I know they were trying to set it up for a huge franchise where they all exist in the same world but I just found it jolting. Russell Crowe is boorish as well which doesn't help and the film had many other issues.
shareI was taken by surprise as well and thought "Does a movie about a resurrected mummy really need Dr. Jekyll thrown into the mix?" It unnecessarily made the story more convoluted than it needed to be.
shareI think it also made them look too desperate in pushing the franchise. Not to mention just killing the settings for both. The Mummy is supposed to be set in Egypt (go figure, right?) J&H are supposed to be set in England or at least a Western country that is somewhat modern.
How do you combine both neatly? You just can't.
Setting The Mummy in the modern world also really killed it for me.
I didn't mind the modern setting and found it a nice change compared to the late 1920s-40s of the previous trilogy. This prevented it from being the same-old-same-old.
I also didn't mind the various locations (ancient Egypt, modern Iraq and England). Even Hammer's version from 1959 started in Egypt, but quickly moved to England. I also favored the switch to a female mummy and that the slightly convoluted story kept you guessing. So the flick gets points for not being one-dimensional and hackneyed.
I enjoyed the movie for the most part, although it coulda been more compelling in the last act. Yet I agree that the curious inclusion of Dr. Jekyll smacked of pushing the new franchise. Still, it has the same spirit of high adventure of the 1999 movie mixed with gothic horror (including creepy zombies) and a bit o’ comedy, but not too much (and not goofy like the 1999 flick). And winsome Wallis doesn’t hurt.
[deleted]