The Mummy Remake

[TigerClaw]

Universal just released a poster and a little trailer sneak peak of there remake of The Mummy, It stars Tom Cruise and it also has Russell Crowe playing as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Mummy is female this time, the film is set on present day and it's part of the Universal Monsters Cinematic Universe, The full trailer will debut on Sunday.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/horror/welcome-to-a-new-world-of-gods-monsters-with-a-thrilling-trailer-sneak-a147200

LAWo9_V2qOg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CymKKndUoAAr3Zi.jpg

[TigerClaw]

Here's the trailer

vivSna6Y3iM

[snake]

I feel bad for Brendan Fraiser

[TheSkeletonMan939]

That was the most hilarious **** I've seen all week.

[sdp]

Well that's one way of rebooting the series, I'll give them credit that it's taking its own approach and while it seems like a generic action Tom Cruise movie it should be alright. Unsure how the whole cinematic universe (http://miscrave.com/articles/cinematic-universe-copycats/) will arise from there but oh well.

[Powder]

Not really a fan of Tom Cruise but that looks pretty cool.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

The multiple eyes visual is pretty great. So that's cool.

[sdp]

really?

I'm not really a fan of Tom Cruise either but I recognize he's a great actor and any movie he's in is usually somewhat entertaining at the very least.

[Wildcat]

I never saw the Fraser Mummy movies but that was a remake/reboot too. This looks similar with a lot of action.

That article just trashes shared universes. I really hate the phrase "product of thier time". All that tells me is they think something is too dumb to ever try or do again...come on. Like nothing now is outrageous fantasy? :roll:

If you can accept either Godzilla or King Kong there's no (legitimate) reason you can't accept they exist in the same world.

That's like believing in Bigfoot but not the Loch ness monster.

[Candy Kappa]

Looks pretty cool, but I'm a bit skeptical about setting it in modern day. Guess it's a nice way to differentiate it from the previous movies like the 1999 remake.

Since it's a shared universe, is it in-canon with I, Frankenstein and Dracula Untold? Or is it yet another retry at a Universal Monster universe?

[Krutch]

Looks nifty to me. I'll check it out.

[ProactiveMan]

That actually looks pretty good. It may just be Tom Cruise's face, but it looks really creepy.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Since it's a shared universe, is it in-canon with I, Frankenstein and Dracula Untold? Or is it yet another retry at a Universal Monster universe?

I think Dracula is the first and only film so far in the Monster universe, but hell, maybe even that one has been jettisoned.

*Checks Wikipedia*

LOL okay, so even Dracula Untold, which had a post-credits scene shot just to be a part of the Monsterverse, is no longer part of it. Geez.

And look at the tagline for the Mummy - even THAT is an advertisement for the series at large, not just the film. They're counting their chickens before they hatch and it reeks of the word "cashgrab" to me. I guess even with all that money budgeted for the film, Universal can't afford a little subtlety, huh?

[TigerClaw]

Here's a featurette on The Mummy.

xAgSmpMJdp4

[TigerClaw]

Its been confirmed that Dracula Untold will not be part of the shared Universal Monsters Universe, Its no longer canon, The Mummy is the start of this shared universe.
http://collider.com/the-mummy-universal-monsters-shared-universe/

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Its been confirmed that Dracula Untold will not be part of the shared Universal Monsters Universe, Its no longer canon, The Mummy is the start of this shared universe.
http://collider.com/the-mummy-universal-monsters-shared-universe/

Uh huh. Until IT bombs. :trolleye:

Studios and their idiotic shared universes / cinematic universes. Let's face it, except for the original CU (thank you, Marvel), nobody else has pulled it off yet... not even the studios who SHOULD be able to match them (looking at YOU, Fox and DC/WB).

[Candy Kappa]

And look at the tagline for the Mummy - even THAT is an advertisement for the series at large, not just the film. They're counting their chickens before they hatch and it reeks of the word "cashgrab" to me. I guess even with all that money budgeted for the film, Universal can't afford a little subtlety, huh?

Makes you wonder what's wrong with just making stand-alone movies with subtle hints and have crossover movies afterwards.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Well Universal is clearly operating under the idea that audiences will be immediately interested in a film which is part of a larger universe. I guess they think it's the same sort of appeal as the "collect 'em all" aspect of Pokemon, where having the full set is part of the experience. I dunno.

It's the complete wrong way to go about it, though. For a "shared universe" of the scale they're going for, an audience has to be earned, not assumed. I don't think even Marvel Studios, as far as marketing is concerned, had the balls to advertise the universe as a whole until Captain America: The First Avenger. Now of course there were easter eggs and connections in the films themselves, but the marketing was squarely focused on the plot of the one respective movie and didn't venture anything else.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Makes you wonder what's wrong with just making stand-alone movies with subtle hints and have crossover movies afterwards.

Well Universal is clearly operating under the idea that audiences will be immediately interested in a film which is part of a larger universe. I guess they think it's the same sort of appeal as the "collect 'em all" aspect of Pokemon, where having the full set is part of the experience. I dunno.

It's the complete wrong way to go about it, though. For a "shared universe" of the scale they're going for, an audience has to be earned, not assumed. I don't think even Marvel Studios, as far as marketing is concerned, had the balls to advertise the universe as a whole until Captain America: The First Avenger. Now of course there were easter eggs and connections in the films themselves, but the marketing was squarely focused on the plot of the one respective movie and didn't venture anything else.

Exactly. And again, only Marvel has done it with any degree of success so far.

Fox and WB/DC have had mixed results, but they're at least on the board... whereas everybody else who cries "cinematic universe!" are fooling nobody but themselves.

[sdp]

I describe the problems with shared/cinematic universes here which I linked earlier
http://miscrave.com/articles/cinematic-universe-copycats/ As a nerd I always loved shared universes but I do have a problem with the whole "me too" attitude that studios are going for so I'm stuck with two different views, I'm happy we're finally getting more of what I have always enjoyed but at the same time I think they're doing it for the wrong reasons as in they're creating something to make a universe and not split the universe from this one idea.




That article just trashes shared universes. I really hate the phrase "product of thier time". All that tells me is they think something is too dumb to ever try or do again...come on. Like nothing now is outrageous fantasy? :roll:

If you can accept either Godzilla or King Kong there's no (legitimate) reason you can't accept they exist in the same world.

That's like believing in Bigfoot but not the Loch ness monster.
But it's more of a believing in Aliens but not the Chupacabra. They are a product of their time they've been spoofed and parodied so much it's difficult to take them seriously. Godzilla and say Batman are still able to find a way to be frightening.serious but to most these horror icons are just that icons, even Freddy and Jason can't be taken seriously anymore. I would love to see this cinematic universe work but I do find it a bit hard for them to do it., I think the best way to actually do it is to just remake the original stories in an old setting, the whole modern thing really makes it more difficult but let's see where it goes. I also never saw The Mummy reboot of the 00's and actually I've never seen any mummy movies now that I think about it.



Uh huh. Until IT bombs. :trolleye:

Studios and their idiotic shared universes / cinematic universes. Let's face it, except for the original CU (thank you, Marvel), nobody else has pulled it off yet... not even the studios who SHOULD be able to match them (looking at YOU, Fox and DC/WB).
But Marvel isn't the original Cinematic Universe, it's the Monsters. If anyone has the right to try it it's them. Many studios have pulled off a cinematic universe before Marvel Studios even existed and arguably to a better extent. Sure Marvel made shared universes in movies a hip thing but to say they didn't only exist but weren't popular in a smaller scale before is a lie.

If this bombs I think they won't bother with it again for many years. IIRC there were rumors when the wolfman came out that it would begin a new monsters universe but that didn't plan out either, and then there was Dracula Untold.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

But Marvel isn't the original Cinematic Universe, it's the Monsters. If anyone has the right to try it it's them. Many studios have pulled off a cinematic universe before Marvel Studios even existed and arguably to a better extent. Sure Marvel made shared universes in movies a hip thing but to say they didn't only exist but weren't popular in a smaller scale before is a lie.

If this bombs I think they won't bother with it again for many years. IIRC there were rumors when the wolfman came out that it would begin a new monsters universe but that didn't plan out either, and then there was Dracula Untold.

Fine, I'll be specific: modern blockbuster cinematic universes.

[sdp]

Marvel (http://miscrave.com/articles/cinematic-universe-marvel/)made shared universes popular but it wasn't the first and it isn't the best, they're strategy was "Iron Man was a hit let's pump out origin films for Cap/Thor and make Avengers", it really wasn't built very well either and kind of lucked out. I understand what you're trying to say but even if they're doing it wrongly I think the other shared universes in development could work even if they're only going for it because it's popular now. TV has had great shared universes so I'm hopeful. Let's just hope the superhero fatigue doesn't crash the idea of shared universes.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

All those films were planned out years in advance. They didn't necessarily "luck out" with Iron Man and decide then to make more origin stories.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Marvel (http://miscrave.com/articles/cinematic-universe-marvel/)made shared universes popular but it wasn't the first and it isn't the best, they're strategy was "Iron Man was a hit let's pump out origin films for Cap/Thor and make Avengers", it really wasn't built very well either and kind of lucked out. I understand what you're trying to say but even if they're doing it wrongly I think the other shared universes in development could work even if they're only going for it because it's popular now. TV has had great shared universes so I'm hopeful. Let's just hope the superhero fatigue doesn't crash the idea of shared universes.

They COULD work, but the producers and studios are rushing and drooling so hard that they're not giving it the time TO work. And of course WB/DC keeps course-correcting so many times...

And let's be real, "shared universe" doesn't really describe the old Universal monster movies with Lon Chaney as the Wolfman, Frankenstein's monster, Dracula, et al. This is the 21st century, where people pay more attention to studios, who owns the IPs and creative rights, and what previous attempts have succeeded or crashed and burned. "Avengers", average and overblown film that it was, still made history by deliberately investing in each previous film and reminding audiences, "Hey people, we're gonna throw ALL these characters into a blender and throw a big comicy mess onto a screen in 2012 JUST LIKE THE COMICS ALL YOU NERDS READ."

They did, and they made a sh!t-ton of cash and publicity for it. Then all of a sudden, rival studios gotta get a piece of that pie so "JUSTICE LEAGUE!" and "DAYS OF FUTURE PAST!" and whatever-the-hell a Transformers cinematic universe is supposed to be. The studios want it, the audiences expect it, and the critics mock it (rightly so).

It's a bubble, and it can't last forever. So yes, there have been plenty of crossovers before, whether it's the old black-and-white Universal monsters movies or Hanna-Barbara Flintstones/Jetsons cartoon movies or whatever. But for all practical intents and purposes, Avengers is the first (again, I'm being specific) modern blockbuster cinematic universe. And nobody else has pulled it off with anywhere near the same level of critical and financial success. Nor will they, I'm pretty sure.

[Prowler]

I admit, I did like The Mummy movies when I was a kid. They were fun movies for their time. I haven't watched them in years, btw, so no idea how well they hold up. But yeah, not interested in a remake. Why remake The Mummy of all things? It's not even that old, for crying out loud. What's next? Fast and Furious remakes?

[ProactiveMan]

You could charitably call the Universal Monster cycle a shared universe, but it’s not a very cohesive one. They were all written and directed to be independent, and occasionally jammed together in ways that only partially made sense. Hell, some of the sequels to the individual films don’t even fit together all that well. It’s kind of like calling Nightmare on Elm St and Friday the 13th a shared universe because Freddy fought Jason one time.

That’s not to say they shouldn’t try to do it this time out, but if Universal is going to make a shared universe, I wish they would just stone up and go for it. Everything coming out of Hollywood these days is so half-assed and compromised, and it’s because of the obscene amounts of money tied up in these movies. Horror movies are better when they’re cheap anyway, so why not make a shared universe of sub $50 million movies, and take some risks?

Edit: Also, is it just me or did anyone else think that Bram Soker’s Dracula, Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein and that Benicio del Toro Wolf Man movie all feel like they fit together?

[Wildcat]

But it's more of a believing in Aliens but not the Chupacabra. They are a product of their time they've been spoofed and parodied so much it's difficult to take them seriously. Godzilla and say Batman are still able to find a way to be frightening.serious but to most these horror icons are just that icons, even Freddy and Jason can't be taken seriously anymore. I would love to see this cinematic universe work but I do find it a bit hard for them to do it., I think the best way to actually do it is to just remake the original stories in an old setting, the whole modern thing really makes it more difficult but let's see where it goes. I also never saw The Mummy reboot of the 00's and actually I've never seen any mummy movies now that I think about itIf people have a hard a time taking them seriously that's really thier own problem. I mean just because they for some reason associate the older cheesy movies with the newer ones is not the movie's fault.

Remake the original stories in an old setting for what exactly? The modern movies are basically remakes/reboots anyway.

Remaking Godzilla or King Kong in an older theme wouldn't do anything to benefit the universe idea. The modern movies are already establishing it.

Why re-remake them before doing crossovers? I'm sorry but it does not make any sense to do that.

[turtle1237]

I feel bad for Brendan Fraiser


I felt bad for Boris Karloff when Brendan Fraiser's mummy hit theaters. Still think Karloff's film was the superior film.

[ProactiveMan]

I felt bad for Boris Karloff when Brendan Fraiser's mummy hit theaters. Still think Karloff's film was the superior film.

I don’t think his feelings were hurt, he’d been dead for 30 years at that point.

[Allio]

well, it is The Mummy. The rage of the dead is the scariest.

[sdp]

I felt bad for William Garwood when Boris Karloff crapped on his legacy with this "sound" movie that ruined the mood of the character.

[turtle1237]

I felt bad for William Garwood when Boris Karloff crapped on his legacy with this "sound" movie that ruined the mood of the character.

Sadly we cant judge this because the Mummy(1911) has long been lost. A shame we cant view it.

[TigerClaw]

Apparently the reason why the Mummy is a women in this remake? According to Alex Kurtzman the Mummy originally was supposed to be male, But then he saw the end credit scene from X-Men: Days Of Future Past, and had to change it to a woman.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/horror/the-design-and-gender-of-the-mummy-were-altered-due-to-x-men-days-of-a147363
"I'll let you in on a secret. There was a moment when I had sort of rendered a design that I liked for a male version of The Mummy. And in that version of The Mummy, the Mummy had been born with a skin pigmentation that at the time would have made him really sort of an outcast. And I thought it was an interesting backstory, because it began to tell the story of someone who had been bullied, which I found topical. I was reaching for a way to make the Mummy a character who is relatable, understandable, and that spoke to issues that we're dealing with now."

"I was going down that road, and then I saw the end of Days of Future Past. And they had the character that Oscar Isaac wound up playing as a boy, and it was, I kid you not, the exact same design. And I was like, 'Oh, man! That is not good!' And actually it was the catalyst, it was the moment of, 'Okay, not only is this not going to be different enough, Bryan Singer just did it, I definitely don't want to go down that road.' I had had that voice in my head for some time to make it a woman, and that was the moment where, the minute I saw that post-credits scene, I went, 'We have to start over.'"

[TheSkeletonMan939]

Wow, the X-Men films are so bad that they're ruining completely different movies as well.

[Candy Kappa]

Sadly we cant judge this because the Mummy(1911) has long been lost. A shame we cant view it.

That movie has been found, even had a DVD release.

[Powder]

really?

I'm not really a fan of Tom Cruise either but I recognize he's a great actor and any movie he's in is usually somewhat entertaining at the very least.

@ me?

Yeah, I dunno, I don't think he's all that great. Some people feel like they're acting, others feel like the character. He's the former, in my eyes. Not necessarily a bad actor, though... It's hard to explain. :tlol:

[TigerClaw]

Here's the new Trailer

HTuZgpeP3sk

[Allio]

honestly, it's like ghost in the shell. I just can't really imagine a it doing well in 2017. It just doesn't feel like there is an audience with casual goer.

[Mayhem]

One of the things that endeared me to the Fraser remake (and the sequels) is that they were still set in the 1930s. No technology or what-not, it had a vibe there. Not sure about this remake given it's in modern times.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

This looks frickin' hilarious.

[ProphetofGanja]

This movie seems more "action/horror" then the Brendan Frasier Mummy movie's "horror/comedy" vibe. I'll wait to see more in the next trailer

[CyberCubed]

The first two Brendan Fraiser Mummy movies are fun action classics. I loved them as a kid and watched them again not too long ago and still hold up as cheesy action fun. They felt like 80's action movies despite being made in 1999-2001, so it was great. It was the perfect mix of action and comedy, I remember them being compared to Buffy the Vampire Slayer a lot since that show was airing at the same time the movies came out.

[Andrew NDB]

I used to watch the crap out of Mummy and Mummy Returns. They waited too long to do the Jet Li one, nobody cared about it by then.

I don't see anything in this new that suggests it couldn't be a sequel to those. You know, a century later... new Mummy. She even has Imhotep's Giant Sandface powers, apparently.

[CyberCubed]

Anyone think young Brendan Fraiser looks like Leon from Resident Evil 2 and 4? Funny thing is Resident Evil 2 came out on the PS1/N64 back in 1999/2000, the same time his Mummy films came out. Then RE4 came out in 2005 on Gamecube and PS2, he looks nearly identical.

If they made Resident Evil movies actually based on the games instead of the weird direction they went with them, a young Brendan Fraiser from the early 2000's would have been perfect for Leon.

[Prowler]

The first two Brendan Fraiser Mummy movies are fun action classics. I loved them as a kid and watched them again not too long ago and still hold up as cheesy action fun. They felt like 80's action movies despite being made in 1999-2001, so it was great. It was the perfect mix of action and comedy, I remember them being compared to Buffy the Vampire Slayer a lot since that show was airing at the same time the movies came out.
I haven't watched the Mummy movies in years but remember liking them a lot back when I was a kid. Then again, I think I only saw the first two. Don't think I ever saw the 3rd one and I've never seen The Scorpion King... even though it airs like 15 times per year on TV here :lol:

Anyone think young Brendan Fraiser looks like Leon from Resident Evil 2 and 4? Funny thing is Resident Evil 2 came out on the PS1/N64 back in 1999/2000, the same time his Mummy films came out. Then RE4 came out in 2005 on Gamecube and PS2, he looks nearly identical.

If they made Resident Evil movies actually based on the games instead of the weird direction they went with them, a young Brendan Fraiser from the early 2000's would have been perfect for Leon.
Hmm... kinda. I can see where you're coming from.

[Vicky82]

The critics reviews are out and it's getting slammed.

29% on Rotten Tomatoes so far.

[Andrew NDB]

The critics reviews are out and it's getting slammed.

29% on Rotten Tomatoes so far.

Owww... no wonder they were hiding the reviews for a while.

[CyberCubed]

Tom Cruise will probably say, "Hey, I only did it for the money!"

He has Top Gun 2 and Mission Impossible 6 coming up among other things, so I'm sure he does not care.

[Andrew NDB]

Tom Cruise will probably say, "Hey, I only did it for the money!"

He has Top Gun 2 and Mission Impossible 6 coming up among other things, so I'm sure he does not care.

Of course. This is just a fun whatever thing for him.

Damn, what if this ends up doing even worse than Dracula Untold?

[TigerClaw]

The critics reviews are out and it's getting slammed.

29% on Rotten Tomatoes so far.
It went up to 31%, but who knows, by the time the movie is released over the weekend, the percentage can either go up or down, plus this movie is supposed to be the start of this Dark Universe.

[Andrew NDB]

plus this movie is supposed to be the start of this Dark Universe.

So was the last one (Dracula Untold).

[sdp]

I believe some interviews when the Wolfman came out in 2008 or so that they would like to revive all the mosnters like they did with wolfman. Obviously that didn't happen either and this "Dark Universe" has been in development for quite a while.

I was surprised by how they started announcing all the movies after the Mummy since interviews kept mentioning they weren't going to rush out a connected universe but they wanted to, a few months alter they say "oh it's the dark universe and we're doing all these movies".

I'm surprised by the high caliber actors they got for the movies. I mean I never expected Tom Cruise in The Mummy. Now to me I'm not really a fan of Tom Cruise but any movie he is in is at least reasonably entertaining since he is indeed a pretty good actor. I just find the concept of monsters very difficult to pull off in today's age, these movies would work better as period pieces and even then it would be hard to do. I think the Mummy and The Mummy 2 mostly worked since they seemed to be more of an Indiana Jones type movie, I don't really know since i've never watched them but that's what I always got from the trailers.

[NinjaPug]

I didn't realize Alex Kurtzman was the director for this movie. The bad reviews now make sense.

[Andrew NDB]

I notice "American Made" is also Universal. I bet it was one of those deals that like, "So you really want to do American Made, huh, Tom? Really bad?" "Yeah, I do!" and it's, "OK, we'll greenlight it... but only if you also do The Mummy."

[Andrew NDB]

Daaamn, it's down to 22% on Rottentomatoes. That puts it only 2 percentage points above "Baywatch" and 6 percentage points below King Arthur. Also worth noting, 1 percentage point below "Dracula Untold," their last attempt to begin the Dark Universe.

"Critics Consensus: Lacking the campy fun of the franchise's most recent entries and failing to deliver many monster-movie thrills, The Mummy suggests a speedy unraveling for the Dark Universe."

[Autbot_Benz]

China loved The Mummy.

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/mummy-china-box-office-opening-tom-cruise-1202460329/

[Andrew NDB]

Saw it today in a quarter full theater. Oh boy, it's awful. It's like... a 90 minute commercial for a shared universe that they don't even know what will be yet. Truly bad. Surprising me was Tom's attempts at making his character funny... completely fell flat. The Mummy herself is lovely, and the movie stops midway through and tries to make you feel really, really bad for her. Also, she's barely in it. All of her scenes are in the trailers, all of them. Nothing after the credits or midway through, no teaser stinger for "Bride of Frankenstein" or anything... this whole movie smacks of a distinct lack of confidence in anything they're doing, and for good reason. Imagine if Iron Man 1 was 70% about SHIELD talking about establishing an Avengers (without even naming any other Avengers) with very little Iron Man, and the opening credits had a big "The New Marvel Cinematic Universe" thing.

And yeah, not really a spoiler but a huge item from the Fraser movies does show up. It is very noticeable and it is a very clear nod to those movies. I think it's the only thing I liked about the movie.

[TigerClaw]

I love the Brandon Fraser Mummy movies, I seen the 1st two, and they were fun movies, I'm gonna see this new one today despite all the critical reviews, I'm curious about this Dark Universe.

[Autbot_Benz]

With how bad the Mummy did I doubt there will be a dark universe.

[CyberCubed]

Brandon Fraiser is probably rolling in his grave.

[Autbot_Benz]

Brandon Fraiser is probably rolling in his grave.

Brandon Frasier isn't dead

[CyberCubed]

I know, but it's a figure of speech. Also the Brandon Fraser movies took place in the 1920's...he'd be dead in the modern year. :lol:

[TurtleWA]

Brandon Frasier isn't dead

Career wise.....kinda dead. :lol:
On the subject of BrandonFrasier, I think it's time for an encino man remake.

[Cure]

BrEEEEEEEndAAAAAAAAn Fraser, people. Jesus.

[Allio]

the 90's films aren't nearly as good as the original.

[CyberCubed]

the 90's films aren't nearly as good as the original.

You mean the 1930's version? Meh, I can't sit through ancient movies like that.

[Shark_Blade]

Probably the worst movie I've seen this year so far. Just awful.

[Andrew NDB]

Damn, it's down to 17% on Rotten Tomatoes! That's lower than like, anything. Below even Baywatch.

[myconius]

it started out well enough, but as the movie went it became very confused as to what it wanted to be.

some cool visuals, but NOTHING i need to rush out and see again or other adding to my home video collection.

what a shame. i was kinda hoping this would be good, though i didn't expect that it would.

[ProactiveMan]

I think the Mummy could have been good if they had picked the right tone and stuck with it. The first 15 to 20 minutes felt like one of the lesser MCU movies, with a lot of jumping around and silly, bland, inappropriately timed jokes. Then the tone shifts to psychological horror, but stops short of doing it very well, and then into grotesque, morbid horror which I think worked fairly nicely. The mummy scenes were pretty well done, and quite grotesque and disturbing in places, but too often undercut by action schlock or terrible attempts at humour.

It’s not one of those movies that looked promising and went off the rails; it started off the rails, then almost slipped back on but didn’t quite make it and ultimately crashed into an embankment. I thought there was good stuff in it, but overall it wasn’t very satisfying.

I’ve seen a lot of reviews comparing it unfavourably to the Brendan Fraser movies, which wouldn’t have happened if they had have gone for a consistent horror tone. It’s almost like they wanted to, but then hedged their bets with the silly adventure stuff. I hope that was the case, and that they weren’t trying to make a Marvel movie; the last thing I want to see is a buffed out Dracula repeatedly throwing Frankenstein’s Monster into CGI brick walls for 20 minutes.

[snake]

I saw this tonight. It wasn't THAT bad. I knew from the low rating on RT that I would either absolutely hate it or absolutely love it.

It's a mess of a movie, but it's a fun mess. I nearly choked on my popcorn when Dr. Jeckel and his clickbait easter egg lair popped up.

One reason why I think I'm going so easy on this is because it was short. If this movie went on for another 20 minutes like most blockbusters do, I would've hated it. But nah- short, goofy, and a complete trainwreck.

[TigerClaw]

I saw this tonight. It wasn't THAT bad. I knew from the low rating on RT that I would either absolutely hate it or absolutely love it.

It's a mess of a movie, but it's a fun mess. I nearly choked on my popcorn when Dr. Jeckel and his clickbait easter egg lair popped up.

One reason why I think I'm going so easy on this is because it was short. If this movie went on for another 20 minutes like most blockbusters do, I would've hated it. But nah- short, goofy, and a complete trainwreck.
Yeah, that lair with all the easter eggs was pretty much setting up this Dark Universe, I'm curious about how they will handle The Bride of Frankenstein and The Invisible Man, which will also be part of this shared universe.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

On a semi-related note, I've begun reading the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Interesting stuff. The entire first chapter is apparently one long prayer ritual dedicated to the sun god Ra. Yes, I really AM reading from an ancient Egyptian holy text. I have weird reading habits.... (Also on my reading list are several books on Japanese ghost stories, an anthropology study on Australian aboriginal tribes, an Irish Gaellic language primer, and a couple of books on animal rights, among others. )

[Andrew NDB]

Yeah, that lair with all the easter eggs was pretty much setting up this Dark Universe, I'm curious about how they will handle The Bride of Frankenstein and The Invisible Man, which will also be part of this shared universe.

They probably have no idea yet.

[snake]

Creature from the Black Lagoon or bust.

He's the best universal monster. Prove me wrong.

[saintsaucey]

Creature from the Black Lagoon or bust.

He's the best universal monster. Prove me wrong.

I really want Brook Shields in that movie either as the creature or some sort of scientist. Hell just remake lake placid and replace Fonda with Shields and the allegator with the creature

[AT-Man]

I really want Brook Shields in that movie either as the creature or some sort of scientist. Hell just remake lake placid and replace Fonda with Shields and the allegator with the creature

Hot damn, a female Creature would be neat!

[TigerClaw]

Hot damn, a female Creature would be neat!
I wouldn't be surprise of it was a female creature, since The Mummy was female.

[ProactiveMan]

I wouldn't be surprise of it was a female creature, since The Mummy was female.

Impeccable logic.

[TheSkeletonMan939]

The Mummy was only female because someone at Sony was watching the ending of X-Men DoFP and saw this kid.

http://l7world.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/X-Men-Days-of-Future-Past-post-credits-scene-features-Apocalypse.jpg

They were worried that the next X-Men would have a male mummy as the antagonist and didn't want to compete with that.

[Andrew NDB]

Kurtzman talks critics:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/mummy-to-lose-95m-as-kurtzman-talks-critics/

“This is a movie that I think is made for audiences and in my experience, critics and audiences don’t always sing the same song.”

Basically...

Critics: "This movie stinks."
Kurtzman: "You're a critic, this movie is for the audience."
Audience: "Wow, this movie does stink."
Kurtzman: "You're now a critic, this movie is not for you."

Also, it's set to lose a ton of money.

[NinjaPug]

I've always hated the "my movie is for fans and not critics" excuse. It's an insult to fans and critics. Good filmmakers don't have to distinguish between the two.

Kurtzman sucks. I wonder what his former partner Orci is up to these days.

[TigerClaw]

I've always hated the "my movie is for fans and not critics" excuse. It's an insult to fans and critics. Good filmmakers don't have to distinguish between the two.

Kurtzman sucks. I wonder what his former partner Orci is up to these days.
Orci was an executive producer for The Mummy, and he and Kurtzman are also involved with the new Van Helsing movie.

[NinjaPug]

Huh, I had no idea they were still working together. I thought they parted ways after Star Trek Into Darkness.

[ProactiveMan]

“This is a movie that I think is made for audiences and in my experience, critics and audiences don’t always sing the same song.”[/I]


He thinks it's made for audiences? You would think he'd know who he made it for.

[Andrew NDB]

This is Kurtzman spectacularly blowing 200% of all of his credit he has earned and racked up his entire career in one fell swoop. He'll never direct anything ever again, and he knows it. We can forgive him for misspeaking a little.

[ProactiveMan]

That's fair. I do feel bad for these chumps - I think there was a good movie in there somewhere.

[Allio]

AvbtUfqam5g

[newfan]

Okay, I'm debating watching this, is the movie worth seeing? Did any of you like it more than the older ones?

[Krutch]

Okay, I'm debating watching this, is the movie worth seeing?It's really not.

[newfan]

It's really not.

:) The actor isn't my favourite (though he has made some good movies).
I was just debating on buying or just picking it up when it comes on Sky movies.

[Shark_Blade]

One of the worst movies of the year. A dog poop by the curb is worth more than this **** stain.

[Krutch]

Honestly. If it puts it in perspective for you, I watched it about two months ago at work when I was bored and had nothing to do.

I literally have a hard time remembering more than two scenes, and even those two scenes I couldn't tell you what they were about.

One of the most forgettable movies I've seen.

[newfan]

One of the worst movies of the year. A dog poop by the curb is worth more than this **** stain.

:lol: Okay maybe down graded to when I am stuck ironing and will put whatever is on sky movies in the back ground :)