Finally saw this yesterday.I think it's great that they wanted to start a shared horror movie universe franchise.Problem is this wasn't a horror movie.It was an action adventure movie with a horror character.A mediocre one at that.Frasers mummy movie was better than this.And changing the mummy's gender served absolutely no purpose and added nothing new to the story.
shareJust came to post something else but you might be interested based on your name.
I started watching John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness and near the beginning when the agent smashes the windows with the axe, bends down to Sam Neill and asks if he reads Sutter Cane. He has twin iris's just like the mummies. Here's a screengrab.
https://imgur.com/a/wIthh
Guess the writers of The Mummy read Sutter Cane ๐
I went and saw this film because of Tom Cruise so I'm not sure how he could have ruined it, the film was just bad, with aged actors that never had any talent to begin with, and a newcomer lead that should never be in front of a camera.
shareAccording to stories like the one below Cruise had a great deal of creative control over the film and made many changes.So Cruise definitely had a hand in this films failure.
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/the-mummy-meltdown-tom-cruise-1202465742/
he sucks, he's like 30 years beyond his welcome.
shareThe problem with this logic, at least as far as I am concerned, is that the movie actually turned out to be pretty entertaining so the film should not be regarded as a failure in the first place. While critics were hard on it, most regular people I've talked to said they thought it was a fun movie.
Considering that it made over $400 million at the box office, I'm surprised that Universal decided that it just wasn't worth pushing forward with the next film in the DU.
It's not his fault. You could have had Fraser in this and the result would have been the same.
shareAccording to Variety, The Mummy radically changed once Cruise signed onto the film, the superstar demanding creative control over every aspect of the production, hiring longtime collaborators to work on the script, and significantly altering the film's plot to give him more prominence in the narrative โ at the expense of the actually Mummy.
Who knows what the original film would have been without Cruises creative changes.
Didn't know about that.
shareThen they shouldn't have hired him for the role. The guy is clearly an egomaniac.
No idea why they didn't just get Brendan Frazer back or at least the son from the original film.
Brendan Fraser has had a lot of physical issues, as well as other personal problems, and he was in no condition to do a movie like this.
As for the son, one reason I'm sure is because no one knows who that guy is and glancing at his IMDB page it looks like he may not even be in the business anymore. Clearly they wanted a star-driven Dark Universe.
Brining in Cruise assured it would be a Tom Cruise movie, not the beginning of a new franchise of classic Universal monsters. Cruise wanted a new franchise which his character would dominate. I am not knocking him; I am knocking the producers for not knowing better
shareThis movie wasn't even related to "the mummy" franchise. That "franchise" was already wrecked.
They're totally different and unrelated movies, but I would put The Mummy (2017) up there with The Mummy (1999). The Mummy 2 was OK and The Mummy 3 sucked balls, effectively killing that franchise.
The โ59 film mummy was also a women.
Not that modern audiences give a shit.
We are too accustomed to the โ32 Boris Karloff film using Imhotep as the titular character.
Changing the gender serves no purpose?
Wrong.
It was appeasement to the shithead Leftists โinclusionโ crowd.
Now we see what appeasing those fuqwits accomplishes.
๐
I think this was more of a horror film than the '99 version was, for whatever that's worth, but I agree that the '99 version is better nevertheless. Then again, I much prefer the adventure genre to horror, so a film that ratchets up the adventure element is going to be more up my alley than a straight horror movie.
This movie wasn't bad, in my opinion. As I said, I think it's inferior to the '99 film but judged on its own merits I think it's a fun watch. It certainly is not deserving of it's 15% Rotten Tomatoes score and I think it's a strong enough film that Universal should not feel skittish about moving forward with the Dark Universe.
I haven't seen it yet, but it cost $125 million (not including marketing) and made over $410 million worldwide with $80 million domestically. I suppose it underperformed, particularly in America, but it made money and certainly wasn't a box office bomb.
shareThe movie wanted to be too many things at once. Also boring with awful CGI. And a plot that made no sense.
sharehe has lost his appeal
share