Trondheim wrote: Normal Hollywood garbage, makes one wonder what will come along next?
Possibly a Jekyll and Hyde movie. Russell Crowe's character is named Jekyll. I read somewhere this is supposed to be part of the modern versions of the "classic" Universal monster movies.
Trondheim wrote: Normal Hollywood garbage, makes one wonder what will come along next?
Possibly a Jekyll and Hyde movie. Russell Crowe's character is named Jekyll. I read somewhere this is supposed to be part of the modern versions of the "classic" Universal monster movies.
It is part of Universal's attempt at the Avengers but with their monsters, so Monster Squad but probably not as cool. This is actually the second movie as Dracula Untold was the first one. So I guess we have Dracula, Dr. Jekyll, and a mummy at this point. I wonder if they are going to make Cruise count as the mummy or have him be something of a Frankenstein's monster since the whole reanimated dead thing.
I'm also thinking about it way more than I want to but this thread got the ball rolling now it won't stop.
I saw some Tom Cruise fluff piece for this on the TV this morning. As the interviewer was gushing over Tom Cruise like it was still 1987 or something, they kept showing bits of this new Tom Cruise movie with 'The Mummy' written at the top. I assumed 'The Mummy' was the name of the lady doing the interview or something, I know that wasn't particularly sensible, but it never occurred to me that they could be remaking The Mummy with Tom Cruise. What an incredibly strange property to reboot at this time, and with Tom Cruise.
That said, bouncing around the airplane actually looked pretty good. One thing you have to hand to Cruise is that he's never let off on the stuntwork and quality in action scenes. The films he's made have been hit and miss, and include a really weird amount of him running, including this one, but the action scenes have always been really good.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They keep trying to restart the Universal Monsters thing. It's not going to happen.
Monster Squad. Van Helsing. Dracula Untold. I, Frankenstein. The Mummy (with Brendan Frasier). All failed.
The Mummy was a big, surprise hit. It made $400m on a budget of Brendan Fraser plus a bunch of CGI effects that were put together in someone's basement over a weekend (which is somehow $80m in Hollywoodland). There's a reason they made a string of increasingly terrible sequels, and also gave Stephen Sommers a greenlight to follow basically the same model with Van Helsing - second tier lead actor, and a boatload of CGI effects that focus more on quantity than quality.
It only really worked the once, with The Mummy, of course.
Ahtman wrote: It is part of Universal's attempt at the Avengers but with their monsters, so Monster Squad but probably not as cool. This is actually the second movie as Dracula Untold was the first one. So I guess we have Dracula, Dr. Jekyll, and a mummy at this point. I wonder if they are going to make Cruise count as the mummy or have him be something of a Frankenstein's monster since the whole reanimated dead thing.
I'm also thinking about it way more than I want to but this thread got the ball rolling now it won't stop.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They keep trying to restart the Universal Monsters thing. It's not going to happen.
Monster Squad. Van Helsing. Dracula Untold. I, Frankenstein. The Mummy (with Brendan Frasier). All failed.
Huh? You got some iffy's in there, mister. Monster Squad was a great, dumb kids movie. Van Helsing was a fantastic action flick, as was Dracula Untold.
The Mummy movies (the first 2) were great films; how dare you.
The second Mummy movie pushed my suspension of disbelief a little hard. That was the one with the rocket boosted airship, right?
The first one was a classic though. Great movie. I also like Van Helsing. It’s not a good movie in any classic sense, but it is a fun one. Beer and Popcorn.
I liked it, I am bias towards Kate Beckinsale films but for me the main plus points were:
I enjoyed the homage to the Hammer films,
I enjoyed the imagery
I really liked the Frankensteins monster story.
It was great fun
The sense of a greater world of strangeness
Kate Beckinsale.
So to me its a "great film", but its my opinion and so no more (or less) valid than anyone else. Any and all opinions on films are subjective.
Not bad enough that you should feel bad for liking it - or calling it 'great' - but...it's close!
Nope, you think its a bad film - that's valid. However my view that's its great is equally valid Neither view carries more weight although I did explain my reasons for liking it.
Going back to the Mummy trailer - loved the aircraft bit where Mr Cruise still manages to save the girl whilst being flung about in zero G
Anyway, what's also interesting is that Tom Cruise might actually already be a member of the Undead - he looks way to good to be (x) years old, and hasn't seemed to age in...a long, long time!
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They keep trying to restart the Universal Monsters thing. It's not going to happen.
Monster Squad. Van Helsing. Dracula Untold. I, Frankenstein. The Mummy (with Brendan Frasier). All failed.
Huh? You got some iffy's in there, mister. Monster Squad was a great, dumb kids movie. Van Helsing was a fantastic action flick, as was Dracula Untold.
The Mummy movies (the first 2) were great films; how dare you.
That's not what I meant by 'failures'. Each of those was an attempt to start a Universal Monsters-style franchise. Listen to the commentary for Monster Squad--it was made with the express purpose to create a rival franchise to Universal's. Although it is one of my favorite monster movies, it failed to generate traction as a flagship. The Mummy 1 and 2 were very successful, and deserved to be, but for whatever reason they did not translate into a larger shared universe even with The Rock's help.
As for Van Helsing, that movie is a guilty pleasure for me. My favorite character is the ugnaught on the suspended unicycle. I like to contemplate the purpose of his existence.
Dracula: "Ah, yes. All of my minions serve a greater purpose. But there is something missing. You! Hang a unicycle from those wires and pedal around above my laboratory!"
Anyway, what's also interesting is that Tom Cruise might actually already be a member of the Undead - he looks way to good to be (x) years old, and hasn't seemed to age in...a long, long time!
The parasite could no longer sustain Dick Clark and chose a new host.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They keep trying to restart the Universal Monsters thing. It's not going to happen.
Monster Squad. Van Helsing. Dracula Untold. I, Frankenstein. The Mummy (with Brendan Frasier). All failed.
Huh? You got some iffy's in there, mister. Monster Squad was a great, dumb kids movie. Van Helsing was a fantastic action flick, as was Dracula Untold.
The Mummy movies (the first 2) were great films; how dare you.
That's not what I meant by 'failures'. Each of those was an attempt to start a Universal Monsters-style franchise. Listen to the commentary for Monster Squad--it was made with the express purpose to create a rival franchise to Universal's. Although it is one of my favorite monster movies, it failed to generate traction as a flagship. The Mummy 1 and 2 were very successful, and deserved to be, but for whatever reason they did not translate into a larger shared universe even with The Rock's help.
As for Van Helsing, that movie is a guilty pleasure for me. My favorite character is the ugnaught on the suspended unicycle. I like to contemplate the purpose of his existence.
Dracula: "Ah, yes. All of my minions serve a greater purpose. But there is something missing. You! Hang a unicycle from those wires and pedal around above my laboratory!"
Ugnaught tilts his head as if to ask to what end.
Dracula: "It gives me...joy."
Ah yeah, I'd agree with that. It actually made me sad that The Mummy movies were so good and the rest were just kind of, eh.
Geez that looks terrible. And I liked the Mummy movies and the Dracula remake. Van Helsing was pretty crap though- the acting and accent work was *so* bad. Definitely guilty pleasure territory!
Tom Cruise is best when he is not taking himself seriously. Tropic Thunder and Rock of Ages jump to mind.
1. Van Helsing sucked.
2. Kate Beckinsale is hot.
3. This Mummy looks stupid as feth.
4. I enjoyed the first Mummy movie. 2 and 3 were worse than Van Helsing.
5. The chick from the Mummy movies is hot. She was great in the movie Youth
kronk wrote: 1. Van Helsing sucked.
2. Kate Beckinsale is hot.
3. This Mummy looks stupid as feth.
4. I enjoyed the first Mummy movie. 2 and 3 were worse than Van Helsing.
5. The chick from the Mummy movies is hot. She was great in the movie Youth
LoL, is it bad that I love every movie that's being bashed in this thread? I think I need to see this Monster Squad and Dracula Untold immediately.
To me it kinda looks like Michael Bay's The Mummy. I'm willing to give it a shot. I really hope there's no reincarnating ancestors again though- the mummy's curse is always the strongest part of these films. Perhaps Cruise's immortality is a spin on that- he can't die until everyone he loves is dead. I could totally get behind a movie with that twist.
Gitzbitah wrote: LoL, is it bad that I love every movie that's being bashed in this thread? I think I need to see this Monster Squad and Dracula Untold immediately.
To me it kinda looks like Michael Bay's The Mummy. I'm willing to give it a shot. I really hope there's no reincarnating ancestors again though- the mummy's curse is always the strongest part of these films. Perhaps Cruise's immortality is a spin on that- he can't die until everyone he loves is dead. I could totally get behind a movie with that twist.
Its not your fault, more the fault of Hollywood & friends for making such garbage. You are just a innocent bystander
Tokyo has been destroyed in zillion Anime and kaijuu movies
The mummy with Brando Fraser were fun, because it had humor and didn't take itself to seriously,
This Trailer with barely acting Scientology Tom looks uninteresting.
The mummy with Brando Fraser were fun, because it had humor and didn't take itself to seriously,
This Trailer with barely acting Scientology Tom looks uninteresting.
I liked the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies just fine (all 3 of them), and this one looks to be good, but very different. Less humor and more action seems to be where they are going with it, and that can work okay. I'll wait to see more trailers and stuff for the movie before I decide whether to go see it or not.
Spoiler:
And yes, Rachel Weisz was probably the best thing about the first 2 Mummy movies (well, her and Patricia Velasquez).
I loved the previous Mummy movies - I have had a crush on Rachel Weisz for 18 years due to that - but I think this one looks pretty good, too. I'm excited by it and will definitely catch it when it comes out.
or as one of my film loving chums put it "judging by the trailer, 'When Ethan Hunt Joined Time Team'.", can just imagine the trailer voice over by Sir Baldrick "She wants to take over the world and enslave humanity and, as always on Time Team, we have just three days to defeat the powers of evil" followed by Phil suggesting to wee Tommy C "She's one 'ell of a grumpy thetan Mr Tom, shall us dig trench and 'ope her falls in" before they all start bickering about the geo-phys
This looks incredibly bad. It does not appear to have any of the humor that made the Frasier Mummy films a hit, no Rachel Weicz either. Instead we have Tom Cruise. Yea...no.
Reviews coming in now. As of point of writing it has 26% on Rotten Tomatoes. Thats fabulously bad. Movie expectations are now for $35mm in US sales ad to get hammered by WW week 2.
Frazzled wrote: Reviews coming in now. As of point of writing it has 26% on Rotten Tomatoes. Thats fabulously bad. Movie expectations are now for $35mm in US sales ad to get hammered by WW week 2.
I had planned to go see it tomorrow, but oof, those are some really rough reviews.
It Comes At Night also opens tomorrow, but has an 84 on RT,
The things I have seen have said that it was decent. Not great but not awful just kind of Ok. Some have singled out Cruise, though that seems to go either way with him either being the lone bright point or miscast, but the real issue seems to stem from so many writers that the script has no real focus and that lack of focus comes through in the film.
Frazzled wrote: Reviews coming in now. As of point of writing it has 26% on Rotten Tomatoes. Thats fabulously bad. Movie expectations are now for $35mm in US sales ad to get hammered by WW week 2.
Tom Cruise has some decent rolls, but looks like a pretty bad pick for this one. I hate to say it, but they should have gone with someone younger on their way up and leave Crowe as the older counterpoint. The film does look pretty unfocused and not nearly as fun as the prior Mummy film.
It Comes At Night also opens tomorrow, but has an 84 on RT,
Pretty hyped for that one, but afraid I'll get Babadook'd.
I also want to see it (and also liked Babadook, while finding the constant child screaming annoying).
As for the Mummy, I've been completely uninterested since the first teaser ages ago. Tom Cruise is meh. Another undead mummy ravaging London is meh. Making the mummy a girl doesn't improve the completely worn out premise of the film, and they don't even have Brendan Fraser or John Hannah around to liven things up with witty banter and kick ass one liners.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Recent articles claim that Dracula Untold is not canon, and that the Mummy is the first in the Dark Universe continuity.
It seems like they're going to keep kicking that can down the road until one of their monster movies actually turns out good and successful, at which point that will be the start of the new franchise. It looks like the Mummy will kick the can at least until the next one.
I don't mind Tom Cruise - the guy is totally bonkers but just in terms of the movies he puts out he has a better batting avg than most. Even when he's made bad movies it is rarely his performance that is the problem. But this Mummy reboot, yeah, you could just see from the marketing that they were keen to sell the movie on Cruise's name alone, and not the actual movie. Not a good sign at all.
Well, I asked my wife if she wanted to see The Mummy or It Comes At Night. She suggested we just see both since I am off tomorrow.
So, we saw The Mummy tonight.
It's not terrible. It's getting reviews as if it's one of the worst movies in recent memory, and that seems like kind of a bad rap.
On the other hand, it wasn't great, either. Or even very good. I would call it "OK", a solid 5/10. You get pretty much what you see in the trailer. If you liked what you saw the trailer, you're probably going to like the movie. If you hated the trailer then you're probably going to hate the movie too. If you're one of those weird MRA guys who hates the very idea of the movie because Brendan Fraser isn't in it, well, he isn't in it.
I think the lady that played the mummy was pretty solid. I thought Tom Cruise did about what you expect from Tom Cruise in pretty much any Tom Cruise movie. Russell Crowe did OK, but I wasn't too crazy about his big reveal - he's done better work. Annabelle Wallis was utterly forgettable as the love interest and to be honest she could have been completely cut from the film with no real loss. This movie did not need a romance angle in any way, so not sure why they felt the need to try and shoehorn in an exceedingly threadbare one.
One thing that they did do that was good was they removed that stupid scream he makes in the trailer.
There was also quite a bit more world building than I expected, especially for the first movie in a series.
All in all I would say this is a pretty flimsy tentpole for cinematic universe, after on the fence, you should probably just wait until it comes out on Netflix or Redbox or whatever.
So, reading this spoiler is going to cheapen your life, it doesn't contain anything about the movie in question, and I suggest you don't read it, but if you must know.
Spoiler:
MRAs are Mens Right's Activists - aggrieved men who are unhappy that women allegedly dominate our society. There are a small but very vocal percentage of people who are butthurt that Brendan Fraser isn't in this, because they have an informal campaign to "bring Brendan Fraser back" (from where is never answered since he has been working continuously). The narrative is that is he is paying ruinous child support and women destroy successful men, and so on. In fact there is an automated clause that would reduce his alimony and child support in the event he earned less than $3 million a year, and it has not kicked in, so I'm not sure why people are picking this specific hill to die on, but that's the internet for you.
Well, that's deeply disappointing. I thought I was seeing all those Brendan Fraser posts everywhere because people like Brendan Fraser and he acted like a fun goofball action guy in fun goofball action stuff, and the upcoming Mummy had made people remember that.
I'm honestly more amazed that Brendan Fraser is who people remember from the last round of Mummy films. I though John Hannah's character was what really made them enjoyable. Well the goofy bits in general made them enjoyable, but John Hannah is who I remember most fondly.
Though it is weird now that I hear about it, cause I just saw this bit from Wrecked a little bit ago.
Spinner wrote: Well, that's deeply disappointing. I thought I was seeing all those Brendan Fraser posts everywhere because people like Brendan Fraser and he acted like a fun goofball action guy in fun goofball action stuff, and the upcoming Mummy had made people remember that.
Actually I imagine a lot of those Brandon Fraser posts are just that, people who like Brandon Fraser. The wife and I (to a lesser extent) love his performances.
LordofHats wrote: I'm honestly more amazed that Brendan Fraser is who people remember from the last round of Mummy films. I though John Hannah's character was what really made them enjoyable. Well the goofy bits in general made them enjoyable, but John Hannah is who I remember most fondly.
Though it is weird now that I hear about it, cause I just saw this bit from Wrecked a little bit ago.
Rachel Weiss is great in both movies as is Patrica Valesquez
Ouze wrote: Which did you like better, Monkeybone or George of the Jungle?
Monkeybone. Everyone should see Monkeybone at least once. There is nothing about Monkeybone that isn't perfect. Monkeybone.
Does it have a moment where one of the side villains picks a fight with the narrator? Because if not, George of the Jungle is clearly the superior film!
Ouze wrote: Which did you like better, Monkeybone or George of the Jungle?
He was really good in The Quiet American. I think he's one of those actors that has a fair bit of talent, but when he was just getting famous he took lead roles in some real stinkers, which made him a bit of a punching bag, and stopped him being able to get lead roles in stronger movies.
It seems to be doing well in Asia for some reason but I think no sequals like last version. They will make money back but not enough reception to justify a second movie.
World wide draws for spectacle films tend to be big even if the film flops in the US and can turn into sizable profit margins. It's a big reason Transformers movies keep getting made. For all the critiques of the US, large segments of worldwide audiences sure eat up dumb special effects driven movies.
Alpharius wrote: Well, to be fair, there was just as much of a Mummy (or lack thereof) in the other 'modern' Mummy films, right?
They all play pretty fast and loose with real history, but the Brendan Fraser films at least referenced some historical names and concepts. Sure, it's all still a pulpy mash, but the basic premise was workable. Heck, they didn't even fall into the trap of using Set as an "evil" god.
Alpharius wrote: Well, to be fair, there was just as much of a Mummy (or lack thereof) in the other 'modern' Mummy films, right?
They all play pretty fast and loose with real history, but the Brendan Fraser films at least referenced some historical names and concepts. Sure, it's all still a pulpy mash, but the basic premise was workable. Heck, they didn't even fall into the trap of using Set as an "evil" god.
They also bothered to not do a modern movie and set it in the 30's to 50's later on in 3.
Neither view carries more weight although I did explain my reasons for liking it.
