Director Stephen Sommers showed off his knack for special effects extravaganzas, and found himself at the helm of a possible new franchise for Universal. Not exactly a bad way to boost a career. Sommers proved himself to not only be a capable director, but also as a writer who knew how to capture the essence of classic archetypal characters and make them fresh for a new generation, without losing their appeal for the previous ones. The story Sommers crafted was full of extravagant visual effects sequences that would push the boundaries of what the wizards at ILM were capable of, along with some romance, some humor (somewhat campy humor at times), and a plethora of action to keep the adrenaline pumping from start to finish. In the end, Stephen Sommers provided audiences with an entertaining movie experience that reignited a character and franchise that was abandoned long ago.

Alongside the live actors in the film, the creative wizards at George Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic were given the daunting task of creating a realistic-looking CGI mummy. No small task by any means, yet the creative team pulled it off surprisingly well; although the creature doesn’t look nearly as perfect now as I thought it used to, especially when compared to today’s visual effects capabilities. That being said, back in 1999 ILM truly outdid themselves with the work they put onscreen, and if not for them this new iteration of the classic monster wouldn’t have been nearly as enthralling.

For a remake of a classic movie, which has become an all too common theme in Hollywood these days, Universal Pictures was fortunate enough to avoid the pitfalls of many remakes; the fact that most can’t even come close to matching the original in any way, shape, or form. Clearly “The Mummy” is the exception to what has long been the rule.

“The Mummy” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and brief sensuality.

Redbelt

The story of an underdog is one that always seems to resonate with movie audiences, most likely because at one time or another in our lives we have all been in that position, so we know what it feels like and can easily relate to it. In writer/director David Mamet’s recently released “Redbelt” we are given the typical Hollywood underdog story; however, that’s not good enough for a David Mamet movie, there must always be something more going on than what meets the eye. So, does “Redbelt” successfully push itself beyond the standard limits of an underdog story, or do the added subtexts cause the movie to ultimately suffer in the end?

“Redbelt” is the story of an idealistic Jiu-Jitsu instructor, Mike Terry (Chiwetel Ejiorfor), who lives his life according to a strict code of honor reminiscent of the samurai. After one fateful night, Mike comes to the aid of actor Chet Frank (Tim Allen) moments before the fading action star is about to be pummeled in a bar brawl. Feeling gratitude towards Mike for his heroic deed, Chet befriends the Jiu-Jitsu instructor; however, what appeared to be a kind gesture on Chet’s part may have been nothing more than a manipulative ruse to gain access to some of Mike’s training techniques for use in rigged televised MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) fights, which Chet has a vested interest in. With this apparent betrayal at the hands of a dishonorable man, Mike is determined to set things right once more and earn his honor back.

This movie was kind of an odd experience for me, on the one hand it was a fairly decent drama, full of twists and turns, betrayal, and a good share of accurately depicted Jiu-Jitsu (the accuracy statement is based on what I’ve read about the movie, I personally wouldn’t know for sure). On the other hand, the movie is full of convenient coincidences; plot threads left completely unresolved, and an ending that is so horribly filmed and surprisingly simplistic that the movie seems to fall apart completely in the closing moments. With numerous positive elements working in the movie’s favor against some undeniably problematic negative elements I found myself moderately enjoying approximately half of the movie, but wishing the other half would have been a bit more refined, especially from a writer and director of David Mamet’s caliber.

Speaking of David Mamet, I am not one of his biggest fans, and whenever a new movie or project is announced that he will be working on I don’t anxiously await for it to be completed. I admit that I have enjoyed several of the movies and TV projects that he has written, or at least worked on, over the years (“The Shield”, “Hannibal”, etc.); however, after watching his last movie “Spartan” that he both wrote and directed, I came to the conclusion that even though the movie was decent, it just didn’t really work for me and if this was evidence of what a film written and directed by Mamet was going to be like, then I could easily wait for DVD or never see it at all and still be perfectly fine. With all that being said, when I saw the trailers for “Redbelt” I was very intrigued by the story and the cast chosen to flesh out the roles, but when I heard that this was another movie written and directed by David Mamet I kind of lost interest, and as I said would be the case, decided to wait for DVD. The movie still looked interesting enough to warrant a viewing, which is why I wouldn’t have been content to just let this movie pass me by.

The screenplay for “Redbelt” is a very well written drama that digs into the world of martial arts academies and televised fighting circuits. The story is the epitome of the classic underdog tale, as Mike takes on the likes of those much richer and more powerful than he could ever hope to be in order to regain the honor he feels he has lost due to his betrayal at the hands of actor Chet Frank and his cohorts. As sharp as the writing by Mamet is in this film, with its intricate web of deception and intrigue, for some unexplained reason, the climax becomes far too simplified, leaving many plot lines introduced earlier in the movie unresolved; plus, the camerawork for the final fight scene is some of the worst I have seen in a movie. I realize that David Mamet is much more skilled with drama than action, and I give him credit for including as many fight scenes as he did in this movie; however, the earlier fight scenes were filmed in a way that the audience was close to the action and could easily see what exactly was going on throughout the course of the fight. When it comes to the end of the movie, a majority of the time the camera is positioned in what feels like the other side of the arena, causing me, the viewer, to not be able to see much of what is going on. There are a few moments within that final fight where the camerawork is much better, but the jarring cutbacks to the distant shot completely disrupt whatever momentum the fight scene had. I am really surprised by David Mamet’s apparent inability to resolve his movie in a more satisfactory way, even though I am not his biggest fan I am smart enough to realize that he is a man that knows how to finish a movie properly, but for some reason he just chose not to do it here, and the movie definitely suffers for it.

As far as the acting in the film goes, everyone did an absolutely great job. Chiwetel Ejiofor (“Four Brothers”) was almost inspiring in his utmost commitment to his code of honor and inability to see the bad in others. I knew that Chiwetel was a very good actor, but I wasn’t sure if he could carry a movie on his own. For an actor that mostly spends his time in supporting roles, his jump into the lead role was surprisingly smooth, and his good-natured character most likely assisted in making him more relatable to the audience. Another performance worthy of praise was that of funny man Tim Allen (“The Santa Clause”), who was an odd choice for such a dramatic role, but his performance was quite possibly one of the best, if not the best, in his entire career as an actor. I had never seen Tim play a serious role before, not to mention a semi-villainous one, yet Tim nails the part perfectly, never once showing a hint of the comedian we’ve all known for years. Filling out the rest of the supporting cast we have Emily Mortimer (“The Pink Panther”) who plays a traumatized lawyer, Joe Mantegna (“The Last Don”) as Chet’s manager, and Ricky Jay who is a staple of many David Mamet films and TV episodes as an under-handed fight promoter. UFC fighter Randy Couture (“The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior”) shows up in a surprisingly good performance as a fight commentator working in the MMA fighting circuit that Mike is attempting to expose as a fraud.

In the end, “Redbelt” was still an average movie, but the problematic conclusion causes the experience to be far less enjoyable than it started out to be. Perhaps if David Mamet could have taken a little more time in tying up loose ends, instead of setting up cameras in some of the worst positions imaginable for a fight scene, the ending would have worked much better and the film would have benefited considerably.

“Redbelt” is rated R for violence and language.

The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior

After only amassing a moderate box office success with 2002’s “The Scorpion King” starring former wrestling superstar Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Universal Pictures apparently put on hold any potential sequels to the prequel (that sounded funny… oh well) of their popular “The Mummy” series. In 2008, Universal dusted off the character of the Scorpion King for another shot at movie audiences; however, this effort would not star The Rock, as it was to be a prequel (a decision that I believe was prompted by The Rock most likely rejecting the notion of starring in another ‘Scorpion King’ movie), and it would also skip any kind of theatrical release, going directly to DVD. So, let me think about this for a second, the star of the original movie most likely rejected the idea of reprising his role for a sequel, potentially causing the shift from sequel to prequel, then the movie skips theaters altogether and goes directly to DVD, finally getting released around the same time as another ‘Mummy’ movie was hitting theaters. Does anyone else besides me believe that this spelled potential disaster for this second entry in the inferior spin-off series to “The Mummy”? Let’s have a show of hands… Yeah, that’s what I thought, pretty much everyone sees this movie as nothing more than a hack job primarily made for cashing in on the recently released “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor”.

“The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior” centers on a young Mathayus (Michael Copon) as he begins learning the ways of an assassin in order to better serve his king. However, when a warrior named Sargon (Randy Couture) murders Mathayus’ father, Mathayus forgoes his oath of honor to begin a quest for vengeance against the evil Sargon and all those that side with him.

Wow, I don’t know if I can think of a time when the description on the back of a DVD could have been further from the truth. The description touted this action/adventure prequel as “…a heroic adventure filled with heart-stopping action and thrilling visual effects!” Well, I’m not sure what movie the marketing people that came up with that load of bull were watching, but it sure wasn’t “The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior”, I can tell you that right now. For a movie with supposedly “heart-stopping action”, I was fairly bored a good majority of the time, and as for the “thrilling visual effects” they were more like B-movie effects or worse. In fact, I think that the Sci-Fi channel original movies have better effects than what was employed here.

It’s also a pity to note that director Russell Mulcahy comes fresh off of helming the successful third entry, “Resident Evil: Extinction”, in the popular zombie franchise to directing this Direct-to-DVD piece of garbage. Now, I’m not trying to insinuate that I feel like Russell is an A-list director at all; in fact, I don’t think he will ever compare to the likes of Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorcese, but regardless of that, he still is a decent enough Hollywood director that has had his fair share of successes that he deserved better than to be directing this movie. If Russell chose this as his next movie of his own free will then that’s one thing, I personally would be shocked if that were the case, and would have to seriously question the judgment of a person who would willingly subject themselves to the kind of criticism this movie will draw from critics and movie fans alike. It is possible that whoever convinced Russell Mulcahy to direct this movie made the concept sound a heck of a lot better than the end result ever could hope to be, and if so, then kudos to whoever did the selling, because whatever you said worked and you managed to get a decent Hollywood director to really demean himself by working on a project as pathetic as this one.

The cast for this movie was comprised of relative newcomers to the industry, several of them did have previous movie experience, but not much and what little they had wasn’t all that impressive to be worth mentioning. For instance, the actual star of the movie (even though he doesn’t get top-billing), Michael Copon, his biggest claim to movie fame was the third installment in the ‘Bring It On’ franchise (a franchise that apparently will not go away) with “Bring It On: In It to Win It”. I must point out that Michael was a good choice for the role because he does appear to be a decent enough resemblance to The Rock to pass off as a believable younger version of the first film’s star. Getting top-billing for this movie, even though he only appears in maybe half of the movie, is UFC star Randy Couture. Days before watching this movie, I had seen Randy in David Mamet’s “Redbelt” where he played a commentator for a fighting organization similar to UFC, and in that movie I thought that Randy showed some real potential to be a good actor; however, whatever potential I thought he had, was completely squandered by the time I saw his performance in this movie. Randy apparently didn’t know how to effectively play the villainous role whatsoever, because there’s nary a scene in which he isn’t snarling or saying his lines in a menacing way, even if the line doesn’t warrant that type of reading. With such a laughable performance as the one in this movie, I now feel that Randy has little to no hope for a future in Hollywood films, at least from my humble perspective.

“The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior” has got to be one of the most blatant, and poorly executed, attempts at cashing in on a theatrical release that I have seen go directly to DVD in a long time. The writing is horrible, the acting is sub-par at best, and the visual effects are possibly worse than an episode of The Power Rangers on TV. There is nothing much to praise with this prequel other than these two points; 1) Michael Copon was a good casting choice and did an alright job with the role, and 2) the movie does eventually end after an overly bloated, almost two hour long running time; so that those who were like me, and suffered through every moment of this crap, can eventually begin to work on putting the experience out of their minds. Perhaps some therapy could help, who knows.

“The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior” is rated PG-13 for violence and sensuality.

The Scorpion King

After two successful movies, “The Mummy” and “The Mummy Returns”, that featured their classic monster from Hollywood’s yesteryear, Universal Pictures opted to go in a different direction for the next installment in the franchise by attempting to create a spin-off with “The Scorpion King”. To me, the decision seemed, and most likely was, simply an attempt from Universal to make more money on a successful franchise, and not really produce much of anything that would further the storyline established in the previous two movies. Since this movie was apparently rushed into production directly after “The Mummy Returns” wrapped, I thought I was probably right in the whole “cash cow” approach Universal was taking with the movie, and that we were going to be left with a well-below average movie, and the franchise would most likely suffer a quick, yet painful death because of it.

“The Scorpion King” is the story of an Akkadian assassin named Mathayus (Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson), who vows to avenge his brother’s murder at the hands of an undefeated warlord (Steven Brand). To complete his quest for vengeance and fulfill his destiny as foretold in a prophecy stating that Mathayus will become the desert-ruling Scorpion King, he must join forces with a beautiful, yet dangerous sorceress (Kelly Hu), and a rival Nubian warrior (Michael Clarke Duncan). With their tentative partnership, Mathayus and company are in for the fight of their lives as they take on the warlord’s massive army in hopes of toppling his oppressive rule.

Even though I had plenty of doubts about this movie, as did most critics, the film turned out to be not all that bad, and even managed a moderate box office return. While not up to par with either of the previous two films in the series, “The Scorpion King” does an adequate job of providing an entertaining, somewhat campy, and extremely coincidental back-story for the character. The writing was average, which fits in perfectly with the rest of the movie’s various aspects, i.e. acting, fight scenes, dialogue, etc. Some of the dialogue was a little too modernized for me, showing that the team of writers was obviously not wanting to create any semblance of historical accuracy with the movie, which I didn’t expect to find a whole lot here anyhow. The humor was hit-and-miss this time around, not nearly as polished in execution or quality as its predecessors had been, and at times went far too campy to achieve laughs that some of the comedic situations became more annoying than humorous.

Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson (“Walking Tall”), who is no stranger to choreographed fighting due to his time spent with WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment), obviously has no trouble handling the action scenes and making them entertaining for the audience. Along with his aptitude for fighting, Johnson also showed that he had some acting chops, plenty of onscreen charisma, and a seemingly good sense of humor; in essence, the future skills of another Hollywood action hero was being honed and developed with this movie. Michael Clarke Duncan (“Daredevil”) shows up in an essentially one-note performance as a rival warrior and eventual comrade to Mathayus. I was disappointed that Michael wasn’t given more to do in this movie, I mean a little more expansion could have been done in regards to the adversarial relationship between his character, Balthazar, and Mathayus; instead, it’s just lightly touched upon and is over with almost as quickly as it began. The other cast members were good in their roles, nothing outstanding or truly noteworthy. Actress Kelly Hu provides the obligatory eye candy for the predominantly male audience and cast, as the warlord’s seductive sorceress. I have yet to see what Kelly’s range as an actress is as she is given little more to do here than she had been given as the essentially mute villain Lady Deathstrike in “X2: X-Men United”. So, I really can’t say if we’ve seen the extent of Kelly’s talents or not, but for some reason Hollywood likes her, so I would think that there must be some level of talent here; although this is the same town that has a fascination with Hayden Christensen, who has proven time and again that he is not a good actor no matter how hard he tries.

The action sequences in “The Scorpion King”, which are many in number, relied much more on physical stunts, wirework, and good ol’ fashioned fight choreography than either of the previous two movies had done. In “The Mummy” and “The Mummy Returns” much of the action was very CGI oriented, with some wirework being done, and a lot of the fights involved gunplay; however, given this story’s timeframe being set much earlier in world history, all the action is done with mostly swords and bows and arrows, giving a much more up close and personal feel to all of the fighting. Most of the stunts were well done, although fairly far-fetched much of the time, generally not to the point that it was distracting from the movie; but, there were a few instances where I thought the stunts had gone too far over-the-top that the director, Chuck Russell (“Eraser”), could have shown some restraint and attempted to ground the film in some semblance of our reality.

“The Scorpion King” is a decent spin-off, something Hollywood is rarely good at achieving, that creates an entertaining, albeit far-fetched, back-story to an intriguing character that was introduced all too briefly in “The Mummy Returns”. Fairly good acting, fun action sequences, and an average story help to make “The Scorpion King” a moderately entertaining piece of movie fluff that will do nothing to impress you, but will provide you with a brief escape from the real world.

“The Scorpion King” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and sensuality.