The Mummy 2017

[aTOMiC]

Uh oh.


Reviews are finally beginning to come in regarding the Tom Cruise starring The Mummy and many of them are describing the film as "not awesome".

I have pre bought tickets for this Sunday morning so I guess I'll find out this weekend if I agree with the reviews.

This is the film that is supposed to kick off the Universal Studios "Dark Universe" shared movie universe, updating the classic Universal monsters.

They may have stumbled a bit out of the gate which is unexpected or at least ill-advised.

The current Rotten Tomato rating is a whopping 30%...ouch.

[I'm Murrin]

I mean, it's a higher rating than Batman vs Superman, so maybe this won't actually kill the shared universe thing? Haha.

[aTOMiC]

I mean, it's a higher rating than Batman vs Superman, so maybe this won't actually kill the shared universe thing? Haha.

Well as of this morning its dropped to 24%.

Something tells me its not going to be "Certified Fresh"

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The idea is solid--bring all the classic monsters back into a shared universe--but I don't think enough people are interested enough in those characters to invest themselves. The actor slate is probably okay but you really need to have a well-written screenplay and a director who can handle this sort of project.

I will probably fit this movie into this summer's schedule but if I don't make it I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

They probably should have started with Frankenstein and the Creature or Dracula first. An updated Creature wouldn't have to be stitched together from corpses but the result of an obsessed researcher artificially creating a human being from the genetic sequencing all the way to forced maturation in the lab.

The way that Victor and the Creature were handled in Penny Dreadful was pretty good, I must admit.

[aTOMiC]

An updated Creature wouldn't have to be stitched together from corpses but the result of an obsessed researcher artificially creating a human being from the genetic sequencing all the way to forced maturation in the lab.

I think its this kind of approach that tends to nullify interest in classic properties. There are some elements to admittedly outdated concepts that must be re-imagined for a modern audience. However removing something as recognizable as the appearance of Frankenstein's Monster makes revisiting the property somewhat unnecessary. The scenario of an obsessed researcher artificially creating a human being from the genetic sequencing all the way to forced maturation in the lab has similar dna but isn't even in the same visual family.
What I believe fans of the classic Universal Monsters want is something visually authentic but also much improved or else you end up with an unfortunate I.N.O. situation similar to the 1998 version of Godzilla.

Making a feature film about Bugs Bunny but using an anthropomorphic, smart Alec Kangaroo might be fun but it aint Bugs Bunny. IMHO.

As far as The Mummy is concerned I was dismayed when I saw the first trailers and realized that the new film borrows much from the Stephen Sommers Mummy series. Don't get me wrong, I actually liked Sommers films for the most part but I never thought of them as related to the classic Mummy films. I had hoped that the new film would at least try to recapture what was appealing about the classic and translate it for modern audience consumption.

As far as I can tell the studio and film makers missed an opportunity to do something really exciting but went for the easy action/adventure route as if audiences aren't already being crushed by Fast and Furious/Transformers ultra stupidity.

My hope is that I will find some way to enjoy The Mummy this weekend.

[wayfriend]

The Dark Universe should not be an action franchise. It should be a horror franchise, filled with jump scares, people stupidly entering dark basements, relentless monsters, and gruesome deaths. Tom Cruise should be playing Kolchak, not Dr. Jones.

[aTOMiC]

The Dark Universe should not be an action franchise. It should be a horror franchise, filled with jump scares, people stupidly entering dark basements, relentless monsters, and gruesome deaths.

Indeed.

[dANdeLION]

I'm going to see it tomorrow. I like who I'm going with, so I'll be fine regardless.

[peter]

I think the trick will be to approach the movie as a clean slate. It's not a remake of RKO (or whatever it was) - it's Tom Cruise doing Mission Impossible with the Mummy, and there's no reason it shouldn't be fun! I think the trailer's look great, it has Dr Jekyll in it tackling evil on a scientific background ....... what's not to like. Suspend the adult in you, get a great big bag of popcorn in front of you and sit back and enjoy the ride!

[aTOMiC]

Well I have to admit that in spite of the negative press I enjoyed The Mummy. I don't usually disagree with critical consensus but in this case I can't help myself. To each his own I guess.

[peter]

Mmmm......

I'd love to agree, but have to say I was underwhelmed. The trailer leads you to believe that you will be in for a darker experience than it turns out, and I think an opportunity was lost there. The result is a film that doesn't seem to be sure of the tone it is trying to strike. Russell Crowe's character has potential that is never really realised and Cruise's sidekick girl is unmemorable at best. Cruise himself plays, well Cruise - but just not as well as normal. This was film making by numbers, but irrespective of how many boxes were ticked the results were always going to be uninspiring in a film that was produced for no other reason than to get another franchise up and running and the dollars rolling in. There was no love for the art in this film - and it showed.

[aTOMiC]

peter, I don't disagree with any of your comments.

This was not the film I was hoping to see and I could see that this version of The Mummy would, unfortunately, have much more in common with the Stephen Sommers Mummy films than drawing inspiration from the originals. Frankly, aside from the time period, I could have easily imagined Brendan Fraser again playing the lead role of a selfish scoundrel with a kind heart instead of Tom Cruise. This film was certainly less buoyant and less overly melodramatic than the three previous films but the dna is similar and that is primarily what I DIDN"T want to see. I am not a Stephen Sommers fan but he tends to play in a sandbox that I am a sucker for. If you can sit through Van Helsing you can sit through anything.

However having said that and once I got over my disappointment I have to be honest and say that in spite of its many flaws I ultimately enjoyed the film and I do in fact understand where the film makers were going with it. But I hope Universal learns from this opening film and is able to steer the Dark Universe toward a more satisfying course.

[peter]

Now I loved Van Helsing! It could be that in time I might come back to The Mummy with a kinder view - I'm a sucker for that reboot of old black and white horror stuff and will definitely watch the development of the Dark Universe as it unfolds, just today I feel a bit suckered!

[aTOMiC]

Well whatever we think of it The Mummy has pulled in 342 million worldwide on a 125 mil budget and its not quite done so I guess that's a win for the Dark Universe.

[wayfriend]

This movie was a little too fast-paced to hang onto it. There was a little more horror to it than I had anticipated. The Sargeant Vail character kept reminding me of American Werewolf, when he wasn't reminding me of Steve Zahn in Sahara (2005). The mercury thing was interesting. The ending was, you have to admit, unexpected, and it does the job of leaving you wondering what happens next.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I was so bored I did what I almost never do. I turned it off before the end.
It was just bleah.