Which is pretty sad thing to say MMC...
Can't we just have another go at making another League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie? This time actually try to make it somewhat faithful to the source material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Delightful,
Only if I get better Universal Monster movies...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll check it out later.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was saddened to hear so many negative reviews (especially from a movie critic I find very reliable). I was really hoping Universal could deliver with their shared monster universe. If what I'm hearing is anything to go by, this Mummy movie is another Dracula Untold level of crap.
Ah well, at least I've got my bluray collection of the classics.
One positive thing could come out of this, however. If Mummy does poorly enough, it might kill their plans and save the viewing public from any more sucktastic movies.
A-zombie,
I wish that were true but I doubt that will happen due to the fact it seems like everyone and their mother in Hollywood wants their own cinematic universe now...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, the turfing of Dracula Untold did lead them to change their plans, so a similar lawn dart performance here might derail a thing or two...
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haaaated this.
I
HATED.
THIS.
Badly build, badly paced, horrible characters that are out of focus of it's own story, crude and jarring world building that brings the movie to a complete STOP when it happens. Only things that are worth of a good mention are Russel Crowe as Doctor Jekyll (yes, I was wrong about that, pleasently suprised!) and Sofia Boutella as the mummy, but since the mummy is not the main character nor the focus character of the Mummy, she is criminally underused.
Dark Universe may have just started, but good lord was this a horrible start. Maybe one of those future movies will be good (I'm looking at you, Javier Bardem Frankestein movie) but I am already done with this crap.
SKIP IT.
I haaaated this.
I
HATED.
THIS.Badly build, badly paced, horrible characters that are out of focus of it's own story, crude and jarring world building that brings the movie to a complete STOP when it happens. Only things that are worth of a good mention are Russel Crowe as Doctor Jekyll (yes, I was wrong about that, pleasently suprised!) and Sofia Boutella as the mummy, but since the mummy is not the main character nor the focus character of the Mummy, she is criminally underused.
Dark Universe may have just started, but good lord was this a horrible start. Maybe one of those future movies will be good (I'm looking at you, Javier Bardem Frankestein movie) but I am already done with this crap.
SKIP IT.
Sorry man. I tried to warn you...
|
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry man. I tried to warn you...
Eh, I was well aware that it was probably going to suck based on early reviews. But since I write weekly movie reviews, I kind had to see it.
I haven't seen it, and now I don't plan to, despite my love for all things Egyptian
Oh, and they kinda mixed Seth up with Osiris.
I haven't seen it, and now I don't plan to, despite my love for all things Egyptian. Instead I'll just rewatch Brendan Fraser's Mummy movie. :)I went a bit more old school and watched The 30s The Mummy with Boris Karloff last night.
I found both to be dumb.
I have yet to find a mummy movie I enjoy.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't seen it, and now I don't plan to, despite my love for all things Egyptian. Instead I'll just rewatch Brendan Fraser's Mummy movie. :)I went a bit more old school and watched The 30s The Mummy with Boris Karloff last night.I found both to be dumb.
I have yet to find a mummy movie I enjoy.
What a coincidence. Joss Whedon said the same thing........
|
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
What a coincidence. Joss Whedon said the same thing........
You fiend.
But I really like that first Brendan Fraser Mummy movie. It is silly and dumb, but in a pulp adventure way. It has really fun script and it didn't take itself too seriously. But it was not all jokes either- by making Imhotep fairly sympathetic (not wholly, but somewhat) Vosloo made some really good scenes that brought some gravitas. It is not a cinematic masterpiece, but I rank it on equal level with first Pirates movie, but with worse CGI.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The '98 Mummy wore its heart on its sleeve- there were creepy elements (and a couple of moments of genuine horror) but it was primarily an action adventure with a healthy dash of comedy.
And by most accounts, this new flick is basically trying to be the same thing... but TELLING everybody it's a horror movie.
|
|
The more I hear about this movie, the more convinced I am the studio would have been much better off putting the folks who created/ran Penny Dreadful in charge. That was an awesome show. And they even had a Mummy teaser early in the final season.
|
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
It pretty much does. I watched it recently. Damn good effect for that time, pretty ingenious some of them. And surprisingly much of that was actually not CGI. Or just used CGI to spruce things up.
Hmmm, it has been a while since I last watched it. My mind goes to the some of the earlier shots of Imhotep. I might remember it wrong.
|
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more I hear about this movie, the more convinced I am the studio would have been much better off putting the folks who created/ran Penny Dreadful in charge. That was an awesome show. And they even had a Mummy teaser early in the final season.
Ugh, now I'm reminded of Penny Dradful's ending and all the potential it had. But yeah, Mummy by those guys would definitely be something I would love to see.
|
It pretty much does. I watched it recently. Damn good effect for that time, pretty ingenious some of them. And surprisingly much of that was actually not CGI. Or just used CGI to spruce things up.Hmmm, it has been a while since I last watched it. My mind goes to the some of the earlier shots of Imhotep. I might remember it wrong.
I was actually very pleasantly surprised on how well it held up over the years to be honest. There were some quibbles, mostly when Imhotep was largely reformed and there was a little mummy left on his face, it was so OBVIOUS, but overall, very very good.
|
|
The more I hear about this movie, the more convinced I am the studio would have been much better off putting the folks who created/ran Penny Dreadful in charge. That was an awesome show. And they even had a Mummy teaser early in the final season.Ugh, now I'm reminded of Penny Dradful's ending and all the potential it had. But yeah, Mummy by those guys would definitely be something I would love to see.
Yeah, that ending was one of the few things that truly disappointed me about the series. Otherwise, it kicked ass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean older CGI. Mummy is from '98
THE MUMMY was 1999. I know this because THE MATRIX had come out a month or two before and THE PHANTOM MENACE had come out the week or two AFTER The Mummy and I remember after seeing The Phantom Menace commenting to my buddy Jason that what has it come to that a Keanu Reeves movie and a Mummy movie were better than a Star Wars movie...
I never understood why people crap on Keanu Reeves. He's made several good movies.
he's a weird actor. Like really weird.
I never understood why people crap on Keanu Reeves. He's made several good movies.
And several that leave a stench long after you've scraped them out of your shoe with a stick.
Mind you... he's getting more and more company in that category these days...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never understood why people crap on Keanu Reeves. He's made several good movies.
From what I've heard from people who have actually met him? He's a decent grounded guy.
And he's done great work in RIVER'S EDGE and MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO. But then he's in DANGEROUS LIAISONS surrounded by John Malkovich and Glenn Close and you see how much weaker of an actor he was back then. In an otherwise great movie, he's wince-inducing. And his performance in Coppola's DRACULA & MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING has the same effect.
And yet I'm still a fan. I like him in the BILL & TED'S movies, POINT BREAK, I love his character Todd in PARENTHOOD. His little monologue he gives about parenting really hit home for me personally on a bunch of levels. Then there's his turn in Sam Raimi's THE GIFT where he's as menacing as hell in a role type we really don't see him in. SPEED, THE MATRIX movies, HARDBALL and now JOHN WICK and JOHN WICK CHAPTER 2? Is he the best actor out there? NOPE. But do I enjoy a bunch of his movies? YARP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shin,
I remember watching Much Ado about Nothing and thinking "Wait why is Keanu in this movie?"
Bjorn,
Yeah basically it was Al's chance to play the Devil in semi-fairly convincing fashion.
Keanu can be good, but his acting range isn't huge, so it seems like only certain roles really work for him.
I liked him in "Street Kings." Chris Evans co-stars and, however great he is as Captain America, he's obscure and hardly noticeable alongside Reeves. It's not a great movie by any stretch, but I loved it anyway.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shin,
I remember watching Much Ado about Nothing and thinking "Wait why is Keanu in this movie?"
Likewise. You know, there were all these veteran Shakespearean actors & actresses just nailing the language and delivery, Denzel Washington was holding up his end pretty well, Michael Keaton went way over the top (but was true to the material), and then all that great dialogue sounded awful coming from Keanu. He glowered well, at least.
Okay cool. I was just curious if they at least made the monster a main character. If she's more of a side character...then yeah. The buy-in has become REALLY low then.
The Mummy being a side character wouldn't be that surprising given Kurtzman (the guy overseeing the "Dark Universe") also was heavily involved in the Transformer movies, which usually treated their robots as side characters in their own franchise.
Honestly, that was a GOOD decision that they made. Unlike Transformers, where the entire franchise is based on the toy robots and their millennium-old war.... The Monster movies are not ABOUT the Monster.
Never have been.
Never SHOULD be.
In a monster movie, the monster is the catalyst. It's the plot... the problem that the normal people have to solve. Monsters are mysterious and unknowable and inhuman. The humans are the ones that release it, fight it, research it and find the secret way to stop it...
That's the formula. It doesn't matter if we're talking about the Mummy or Frankenstein's monster or Michael Myers and Jason Vorhees. Who they murder is different in every movie... but the story and the audience connection is always with the normal people in over their heads.
The closest exception I could see would be Wolf Man and Dr. Jekyll... but again they're just playing both roles. They are the ordinary people looking for cures... but once the moon turns and the monster is revealed in all it's horror awesomeness... The sympathy's gone.
Frankenstein's movies have always focused on the creator. I think it was House of Frankenstein that the monster itself didn't show up till the last 15 minutes of the show... Dracula has always been about Van Helsing and the hunters. Except Dracula Untold. See what happens when the monster is focused TOO much on... Jason and Myers had over 7 movies each and never had a solid explaination why they can do what they do.... Freddy had 8 movies and a reboot and still doesn't explain how he went from child killer to dream haunter...
As for this one? I felt she had about as much focus as Arnold Voslo did in his movie. Motivations, flashbacks, modern dialogue... it was all pretty consistant with modern mummy movies and blew the OLD mummy movies completely away. Remember, outside of Karloff's first movie, the mummy never even had lines. There was always an Egyptian cult using him as a weapon to wreck havoc and revenge. It's frankly not ABOUT them. The mummy has always been secondary in their movies. Honestly outside the fond memories of the Fraser movies... I thought rebooting a universe with the Mummy as really a poor choice.
That's a bad thing to judge a movie on. It's like watching the new Godzilla movie and wishing their was more Godzilla... the stupid human parts have a complaint about EVERY Godzilla movie ever made. The fact is, just watching two hours of monsters fighting would be BORING... they need to break that up with some exposition from time to time...
Mummy 2017? I enjoyed it. It wasn't the best one ever... and it had some flaws, but I can't remember the last movie I thought was 'perfect'. Movies are a good way to escape from reality for 2 hours or so. Nothing else. There is way too high of expectations about movies these days. If it didn't change your world then people dismiss it as crap and tell everyone else not to bother. That's not what movies are for.
I love the idea of the 'dark universe'... but not sure this was the way to do it. People are trying too HARD to make their combined universe... and not focusing on stand alone movies. Whatever else it was, Iron Man was a stand alone movie. Star Wars was Stand alone. Raiders of the Lost Ark was stand alone. If Russell Crowe's Jekyll wasn't in it, I think that it would have been better. Throwing Jekyll into the mix asks too many questions they aren't ready to answer. Just having the monster hunting society with a few easter eggs tossed in there would have been fine. But not giving us any background on what turns out to be a major character in the show... that was sloppy. Set in modern days, we can't even use our own knowledge on the subject. Is this Jekyll 'modern'? Is he the same one as Victorian England? Is he immortal now? There were hints dropped that any of the answers may be right... and without anything else it was just distracting.
Tom Cruise? He's always fun to watch. The way it ended? That was really kind of interesting and I really want to see what happens next. My mom described it like this. "They took all the parts we expect to see, tossed them in the air and watched where they landed." Which I thought was a very good way to make a movie based on a property that was done at LEAST 9 times already.
Enough familiar to keep it recognizable, and enough twists and surprises to make it feel fresh and interesting. Still a lot of things I would have changed up and twisted if it was my movie... but what we got was pretty fun.
Ah well, at least I've got my bluray collection of the classics.
Ohhh How are those?? Is there any real value going Blu-ray? I have them all on DVD... and can't really imagine a 1932 movie cleaning up much better. Technology and all can only go so far with the originals they have to work with...
Marc,
I heard it made up for it in overseas sales. But I could be wrong.
Also color me silly but yes the movie about the Mummy would be more fun than just side characters I barely care about. Which apparently this movie is.
Kirth,
Meh. Street Kings only worked because of Forest Whitaker and Hugh Laurie, not because of Keanu's character.
John,
Exactly! I got why Keaton was over the top. That's how the character is supposed to be. Denzel is supposed to be smooth and royal. Keanu...was just bad acting Keanu.