|
Post by Nora on Jun 12, 2017 5:30:37 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. I agree that was a bad move but at least they tried to explain it in the movie, that they buried her in Iraq as a punishment so she would be far from Egypt and dishonored/disowned this way. Its BS but at least effort was made. so this part didnt bother me as much..
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 12, 2017 5:32:56 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! I agree, had they made it more scary/dark horror like it could have saved a lot. Like the scarier pieces helped the disaster of Ritchie's Kings Arthur - there were genuinely scary and super creepy scenes at lea
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 12, 2017 5:35:12 GMT
Everything ? Seriously, you listed all that was wrong. I would dare add that Cruise seemed like the wrong guy for the role. as much as it pains me to say it because i do like the guy and actually think he is a great actor and more than just his stunts (scientology shit aside for now), I almost agree that he was a bit of a miscast. But then again, what could you have done as an actor (or director) with such underwritten character as his Nick was?? In Knight and Day (which I personally liked) he showed how good he is making fun of him self. Here he tried, but the script gave his character NO PERSONALITY whatsoever. Sad to watch him struggle through that.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 12, 2017 5:36:52 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. you see, I didnt mind that, or had not minded it if it were used with a better script. "CGI extravaganza and monsters" remind me of Fantastic Beasts and although not perfect, I did enjoy that one a lot. But I agree this should have included more horror elements.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 12, 2017 5:38:17 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. yeah. Good choice. I dont say this often, as I am an avid movie fan and a film maker myself, but this one is fine for watching at home. There is one great scene with a plane, but thats really it…
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 12, 2017 5:42:29 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. I absolutely love Tom Cruise, have seen all of his movies and often use him as an example of a legendary career. (which can be paralleled only by Adam Sandler's career }talk about a nasty bias again someone], like it or not, they are one of the few active actors who have had a successful career spanning over 3 decades, with very few actual flops). He does pull in his weight here, I agree. And as always, he is great in action. But he was given nothing to act here and the director didn't keep him in line and stop him from over-acting it seems to me. Plus in my eyes they had zero chemistry with the blond, so it was awkward to watch their (done thousand times also before) banter… Edge of Tomorrow was an excellent movie and I believe people recognize it as such. This was just plain bad. But it may make ok money overall on the world/wide sales. And I guess it can be considered an ok "origin" story.
|
|
gromel
Sophomore
@gromel
Posts: 279
Likes: 119
|
Post by gromel on Jun 12, 2017 5:55:19 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. Can't really disagree. Didn't think anyone overacted but it was just bland. Didn't dislike Cruise's character but he was ehh, didn't leave a lasting impression like Fraser, or indeed Cruise in other movies. The only big CGI setpiece was the London sandstorm and it felt unnecessary. It didn't even destroy anything, just broke some windows and threw cars around. The lack of chemistry between Cruise and the blonde really stood out compared to Fraser and Weisz who were phenomenal together. At least they didn't write out Boutella's character completely. 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. She's Egyptian for sure. They buried her in Iraq to keep her far away. From another thread Been rooting for this unlike just about everyone else because it's a change from comic book films, but it was disappointing. As universe builder movies go, it's not terrible like Man of Steel fundamentally misinterpreting its content. But it's not cult classic material like the Fraser movies. Modern day is just not as interesting as old-timey pulp, at least in the way they went about it. Needed more flair or something. It's just... alright, I guess. It has a few interesting ideas of its own, and Boutella's not completely written out so she can come back if they want her to. The foundation is there and the universe can be salvaged with the next film, but it better be stronger. Maybe it would have fared a little better if it wasn't flat out called The Mummy again, invoking the wrath of Fraser nostalgics? Maybe "The Mummy's Curse." Then they could pun on Curse/Cruise.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jun 13, 2017 14:17:09 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! What is the most often overused word to describe a modern movie, TV show, or comic book for $200, Alex?
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 13, 2017 17:49:14 GMT
Problems with the movie? 1) Bottom line, it wasn't made because someone honestly wanted to tell a good Mummy story. It's a studio pushed franchise starter made to capitalize on the shared universe craze going on in movies nowadays. This came from studio heads who saw what properties they had the rights too, not artists who wanted to work with those properties to create something fresh. When you start like that it cant go anywhere good.
2) Script was poor from the get go.
3) You don't give a franchise starter, a huge big budget movie, to a guy who has only directed one low budget family drama (EDIT: I thought Kurtzman had never directed before. He's directed one other movie).
4) Tom Cruise slept walked through this one.
5) Assuming that this was going to be good enough to start an entire universe worth of movies just speaks of arrogance.
All that being said, I still enjoyed it because I knew it was going to be a silly movie going in. It was bad fun.
|
|
|
Post by moviemanjackson on Jun 17, 2017 17:20:16 GMT
The romance was so forced in this one. Went real quick from "OMG you're a jerk who just used me for a quick fuck" to "You're a really good person and I care for you a ton."
Laughed a few times but did find the tone odd. Too light imo. And I like Jake Johnson but boy, his character felt like it should have been in another movie.
OK action scenes, plane sequence was awesome.
|
|
chatterer
Sophomore
@chatterer
Posts: 272
Likes: 112
|
Post by chatterer on Jun 17, 2017 17:33:58 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. I'd add it also lacked the soul the classic original monster movies had. This was so bland visually and in every way compared to movies from the 30s.
|
|