|
Post by Nora on Jun 9, 2017 5:10:13 GMT
I really wanted to like this film. I love both Cruise and Crowe and enjoy fantasy and action movies. But this was so boring and bad. I was trying to analyze why and this is what I came up with but would appreciate the thoughts of others as well.
1. The script - I believe that is most of the problem. The script was stupid, and weirdly too complex for the movie, relying therefore too much on the characters having to constantly explain something to the viewers. Did you notice how often they were just explaining what happened before and why it is happening now and what means what? It felt like half of the movie was just someone talking over pictures of pretty sand dunes.
2. The main characters were unlikable. As much as I adore Tom Cruise, his character here was not likable or genuine. Even bad guys can be somewhat likable. But he appeared to be just an obnoxious thieving and ignorant American, who lies, steals, has no respect for anything or anyone - so how are we supposed to root for him? The other guy was more likable, since he tried to reason with Cruise about the looting at least. The way they treated what would have been one of the biggest discoveries in modern history (regardless of any curse bs) was killing me. His illiterate talk about what haram means also was painful to watch.
3. Cruise and the blonde had zero chemistry. she reminded me of a poor mans Emily Blunt. But to me they just didnt click. Unlike Blunt and Cruise or Ferguson and Cruise or Diaz and Cruise. This was a disaster. I didnt care for them together at all.
4. Poor directing resulted in bad acting - over-acting of Cruise and Crowe mainly.
5. Too much CGI which just highlighted the bad story.
6. Too dark and extremely dark for 3D. I saw it in 3D and at times took off the glasses - I would rather see it blurry than too dark.
7. No good music.
Anyone has anything else or any other thoughts?
To say something positive about the film: the plane scene was great and there were a few jokes in the movie that made me chuckle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 9, 2017 6:53:45 GMT
I agree that Brendan Fraser was good and I wish they had brought him back, but then again he can be happy now he escaped this piece of shit, and didnt completely off his already a bit declining career (that I really hope Boyle helps him resurrect)
|
|
|
Post by hardball on Jun 9, 2017 9:30:21 GMT
Universal made this movie because they wanted a piece of the shared universe pie.
|
|
|
Post by darkknightofgotham on Jun 9, 2017 14:34:04 GMT
I agree that Brendan Fraser was good and I wish they had brought him back, but then again he can be happy now he escaped this piece of shit, and didnt completely off his already a bit declining career (that I really hope Boyle helps him resurrect) There was originally going to be a fourth movie in the Fraser Mummy series, but it got cancelled because the third film was so badly received. It was supposed to be about the Aztec mummies in Mexico or something like that. I personally would've prefered this instead of a reboot.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 9, 2017 14:59:33 GMT
I too would have liked a 4th Brendan Fraser Mummy picture. Call it a guilty pleasure if you will, but the first is great fun and one of my favorites of the many Indiana Jones knock-offs.
|
|
|
Post by doctorstrange on Jun 9, 2017 16:06:20 GMT
It just looks downright awful. Is the queen or whatever she is, anywhere near Egypt when she is alive ? If not, then why bother ? Mummy and Egypt are synonymous. A mummy film should use Egypt and the 'magic' of the pyramids to it's full potential.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 9, 2017 17:15:28 GMT
It just looks downright awful. Is the queen or whatever she is, anywhere near Egypt when she is alive ? If not, then why bother ? Mummy and Egypt are synonymous. A mummy film should use Egypt and the 'magic' of the pyramids to it's full potential. I remember they dug her up in Iraq, of all places. I guess that's the first red flag.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jun 9, 2017 17:24:46 GMT
Because this isn't The Mummy 4. It's a completely separate movie meant to kick off the new monsters universe. It has no connection to any previous movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 22:08:21 GMT
Thanks for the post, I'm skipping for sure now.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 9, 2017 23:13:05 GMT
Was it so hard to make a straight up horror movie instead? Kind of like what they originally intended for the first remake before Stephen Sommers changed it into a Indiana Jones pastiche. Which I love to death but an edgier more violent and gory rendition would be more interesting but they can't even do that right apparently!
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Jun 10, 2017 0:17:44 GMT
Everything ?
Seriously, you listed all that was wrong. I would dare add that Cruise seemed like the wrong guy for the role.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 10, 2017 0:57:57 GMT
The moment it was made clear that the film was going to be a big budget CGI extravaganza, I immediately realized that it probably wouldn't work very well.
If Universal wants to make a new shared universe with these classic monsters, fine. However, instead of trying to copy the Marvel movies, or the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies, why not focus more on the horror aspect of these characters? If you're going to advertise your franchise as a "Dark Universe", why not focus on trying to return these characters to their roots as horror icons? Big budget, PG-13 Hollywood franchises are already a dime a dozen. Give us something else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2017 1:29:33 GMT
The moment it was made clear that the film was going to be a big budget CGI extravaganza, I immediately realized that it probably wouldn't work very well. If Universal wants to make a new shared universe with these classic monsters, fine. However, instead of trying to copy the Marvel movies, or the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies, why not focus more on the horror aspect of these characters? If you're going to advertise your franchise as a "Dark Universe", why not focus on trying to return these characters to their roots as horror icons? Big budget, PG-13 Hollywood franchises are already a dime a dozen. Give us something else. All of this. What a Mummy movie that is actually scary, and not an action film? An actual dark, smart film that chills.
|
|
nemesis617
Sophomore
@nemesis617
Posts: 167
Likes: 84
|
Post by nemesis617 on Jun 10, 2017 4:30:06 GMT
I was trying to decide whether to see The Mummy this weekend or not. Based on the reviews here, looks like I will be skipping this one. I'd rather spend my money seeing a film I know I'll enjoy, Like WW, as opposed to a film that seems like garbage.
|
|
|
Post by lukelovesfilm34 on Jun 10, 2017 9:21:04 GMT
Tom Cruise holds this movie together.
I have no idea why everyone is so obsessed with Brendan Frasier. Love him or hate him, Cruise can act circles around Frasier. And this movie once again proves why Cruise is a legendary star.
BUT there is still a nasty bias against Tom Cruise. Edge of Tomorrow was almost a big flop too and that was a damn good movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2017 14:58:06 GMT
I just saw this one. I rather have had watched a dog poo melting in the sun with flies crawling out of it.
This movie is garbage.
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jun 10, 2017 22:13:40 GMT
It just looks downright awful. Is the queen or whatever she is, anywhere near Egypt when she is alive ? If not, then why bother ? Mummy and Egypt are synonymous. A mummy film should use Egypt and the 'magic' of the pyramids to it's full potential. I remember they dug her up in Iraq, of all places. I guess that's the first red flag. They dug her up in IRAQ?! Ouch.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jun 10, 2017 23:25:06 GMT
Was it so hard to make a straight up horror movie instead? Kind of like what they originally intended for the first remake before Stephen Sommers changed it into a Indiana Jones pastiche. Which I love to death but an edgier more violent and gory rendition would be more interesting but they can't even do that right apparently! From what I'm hearing-this. I went to It Comes At Night. (My daughter likes it-millenial-but I don't like the claustrophobic stuff) Since this is meant to be a hard reboot, they would have done better to go back to Karloff's & gone off that. Fraser's was Indiana Jones focused on horror. It too the horror of Karloff & mixed in humor like Abbott & Costello. From what I've heard, this it too obviously a pilot. They needed to make THIS FILM FIRST. Shared Universe later. Had they made this a film people loved, they could have moved on. Universal shared universed these things before-the House of Dracula stuff they did The problem is old school studio think. Marvel did that. They licensed Blade & Spidey & X-Men & FF. w.hollywoodreporter.com/features/marvel-studios-origin-secrets-revealed-889795So it took thinking outside the box. Had they stuck with Perlmutter's type of studio thinking, we would never have gotten the MCU. Universal has been there. They put them all in the same movies. Yeah, low end schlock, but it shouldn't be hard to look at the originals to make it to a decent shared universe. They should use Dracula Untold as their start, Incredible Hulk this one & move on from there. They need to get people who love the classic horror films &, if not that, look at Branagh bringing a Shakespeare attitude to Thor. Whatever movie is next, treat it like the classic literature it probably was when Universal made it. Dracula 1931 was released for Valentine's Day & pitched as a romance.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 12, 2017 5:29:04 GMT
It just looks downright awful. Is the queen or whatever she is, anywhere near Egypt when she is alive ? If not, then why bother ? Mummy and Egypt are synonymous. A mummy film should use Egypt and the 'magic' of the pyramids to it's full potential. no, sadly, it all happens in Britain (not counting a few flashbacks to Egypt and the god awful intro in Iraq)
|
|