Charles Scholz |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shhhh....don't give them ideas. Next thing you know, Wolfman will have the power to control any kind of canine. Can you imagine the terror of a Chihuahua swarm?
Don't make me come over there with my rubber chicken.
MMCJawa |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dr Jekyll is basically the "Nick Fury" of this cinematic Universe, I think even the execs have referred to him that way. In that not only is he the link for future movies but he is also a/the point person for a secretive international monster hunting organization, kind of how like Fury was a leader in SHIELD.
Aberzombie |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aberzombie wrote:Shhhh....don't give them ideas. Next thing you know, Wolfman will have the power to control any kind of canine. Can you imagine the terror of a Chihuahua swarm?Don't make me come over there with my rubber chicken.
Aw, come on! Chihuahuas are terrifying. They've got those bug eyes.
GreyWolfLord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually LOVED the 1999 Mummy and the sequels. Far more entertaining than many other movies...though it had more an Indiana Jones vibe than horror. Indiana Jones vibe is good though, I like it better than horror.
However, if one REALLY wants comedy, watch the original Mummy or Frankenstein movies. Dracula is passable...but the original Mummy...or even the Wolfman...those are hilarious. I have asked if anyone actually took those movies seriously, or anyone was even remotely scared by them, they are so bad it's comedy central.
I can't imagine how anyone ever took those movies as horror...the new Mummy movies from the aughts are far more scary...even if they have action and comedy in them...then the originals.
How anyone equates the originals = horror is beyond me. I can't for the life of me even see how the original audiences were even slightly scared...I'd have been laughing my pants off.
As I said, the only one that's even slightly passable are the Dracula movies...and it's not so much that it is scary as it is not absolutely so comedic that the entire thing is a joke on horror.
I'd have preferred them to link into the 1999 series...but I think they'd be hard pressed to be less horrific than the originals. I'd say action and adventure may do far more to recapture the feel of the originals while being interesting and relevant to a modern audience than trying to recreate the original movies for our time.
phantom1592 |
I'm a huge Universal Monsters fan and have been for years. In fact I just finished with my marathon of all of them in release order. THAT was a lot of fun.
When I heard that they were combining them all again... I was SOOOO excited. Now?? I don't know. I don't think the execs have any idea what it is they're doing honestly. What I've seen and heard... just sounds BAD...
The first half was for me: Oh...is this Mission Impossible 5? (or 6 or whatever number they are on)
Personally if they are going to build a Universal Monster universe, would rather it be closer in setting to Penny Dreadful than this.
I'm torn on that. On the one hand, I always associate them with 'older days'... but on the same note, a LOT of them were filmed to be 'modern' at the time. There were modern cars and sensibilities... they were just modern for 1931-1945... And of course when they get to the older more superstitious villages... it SEEMS much older then the setting, but there were still modern guns and cars and such around. Whether that was intentional or not, but it helps me think of them as 'timeless' they aren't REALLY set firmly in ANY historically accurate time period.
Still, moving it up to modern relatability?? It's not a guaranteed failure...
Hopefully, they won't make the mistake with this modern shared universe of trying to make Dracula an anti-hero. He's a villain, a bad buy, a damned monster. If they can keep that s@#! straight, there might be some hope.
YES... Dracula is EVIL. Even the other Monsters hate him. If they want a 'heroic' monster... that would be Larry Talbot. Even Dr. Jekyll COULD work... but Hyde was the more interesting of the two, so I don't see how making him the nick Fury has any potential at all...
Honestly, I really dislike this trailer. I have ZERO problem with Tom Cruise. I actually like nearly every movie he's in. They are fun and exciting... his personal life is a joke, but I separate that from his shows. I think he has potential. Explosions? I'm a fan of those too... Crowe? As long as he isn't singing, I never had an issue with him.
It's really more concept stuff? For a fan of the originals (and I DON'T mean Frasers... though I'm a fan of those too...) This just doesn't look good. It doesn't FEEL like a reboot. Del Toro's Wolfman?? THAT felt like a reboot. It wasn't perfect, but it was a worthwhile attempt... I could look at that trailer and say THAT is the Wolfman!!
Here?? The mummy is now female. So any concept of the reboot is shoved hard to the side. It is NOT Karloff's Imhotep. It is not Chany's Kharis... which was actually the more well known mummy. Out of the 5 mummy movies Universal had made back then... only the first one actually 'regenerated' into a 'normal' mode... and as a kid I was bored then. Actually when Fraser's mummy regenerated into Arnold Vosloo I was annoyed. Now?? not only is the mummy female... but a naturally hot one with just barely enough bandages to make her look even sexier???
I have a baaaaad feeling about this show.... Those movies were never REALLY scary, always more suspense then Horror... with a healthy dose of comedy in there too. But this?? This doesn't FEEL like a Universal Monster reboot.
137ben |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I
However, if one REALLY wants comedy, watch the original Mummy
Well, hopefully you aren't asking people to watch the original 1911 Mummy movie, because it's lost.
Interestingly enough, the information we have about that movie suggest it featured a "sympathetic" undead, along with romance between the mummy and a living person. If they Paizo forums could see the 1911 Mummy movie, there would no doubt be a chorus of forumites asserting that it was just a Twighlight knock-off, and claiming that the 1911 movie is inferior to "traditional" portrayals of undead that are actually more recent.The only Mummy movie I've actually seen is the 1932 one. I personally don't care for special-effects-laden horror films, and I didn't have much interest in seeing the 1999 Mummy movie. I'm not sure if I'll see this new one. Well, I'm pretty sure I won't go to a movie theater to see it, but I might stream it on Amazon if it gets particularly good reviews and if it turns out the special effects aren't as heavy-handed as the trailer suggests they will be.
For the Dracula reboot, I sort of hope they get it closer to the source material than the 1924 play and 1931 film. No being destroyed by sunlight, just temporary suppression of his powers. I do concur with the above forumites who say they don't want a "heroic" Dracula. I've got no problem with a heroic Mummy or heroic Frankenstein's Monster or a heroic Wolf Man or hell, even a heroic vampire, just as long as the heroic vampire isn't Dracula. Dracula is a villain, and I prefer him that way.
tumbler |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't imagine how anyone ever took those movies as horror...the new Mummy movies from the aughts are far more scary...even if they have action and comedy in them...then the originals.How anyone equates the originals = horror is beyond me. I can't for the life of me even see how the original audiences were even slightly scared...I'd have been laughing my pants off.
GreyWolfLord, I'm not trying to insult you, but many of those movies were absolutely terrifying to their original audiences. You have to contextualize them and think about the people who were seeing theme. The things that were happening on screen in those movies were astounding. No one had ever seen anything like them, from the Lon Chaney silent films in the 20's through at least the early 40's. The movies did continue for a while after they stopped being scary, but the original Dracula, Wolfman, Frankenstein. Those things were mind blowing to those audiences. Think about what their visual lives were like. They had movies, but nothing at home but maybe Life magazine.
Your statement of disbelief in how those things could be scary could also be said about Jaws and its effects, but I can assure you Jaws 1 and 2 were terrifying in theaters.
phantom1592 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only Mummy movie I've actually seen is the 1932 one. I personally don't care for special-effects-laden horror films, and I didn't have much interest in seeing the 1999 Mummy movie. I'm not sure if I'll see this new one. Well, I'm pretty sure I won't go to a movie theater to see it, but I might stream it on Amazon if it gets particularly good reviews and if it turns out the special effects aren't as heavy-handed as the trailer suggests they will be.
1932 was ok, but to me the Mummy movies started in 1940. 'The Mummy's hand' was essentially a reboot in itself, where they changed the monsters name to Karsis and formed a 'relatively' cohesive story through The mummy's Tomb, Mummy's Ghost, and Mummy's Curse.' Like Frankenstein and Wolfman, these were continual sequels that progressed the story. I absolutely love the "Legacy Collections' that Universal has put out for a few years now for each monster and all the sequels.
As for 1999? That really ALSO didn't feel like a reboot of a mummy franchise... it felt like a reboot of Indiana Jones... Which was ALSO awesome. It really combined everything that was great about monster movies and Pulp adventure. I love that movie. I think the WORST thing they did then... was try to make it a MUMMY franchise. The sequel was didn't deliver, and the third was a tired rehash of the first... but if they had focused it more on an Indiana jones model of epic adventure and archaeology with a dashing hero and hot archaeologist team digging up new artifacts and unleashing horrible monster... That would have been a GREAT franchise. I would have loved to see Rick O'connell vs the vampire, or Rick O'Connell and the journal of Frannkenstein... or whatever else they decided to do.
For the Dracula reboot, I sort of hope they get it closer to the source material than the 1924 play and 1931 film. No being destroyed by sunlight, just temporary suppression of his powers. I do concur with the above forumites who say they don't want a "heroic" Dracula. I've got no problem with a heroic Mummy or heroic Frankenstein's Monster or a heroic Wolf Man or hell, even a heroic vampire, just as long as the heroic vampire isn't Dracula. Dracula is a villain, and I prefer him that way.
I'm torn on that too... I've read the original book a dozen times and seen a dozen more interpretations... I'm not ENTIRELY sure how excited I would be to see it again. Considering how many modern versions of vampires have ALREADY taken away the vulnerabilities and powers.... I REALLY want to see more of the 'CLASSIC' if literally inaccurate Vampires again. My two main things are...
1) NOT a hero. Not an Anti-hero... NOT sympathetic. He is EVIL. The ultimate villain. Make him the big bad in EVERY Monster movie if you want... but don't try to redeem him in any way.
2) KILL the stupid love story with Fire. Mina does NOT resemble his first wife... there is no love triangle... He is a TAKER. He TAKES Mina because he wants blood, and he wants to take her from the mortals in his way... because he's an epic JERK. Once he sucks her dry and makes her his bride... She joins the other three brides he has in the castle just waiting to be ignored and hated too. Dracula's motivation is not Love.. that was something that Dan Curtis brought over in the 70's after it was popular in his Dark Shadows tv show. It REALLY ruined the 1992 Dracula movie.
Well... I still enjoyed the movie, but that was definitely the weakest aspect of it and made Drac look more like a chump then a sympathetic/relatable character.
Phantom,
I guess my problem is Russel Crowe hasn't shown much range of late.
But regardless, you're correct about the fact the tonality of this film feels...off.
Range is overrated. He's not an actor he's a movie star ;)
Most of the most popular movie stars really don't show much 'range'... they keep the same accents and play the same roles and just... do what they do. Even actors who start out with exceptional skill and talent... get it drained away when they become 'stars'. They get paid massive money because people liked them in that last movie... so the studios want them to do what they did then...
Always a few exceptions... but even some fantastic actors are starting to look a little repetitive in their movies.
GreyWolfLord |
GreyWolfLord wrote:
I can't imagine how anyone ever took those movies as horror...the new Mummy movies from the aughts are far more scary...even if they have action and comedy in them...then the originals.How anyone equates the originals = horror is beyond me. I can't for the life of me even see how the original audiences were even slightly scared...I'd have been laughing my pants off.
GreyWolfLord, I'm not trying to insult you, but many of those movies were absolutely terrifying to their original audiences. You have to contextualize them and think about the people who were seeing theme. The things that were happening on screen in those movies were astounding. No one had ever seen anything like them, from the Lon Chaney silent films in the 20's through at least the early 40's. The movies did continue for a while after they stopped being scary, but the original Dracula, Wolfman, Frankenstein. Those things were mind blowing to those audiences. Think about what their visual lives were like. They had movies, but nothing at home but maybe Life magazine.
Your statement of disbelief in how those things could be scary could also be said about Jaws and its effects, but I can assure you Jaws 1 and 2 were terrifying in theaters.
I REALLY have a hard time seeing those as scary movies, and am not sure that I would think anyone seeing them back then would really find many of them scary either.
I'd agree with someone who said they were more suspense and action/adventure...but scary...not so much.
I first saw those movies when I was a kid, and even then at the fragile age of 5...I didn't find those movies scary in the least. Frankenstein definitely wasn't scary (and, by the way, the book isn't actually scary either to be honest...which is probably why some claim it is one of the original science fiction type novels rather than the horror people try to portray it as today).
I'd also agree with Phantom that the 1999 movies, which I really liked, was NOT in any way a real reboot of the Mummy movie. It was about as bad in following the original as a Disney storyline is in following the fairytale it is based on...at least normally. Might actually be worse. It was FUN though, and in many ways, very Indiana Jones like. I never thought of the idea, but if they had pursued a different route where the main characters encountered other monsters (like the wolfman and such), that could have been a very interesting premise.
I don't think I've ever met anyone that found the originals all that scary...definitely not any of the old people that I've ever seen it with (and no, I'm not discussing the 1911 mummy movie, I didn't even know that one existed, so I have NOT seen that one, only silent horror type movie I ever watched was the Phantom of the Opera).
The closest parallel I think I could make would be the Scream movies, which aren't really all that scary either...but depend on a lot of the social construct where people understand the ideas behind them in order to feel the suspense and the drama of the movie...even if it isn't really all that scary. Not the same idea, or same feel, but trying to describe what I think the original audiences of these movies felt in regards to what modern audiences would feel, the closest I think I might be able to say would be something like the Scream movies, or perhaps Gremlins.
That said, one major difference between the old movies and what we see now is that the originals were more of introspections on human nature. In some ways it wasn't always the monsters themselves that were the actual bad guys, but the human nature that tried to control or that brought them to be/exist in the first place. In some ways it was about the struggle of the human spirit between two different aspects of it's own inherent weaknesses. It wasn't necessarily about scaring people, as it was about the story of the characters struggle within themselves in many instances and the monster within as well as without.
Cole Deschain |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I REALLY have a hard time seeing those as scary movies, and am not sure that I would think anyone seeing them back then would really find many of them scary either.
The historical record argues otherwise.
While I think the Hammer versions did a better job of delivering on menace in a more enduring way*, people did indeed find those old films you so despise scary.
* At least before repetition and cultural awareness of their tropes utterly defanged them,much as happened with Universal's flicks.
GreyWolfLord |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord wrote:I REALLY have a hard time seeing those as scary movies, and am not sure that I would think anyone seeing them back then would really find many of them scary either.The historical record argues otherwise.
While I think the Hammer versions did a better job of delivering on menace in a more enduring way*, people did indeed find those old films you so despise scary.
* At least before repetition and cultural awareness of their tropes utterly defanged them,much as happened with Universal's flicks.
I didn't say I despise them, I said I didn't find them scary, and at times highly comical.
However, if you watch them, you'll notice that they actually shy away from the theatrical scare you moments and instead seem to show the inner struggle of the individual, of their own monsters, rather than trying to scare you the way modern horror flicks do.
I think the Mummy (the 1932 version) is actually VERY pointedly on this in where the female lead is the one struggling in regards to the darkness, not only without, but within as well. In some ways, the fate of the mummy is an actual tragedy in that movie, due to how her actions basically condemn him back to his original mummification. (Not that I would have gone along with his plan, myself, either...but still).
phantom1592 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cultural desensitivity is seriously a problem here. However much like now days, I think the really 'scary' part of these movies were the technological aspects. Now we have CGI, in the 80's we had animatronics, back then there were the make up designs.
I don't remember ever hearing about someone talk about how horrified they were at the monster knocking someone over a table and killing them, or the wolf man choking someone to death... What I hear about is the mystery about 'what the monster would look like' and the audience gasping when the bandages were removed, or the way Lon Chaney sr. did his Phantom amazing Phantom make-up when Christine rips the mask away... It would shock and stun the audience seeing the wolfman change on screen... and the hours it took to film it. The special effects arent' so fascinating NOW... but back then?? Seeing someone unroll the wrappings from the head and seeing clothes move around on their own?? That creeped them out!
But the death count was astonishingly low in these movies rarely more then 2-3 actual kills... and often time by people who brought it on themselves.
As for finding them funny? Horror and Comedy go hand in hand. I've seen a few interviews that specifically stated they WANTED them to funny and that the emotion between laughing and screaming was so close that it was part of their formula. It's how Abbott and Costello was able to rework a few scripts into their own shows so easily. A couple of them were already scheduled to be released as horror movies before they changed a few lines and added a couple scenes for themselves.
Now days, a lot of people may find them 'silly'... but they always were meant to have 'funny' parts.
Aberzombie |
The original Universal monster movies might have been scary to folks back then. They might not be scary to folks these days. I guess it depends.
What they are, however, is classics. They kickstarted a couple decades worth of some truly awesome horror movies, especially some of the Hammer stuff that came down the line.
Will the more recent series of mummy movies be considered classics decades from now? Who knows? I always saw them as entertaining, but mostly from a special effects and action standpoint. The first one had a decent story. The sequels were just kind of meh.
I think if this new series can find a good balance between action and gothic horror atmosphere, it'd be awesome. Sadly, I think they'll be leaning more towards the action part, since that'll probably be the forumala to maximize profits. I just hope they stay away from excessive gore. Not because I dislike it, but that I feel Hollywood tends to overdo that (torture porn, I'm looking at you).
Charles Scholz |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want a scary mummy movie, try The Awakening (1980)
GreyWolfLord |
If you want a scary mummy movie, try The Awakening (1980)
I can't say I remember seeing that one. That appears to be Charleston Heston in the trailer!?
phantom1592 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's been a while since I've seen Patrick Stewart do something outside his Picard/Xavier 'wise and patient mentor/leader roles...' I know he HAS... but it's been a long time since I've seen it. Liam is another one who's gotten into a rut.
Make no mistake... I LOOOOOVE his movies and he's a massive draw for me. I'll see just about anything with him in it... but the difference in his 'acting' between the Taken trilogy, unknown, A-team, Walk amongst tombstones... is pretty slim. But he's not the same quality of an 'actor' as he was back in his Schindler List/Rob Roy years.
Morgan Freeman is awesome... but he's always Morgan Freeman. Sean Connery has the same Scottish accent when playing British spy, Spanish/Egyptian immortal, Russian sub captain...
Anthony Hopkins and Tom Hanks were able to avoid that for quite a while, As could Christopher Lee and Ian Mckellen... They still had vastly different range and could disappear into their roles sucking the audience in. Johnny Depp could too for many years. He seemed more interested in the role then portraying himself in that role... but I think he became too big a 'star'... Actually I think he may have lost his mind... and actively sabotages shows, but that's a different conversation ;)
A lot of it involves typecasting. They do one thing so well, they don't get the chance to show what else they can do. Jim Carrey TRIED to break out of that with Majestic, Truman SHow, Man on the moon, number 23... but it didn't really take, so back to stupid comedies for him.
Leonardo dicapro?? I can see that. He kind of went the opposite way. He started out as the pretty boy 'face' that the girls swooned over, and somewhere along the line became a serious 'actor' with a multitude of different roles, making me think he could play anything...
Some 'classically trained' actors go for epic 'range'... some are more about the 'movie star' aspect. It's a truly special gift to be in the middle of that Venn Diagram. I don't hold it against Russell Crowe OR Tom Cruise for that matter to stick with what they're great at.
Lord Snow |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As one who watched the 1999 Mummy as a child, I have to say this trailer is not what I wanted to see. The 1999 take was a pulp, Indiana-Jones like adventure movie with surprisingly fun and interesting characters. This new thing looks completely bland and lacking in comparison. Like, why is 70% of the trailer a random airplane crush scene?
Plus, insert obvious joke about Tom Cruise himself being the shockingly well preserved ancient one in this movie.
MMCJawa |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed the 1999 Mummy...There was a relative dearth of old school adventure movies at the time, and that movie filled that niche fairly well.
This movie feels less like that or horror, but more like its trying to occupy the same niche as all the superhero movies. And while I enjoy those movies, I think I would enjoy something different.
Of course the movie could end up being amazing...I'll need more reviews/trailers to make that call.
Ambrosia Slaad |
This movie was written by a team - a guy from the Mission Impossible franchise and another from Prometheus. So it has action+horror.
Alex Kurtzman. He's not as terrible as his former writing buddy, Robert Orci, but that's pretty faint praise. Now that he's the director of this... I think I'll be safe skipping it.
Charles Scholz |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charles Scholz wrote:I can't say I remember seeing that one. That appears to be Charleston Heston in the trailer!?If you want a scary mummy movie, try The Awakening (1980)
It starred Charlton Heston and a young, pre-Remington Steele, Stephanie Zimbalist.
Rosgakori Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere |
New trailer. With more creepy things in it.
Honestly? This could be dumb fun, but it looks like the movie is taking itseelf waaaay to seriously for that to work. Some parts look fun- the mummy's design is actually really damn cool and I really like the actress, the creepy things like rats and swimming skeletons are neat but...I don't know. I'm already not very excited with this film universe at all.
Charles Scholz |
The trailer was okay, could have been better. Still want to see it.
I'm hoping for a nobody wins end to the movie.
The evil is stopped, but gets away to be evil another day.
Rosgakori Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere |
Rosgakori Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere |
Zeugma |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite part of the James Whale's Frankenstein (1931) is the long tracking shot of the father carrying his dead daughter through the wedding festival, and the gradual change in tone from festivity to absolute shock and horror. And the best thing about that scene is that there are zero special effects, zero "surprise" cuts, and it is still emotionally effective - I had to remind myself that it's only a movie and that little girl isn't actually dead. Go watch that scene. It's great.
ShinHakkaider |
Saw this last night at Lowes IMAX Lincoln Center. The cast (sans Russell Crowe) was in attendance for a Q & A which started pretty late (was supposed to have started at 7:45pm actually started about an hour later...).
Walking out of the movie afterward, I turned to ask my mom (who was my guest to a screening for a second week in a row) if she liked it. After a pause, she said: "Wonder Woman was better."
Tom Cruise puts 100% into anything that he does, even in this misfire of a movie. The script and story are weaksauce and there are character motivations where I'm like: "Wait...what exactly is your endgame?"
The some of the action is decently shot and staged but without any real stakes driving the action it all seemed like we need an action sequence here so *plop*.
If this is their entry point into a Dark Universe franchise? Count me out. Bottom line, it wasn't a BAD movie. But it definitely wasn't a GOOD one. If you were going to go see it this weekend, I'd go see Wonder Woman for a second time instead...
ShinHakkaider |
So...I'm guessing the villain didn't cut the mustard as they say? Because for me, that's kind of how you determine what makes a great monster movie, the actual freaking MONSTER.
As a physical presence, she's great. I had issues with her motivations and the amount of screen time she had (not nearly enough). It's a problematic thing when several times throughout the movie I was asking myself "Wait why do I care about any of this again?"
And my buy-in for movies is relatively low. All I want for you to do is to tell me a story and I'm usually IN. But this? Not so much.