Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

.... so this is a thing, apparently

Admittedly having Tom Cruise be one of the undead was unexpected.

That looks terrible.

That looks completely and utterly uninteresting.

Looks like a beer and popcorn movie. Not going to pay theater prices for it, but I think if you go in with low expectations, you could enjoy it.

Does it have anything to do with any of the other movies that share it’s title? Besides the obvious Egyptian undead angle.

That earned a resounding "Ugh" from me. So, to sum it up, it's The Mummy, but replace Brendan Frasier with Tom Cruise and remove all funny moments?

With the sound off it looks like another Mission Impossible until the BG monster appears.

I had to turn it off at the Tom Cruise Scream that lasted seemingly forever to me.

Also, does it seem London gets destroyed more than any city in movies recently?

San Fran would be a close second.

I think New York might beat all of us.

Normal Hollywood garbage, makes one wonder what will come along next?

 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.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 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.

Now that is a role he acctualy is well suited for

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.

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.

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.

To be fair, Brendan Frasier's 3 Mummy movies were all big commercial hits.

And I forgot all about Monster Squad. I loved it as a kid, gotta find it.

Ninja 'd.

And Van Helsing was gak, but Wikipedia says it pulled $300 million.

Looks good - big fan of the previous Mummy films and this looks different but still good.

Van Helsing was a great film.

 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.

The reviews for Dracula Untold where just horrific: 23% on the tomatometer.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dracula_untold

I think the first 2 mummy movies were perfectly fine (first is better) but then again, I may have Weisz tinted glasses.

 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.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Looks good - big fan of the previous Mummy films and this looks different but still good.

It does, doesn't it?

However:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Van Helsing was a great film.

...?

I actrually liked the idea behind VanHelsing, its just that instead of "fast paced" the movie was "crack paced" and I tagged out.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Looks good - big fan of the previous Mummy films and this looks different but still good.

It does, doesn't it?

However:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Van Helsing was a great film.

...?

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.

It's a bad film.

Not bad enough that you should feel bad for liking it - or calling it 'great' - but...it's close!

 Alpharius wrote:
It's a bad film.

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

Whatever guy!

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!

 Frazzled wrote:
I actrually liked the idea behind VanHelsing

The idea behind it was really good but the execution? Boy did it stink.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I actrually liked the idea behind VanHelsing

The idea behind it was really good but the execution? Boy did it stink.

100% correct.