Support NeoGAF

[Grizzlyjin]

Damn some of these blurbs are straight furious. It's not as total as, say, Collateral Beauty's drubbing, but the savagery is just as epic.

I think Universal should've kept their Dark Universe announcement mum until after the release date for this, maybe even day of. I'm not saying it's getting dragged because people know it's part of a shared universe. But I think knowing that this is supposed to kick off (for the third time lol) 'Dark' makes the mediocrity slightly more off-putting. It's like being served a bad meal and then learning the same cook is giving more courses to the meal.

I guess they thought that viewers go to movies because of the shared universe? And maybe that would prop up the numbers for The Mummy. I think it works the opposite way. Give people a fun movie, then they'll be excited for more of what they just got.

 

[Shanlei91]

"Made for the fans, not the critics" is officially a thing.

Thanks again, BvS.

Nah, thank Kevin Smith.

As ridiculous as the statement is, I actually do like Smith's poorly rated films.

 

[Speevy]

The Rock will take this Summer blockbuster lesson and try to take Gal Gadot's role in Wonder Woman 2.

 

[Speevy]

Nah, thank Kevin Smith.

As ridiculous as the statement is, I actually do like Smith's poorly rated films.

Remember when we used to make threads about these comics? Like it was a whole conversation piece, a comic.

 

[Sweeney Tom]

They already tried that with The Wolfman and somehow managed to turn it into a 150 million dollar flop.

The point Caviar was making was if you make cheap horror instead of expensive action, the cheap horror will make a profit no matter how good or bad it is.

The Wolfman was very much expensive action-horror. That thing should have never cost anywhere near $150 mil, and if they're not going to show restraint pr even attempt to make their decisions less stupid, they deserve to watch their cash (and potentially dreams of Marvel bucks, as we're seeing with this flop universe) burn.

 

[NeonZ]

What's the difference between THE Mummy and A Mummy? What defines The Mummy that's shared between the old classics, the Fraser series, and this new one? Like if Warner Bros wanted to make a movie about a mummy monster what would they have to stay away from to not encroach on THE Mummy?

Aside from specific character names, I think the main issue is that Universal are the only ones able to use "Mummy" as part of a movie title.

 

[Random Human]

I think Universal should've kept their Dark Universe announcement mum until after the release date for this, maybe even day of. I'm not saying it's getting dragged because people know it's part of a shared universe. But I think knowing that this is supposed to kick off (for the third time lol) 'Dark' makes the mediocrity slightly more off-putting. It's like being served a bad meal and then learning the same cook is giving more courses to the meal.

I think there's a certain arrogance in announcing a sixteen movie shared universe w/ video games and theme parks and branded underoos before audiences even get to decide if they like one of them.

The shared universe thing is reminding me of that period where studios would announce how record breaking the budget of blockbusters were, as if that was appealing to people, until it got obscene and now they tend to downplay budgets.

 

[Shanlei91]

Remember when we used to make threads about these comics? Like it was a whole conversation piece, a comic.

Now we discuss cinematic universes.

 

[LordOfLore]

The Rock will take this Summer blockbuster lesson and try to take Gal Gadot's role in Wonder Woman 2.

Nah, he has his Teth-Adam role to play in a summer or two.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

Dang. Gotta admit I was looking forward to this.

 

[Ronin Ray]

I just don't understand why this movie couldn't be smaller darker and more horror focused. There was no reason for this big expensive action movie.

 

[Speevy]

I just don't understand why this movie couldn't be smaller darker and more horror focused. There was no reason for this big expensive action movie.

Mummies aren't scary. Unless they went for an almost documentary style movie, it just wouldn't work.

 

[Random Human]

I just don't understand why this movie couldn't be smaller darker and more horror focused. There was no reason for this big expensive action movie.

Every studio wants that Marvel money. :/

 

[Oersted]

Mummies aren't scary. Unless they went for an almost documentary style movie, it just wouldn't work.

The Frasier mummy, without the added comedy, was actually quite scary. The beetles in particular. And that was a PG 13 movie.

 

[brandonh83]

Mummies aren't scary.

They can be with tone and execution.

 

[Poimandres]

Calling it now, this will be a movie that LTTP viewers will say was actually not bad and better than the reviews led them to believe.

I haven't seen the film, that's just the impression I am getting.

A review I heard this morning said it's pretty enjoyable if you go in expecting a big budget B-movie.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Nah, he has his Teth-Adam role to play in a summer or two.

I don't think Shazam's still happening.

 

[Messofanego]

Watch It Comes At Night instead.

July 7th here in UK.

 

[Moppeh]

It will be a glorious day when gritty action reboots stop being such a big trend. Gritty action movies just give off a sterile and emotionless vibe.

Had this been a straight up horror movie, or even a horror/action movie, I would be way more interested in seeing it.

 

[Skux]

This will suck, but a lot of people will watch it (especially overseas, where Tom Cruise is still huge) and'll we'll get four or five more turds before they call it a day.

 

[godhandiscen]

But we've already started production on three films for the GAF Cinematic Universe

I'd watch this.

 

[LordOfLore]

I don't think Shazam's still happening.

The Black Adam spin-off probably is.

 

[K' Dash]

The first mummy had a RT score of 57 and the mummy 2 had a 47, these movies have never been about scores, they should be a fun, action packed summer blockbuster.

 

[Moppeh]

The first mummy had a RT score of 57 and the mummy 2 jad a 47, these movies have never been about scores, they should be a fun, action packed summer blockbuster.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1014370_mummy

Long ago these movies had the scores.

 

[Polioliolio]

Oh, it's a 'universe'. Guhhh

 

[Messofanego]

Gonna have to steal this line whenever someone says a movie was made "not for the critics but for the fans" 😂

 

[Oersted]

The first mummy had a RT score of 57 and the mummy 2 jad a 47, these movies have never been about scores, they should be a fun, action packed summer blockbuster.

Critic 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.

vs

Critic Consensus: It's difficult to make a persuasive argument for The Mummy as any kind of meaningful cinematic achievement, but it's undeniably fun to watch.

And dude, look at the Rotten page for the 1999 movie. Its barely finished, with quotes and reviews missing.

 

[TAJ]

My bad was speaking about his more recent action flicks.

Collateral is incredible.


Maybe it's because I was born in 93, but I couldn't even make it past the first ten minutes of Top Gun.

The cheese, I can't.

The fuck? More than half of what you watched was documentary footage.

 

[More_Badass]

Mummies aren't scary. Unless they went for an almost documentary style movie, it just wouldn't work.

You can make it scary. That's no excuse. Disgusting body horror, curses that destroy your life and the lives of everyone you love, ancient evil beyond comprehension, etc.

 

[QuantumZebra]

So Wonder Woman #1 again? I'm down.

Sucks for the cinematic universe or w/e the Mummy was gonna be in though.

 

[Escape Goat]

Tom Cruise wanted to burn an option in his contract. And this was the less sucks one, but Cruise adds absolutely nothing to it.

 

[Speevy]

You can make it scary. That's no excuse. Disgusting body horror, curses that destroy your life and the lives of everyone you love, ancient evil beyond comprehension, etc.

Well sure but what they do instead is sand storms with a face, CG beetles that turn you automatically into a skeleton, undead armies, locusts coming out of mouths, etc.

Perhaps I should have said that in order for a mummy to be scary, someone needs to show some creativity that current conceptions of the monster sorely lack.

 

[TAJ]

At least make it to the "I want some butts" scene in Top Gun.

Me when it first came out: "Wow, that dude is pissed."

Me now: "Lol, he wants butts."

I was more mature when I was 10.

 

[louiedog]

There goes my hope of Pendulo putting some money into an English re-release of Hollywood Monsters on modern platforms and stores.

 

[Poimandres]

The first mummy had a RT score of 57 and the mummy 2 jad a 47, these movies have never been about scores, they should be a fun, action packed summer blockbuster.

The 1999 Mummy movie was quite well received at the time. The sequel was a bloated mess and didn't review particularly well, but that RT score is absolutely misleading.

 

[More_Badass]

Well sure but what they do instead is sand storms with a face, CG beetles that turn you automatically into a skeleton, undead armies, locusts coming out of mouths, etc.

Perhaps I should have said that in order for a mummy to be scary, someone needs to show some creativity that current conceptions of the monster sorely lack.

Ideally, I'd have the curse be the true horror. The mummy itself doesn't actually resurrect, it instead is resurrected through the one that unearthed it. Slowly but surely, you rot and decay and change, and your attempts to stop the transformation is punished with horrible fates to those you love and your own life unraveling. An unstoppable unknowable ancient evil that utter consumes its victims, mentally and physically

And it could be an early 1900s setting to cement that lovecraftian take on the Mummy, a British unit stumbling upon the uprooted entrance during WW1

 

[kevin1025]

Just got back from seeing it. It's nothing special. It tries too hard to be funny at all the wrong moments; it isn't terribly exciting, and it is exposition heavy. Cruise tries a little here and there, but not enough. Jake Johnson is wasted (not in the drunk way). Russell Crowe also gets to do a Gary Oldman-Dark Knight speech at the end of the movie. The special effects on the Mummy itself are interesting, but the rest isn't so hot. The movie mostly (80%+) takes place at night, so it isn't visually interesting whatsoever; and seeing it in 3D just makes that worse. Plus the 3D only seems to be present on people, nothing else. I wouldn't recommend it, unless you're terribly bored.

 

[B33]

They already tried that with The Wolfman and somehow managed to turn it into a 150 million dollar flop.

They should have let Mark Romanek film his version of The Wolfman.

 

[Ithil]

The 1999 Mummy movie was quite well received at the time. The sequel was a bloated mess and didn't review particularly well, but that RT score is absolutely misleading.

RT scores in general from pre-2000s are really not reliable other than the really huge films, they predate the whole standardized system used now. Most have very few reviews at all, whatever can be found from when the film released.

 

[Toa TAK]

Man I really liked The Wolfman, too. Good cast.

 

[Zelenogorsk]

Hopefully Atomic Blonde is good. I need my Sofia Boutella fix!

 

[K' Dash]

RT scores in general from pre-2000s are really not reliable other than the really huge films, they predate the whole standardized system used now. Most have very few reviews at all, whatever can be found from when the film released.

a 57 seems right for a B movie like the 1999 mummy. Action packed, Campy, fun and schlocky, I think it would do worst than 57 if it was released today, actually.

 

[Dryk]

I'm just as confused about someone mocking a new Kurtzman/Orci film in 2017 considering they split up as a writing duo back in 2014.

It means Orci or Kurtzman now instead of Orci & Kurtzman. Which is worse because it means they can stink up movies at twice the rate.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

Man I really liked The Wolfman, too. Good cast.

Great movie. Did everything right to match the needed tone.

 

[Inceptional]

Calling it now, this will be a movie that LTTP viewers will say was actually not bad and better than the reviews led them to believe.

I haven't seen the film, that's just the impression I am getting.

A review I heard this morning said it's pretty enjoyable if you go in expecting a big budget B-movie.

I feel like this could describe almost all of Cruise's movies as of late besides the M:I movies.

 

[B33]

Great movie. Did everything right to match the needed tone.

Man I really liked The Wolfman, too. Good cast.

I thought it was mediocre, but at least it was telling a standalone story with the right tone and Kurtzman wasn't involved.

 

[Inceptional]

They should have let Mark Romanek film his version of The Wolfman.

Yep, just like they should've gone with a solid genre filmmaker and a smaller budget with The Mummy. Again, Universal seems allergic to anything that doesn't feel like a Fast and Furious movie these days. I hope that their success with Split and Get Out shows them that going smaller can actually make a movie better, more interesting and a box-office hit.

 

[border]

The point Caviar was making was if you make cheap horror instead of expensive action, the cheap horror will make a profit no matter how good or bad it is.

The data point that get forgotten is that regardless of the production budget, it takes 40-60 million in advertising and distribution spending to get a movie onto thousands of screens. So even if the budget is low, you still need a huge amount of post-production spending to get a movie into the black. Everyone remembers the low-budget horror movies that did gangbuster business, but they forget the ones that limped to huge losses. "Why not just make a cheap movie like Get Out?" Well, because most cheap movies actually fail and it so happens that Get Out did not.

 

[Poimandres]

a 57 seems right for a B movie like the 1999 mummy. Action packed, Campy, fun and schlocky, I think it would do worst than 57 if it was released today, actually.

Hell no! The Mummy had great production values, good pacing, charismatic leads, laughs that hit the mark and some decent scares. It's wayyy above a 57 in quality.

I feel like this could describe almost all of Cruise's movies as of late besides the M:I movies.

True, exepct for Edge of Tomorrow which was pretty damn good.

 

[Oersted]

The data point that get forgotten is that regardless of the production budget, it takes 40-60 million in advertising and distribution spending to get a movie onto thousands of screens. So even if the budget is low, you still need a huge amount of post-production spending to get a movie into the black. Everyone remembers the low-budget horror movies that did gangbuster business, but they forget the ones that limped to huge losses. "Why not just make a cheap movie like Get Out?" Well, because most cheap movies actually fail and it so happens that Get Out did not.

Those movies didn't have Cruise and Crowe