• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Early 'The Mummy' reviews, "Dark Universe is dead on arrival"

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
[/b]

It's great, but everybody thought it was just another generic action movie until they saw it on home video or HBO, just like Jack Reacher and Oblivion.
More people need to watch Oblivion but I would call Jack Reacher a generic action flick, though.
 
Alex Kurtzman sucks, as does Bob Orci. Why anyone would put a cinematic universe on these guy's backs is beyond me.

Well, okay, the Transformers movies make bank, but they have horrible scripts and are horrible films.
 
I disagree. Well done CUs have a recognizable endgame. Bringing the Superheroes together finish the storyline, let the two big monster finally fight.
Nobody has even a idea what the endgame here could be.

All of the "cinematic universes" I can think of off the top of my head

  • The old universal one (monsters appear together and either fight, team up, or both in different combinations)
  • Aliens vs Predator (the monsters fight)
  • Marvel (they team up, while occasionally fighting for contrived reasons)
  • DC (they team up, while occasionally fighting for contrived reasons)
  • Those weird arse Kaiju mashups including the new one they're trying to do (the monsters fight, and if they're good guy monsters sometimes they team up)

Spoilers, the end game is the monsters teaming up to fight other monsters, while occasionally fighting each other for contrived reasons. Shared universes and monster mashes are the cinematic equivalent of a kid having all his toys duke it out even though it doesn't make sense that godzilla is fighting mr freeze.
 

GAMEPROFF

Banned
First, your post comes of a bit antagonistic and I am not sure why.

Second, yes, everything is shitty when you break it down to the smallest component.

Let me still adress your examples

All of the "cinematic universes" I can think of off the top of my head

The old universal one (monsters appear together and either fight, team up, or both in different combinations)
Yeah, and I like to get pong even when I can get something like The Last of Us. It was the Proto-CU, still nobody gave overall a shit, even when they kinda started it all.
[Aliens vs Predator (the monsters fight)
No Cinematic Universe, the Vs Movies arent even canon.
[Marvel (they team up, while occasionally fighting for contrived reasons)
You are aware of all the Infinity Gautlet stuff and are overlooking it.

[DC (they team up, while occasionally fighting for contrived reasons)
Same as with the Dark Verse, one of the biggest complaints is that they are throwing all at the wand and act to quickly. But from the thematic, you can see that its going to be similar to Marvel.
Those weird arse Kaiju mashups including the new one they're trying to do (the monsters fight, and if they're good guy monsters sometimes they team up)
[In regards of the old ones: Look at my Universal Argument.
In regards of the new ones, its actually one of the better attempts to carefully build up the universe. And yeah, the big fight will most likely the climax. But it makes more sense then this.

Spoilers, the end game is the monsters teaming up to fight other monsters, while occasionally fighting each other for contrived reasons. Shared universes and monster mashes are the cinematic equivalent of a kid having all his toys duke it out even though it doesn't make sense that godzilla is fighting mr freeze.
Kinda expected this! But I also like a good reason why everyone comes together fighting. Even when its a movie with Godzilal Vs Mr Freeze
 
so I guess you're disappointed 🤔

treehouse-of-horror-vxyr9i.png
 

black070

Member
All of the "cinematic universes" I can think of off the top of my head

  • The old universal one (monsters appear together and either fight, team up, or both in different combinations)
  • Aliens vs Predator (the monsters fight)
  • Marvel (they team up, while occasionally fighting for contrived reasons)
  • DC (they team up, while occasionally fighting for contrived reasons)
  • Those weird arse Kaiju mashups including the new one they're trying to do (the monsters fight, and if they're good guy monsters sometimes they team up)

Spoilers, the end game is the monsters teaming up to fight other monsters, while occasionally fighting each other for contrived reasons. Shared universes and monster mashes are the cinematic equivalent of a kid having all his toys duke it out even though it doesn't make sense that godzilla is fighting mr freeze.

Marvel & DC universes actually make sense though.
 
All of the "cinematic universes" I can think of off the top of my head

  • The old universal one (monsters appear together and either fight, team up, or both in different combinations)
  • Aliens vs Predator (the monsters fight)
  • Marvel (they team up, while occasionally fighting for contrived reasons)
  • DC (they team up, while occasionally fighting for contrived reasons)
  • Those weird arse Kaiju mashups including the new one they're trying to do (the monsters fight, and if they're good guy monsters sometimes they team up)

Spoilers, the end game is the monsters teaming up to fight other monsters, while occasionally fighting each other for contrived reasons. Shared universes and monster mashes are the cinematic equivalent of a kid having all his toys duke it out even though it doesn't make sense that godzilla is fighting mr freeze.
Boiling the MCU down to "they team up, and sometimes fight" misses the entire reasons why that cinematic universe works and every other one has failed. It's more than just teams-up and fights, more than just the big Avengers money shot. Every other company thinks that the key is to rush to that money shot, that's why you got them teasing their entire line-up and cast and movie list before the first movie comes out. "Hey, remember how cool it was to see the Avengers together, well we're doing the same thing, aren't you excited"

But the MCU worked because it started small and didnt do that. Individual stories with very slight connecting threads that helped make them all feel unique while also being facets of the same world. A slow gradual snowball of references and connections that helped acclimate the viewers to this world, its characters, and other aspects, and made you think, "wait, all these people are in the same world, how the hell are they going to mesh together". That Avengers money shot, and the Avengers in general, wasn't such a big thing because it was like a comic book come to life, or because it was the expected end game, but also because there had been four years of build-up to show how all these weirdly disparate stories could dovetail cohesively as well as you imagined. It was earned narrative pay-off, not just some expected cinematic universe bulletpoint.

Funnily, enough, if BVS hadn't happened, Man of Steel and Wonder Woman could have worked really well in the same way IMO. Both very separate different stories, with the slight connecting thread of Wayne Enterprises (the satellite in MoS, the framing device in WW). Hinting at a larger connected world, while wondering how these stories and worlds (aliens and mythological gods/magic) will collide.
 

munchie64

Member
Saw it today and was not into it.

Too many ideas barely given time to breathe and a whole lot of advertising (I was worried when the film had a big ol' "Dark Universe" logo at the start).

The mummy was ok cause of Sofia, but that was just another aspect that didn't really go anywhere. Cruise's character was boring.
 

Apt101

Member
The trailer did look like every over the top disaster movie without any heart ever made. If this bombs, I wonder if they'll even bother with that wolfman or dracula or whatever movie.
 
Saw it today and was not into it.

Too many ideas barely given time to breathe and a whole lot of advertising (I was worried when the film had a big ol' "Dark Universe" logo at the start).

The mummy was ok cause of Sofia, but that was just another aspect that didn't really go anywhere. Cruise's character was boring.
One question: Does she survive the movie? She has been in a bunch of photos with the stars for the next Dark Universe movies but they've never mentioned her as returning after this one. Tag your answer.
 
I think the last trailer spoiled the ending of the film.

But it didn't look good from the get go, and Cruise seems very out of place in this. I'll be going to see Wonder Woman instead.
 

Oersted

Member
I think the last trailer spoiled the ending of the film.

But it didn't look good from the get go, and Cruise seems very out of place in this. I'll be going to see Wonder Woman instead.

Trailer 3? Oh yeah. But if you watched the previous trailers and can count one and one together, ypu already know what happens.
 

Kinyou

Member
The trailers so far have done a bad job at selling the mummy herself. Is she going to do anything but scream and flip around?
 

kevin1025

Banned
The trailers so far have done a bad job at selling the mummy herself. Is she going to do anything but scream and flip around?

That's most of what she does, outside of two points where she speaks and another where she creates the sand/glass storm in London. Her role is essentially to just bitch slap Cruise more than a few times.
 

Imbarkus

As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
Funnily, enough, if BVS hadn't happened, Man of Steel and Wonder Woman could have worked really well in the same way IMO. Both very separate different stories, with the slight connecting thread of Wayne Enterprises (the satellite in MoS, the framing device in WW). Hinting at a larger connected world, while wondering how these stories and worlds (aliens and mythological gods/magic) will collide.

Plus if you ask me BvS would have pleased a lot more audiences if its over-stuffed story had been spread out across a plan of two films.


Too bad everyone freaked out when it was rumored.
 

Xater

Member
Universal had a cinematic universe in the 40's/50's/60's that they created in an ad-hoc fashion. There's no reason that it couldn't work again, as long as they can get out a popular film. It doesn't even have to be good, just popular enough to keep the universe going as they adapt to audience and critic reactions.

Dracula, Frankenstein, Jekyll and Hyde, Wolfman, various Mummy movies etc have mountains of historically popular stories to pull from too. Plenty of adaptations, remakes etc of each property have been done and some of them were well received. The problem is in the execution of this specific movie, not the idea of the universe at all.

Universal never had a cinematic universe. They just had crossover movies that had nothing to do with any of the other movies. There is not consistency or through line. Hell sometimes even supposed sequels don't connect to what was supposed to be a prequel. Universal likes to pretend they had a single universe, but they really didn't.
 
Universal never had a cinematic universe. They just had crossover movies that had nothing to do with any of the other movies. There is not consistency or through line. Hell sometimes even supposed sequels don't connect to what was supposed to be a prequel. Universal likes to pretend they had a single universe, but they really didn't.

Like the X-Men cinematic universe has any consistency...
 

GAMEPROFF

Banned
Universal never had a cinematic universe. They just had crossover movies that had nothing to do with any of the other movies. There is not consistency or through line. Hell sometimes even supposed sequels don't connect to what was supposed to be a prequel. Universal likes to pretend they had a single universe, but they really didn't.
Still. Its the Prototype of the idea.
 
Dayum. Tom Cruise output is normally so solid too.

In general I usually feel a certain amount of comfortable certainty that if I attend a Tom Cruise movie, it will at the very least achieve a certain level of entertainment competence. Not necessarily great but rarely horrible. I don't know if it's his discretion when choosing projects or if he exerts a certain level of control over the projects he's involved with, but it usually works out that way.

I'm very disappointed to hear all this about The Mummy. However since I am in the position to see it for free, I'll probably still do it.
 

kevin1025

Banned
In general I usually feel a certain amount of comfortable certainty that if I attend a Tom Cruise movie, it will at the very least achieve a certain level of entertainment competence. Not necessarily great but rarely horrible. I don't know if it's his discretion when choosing projects or if he exerts a certain level of control over the projects he's involved with, but it usually works out that way.

I'm very disappointed to hear all this about The Mummy. However since I am in the position to see it for free, I'll probably still do it.

Cruise plays more of a thieving rogue in this, if that helps you decide. But the problem is that he is constantly told that he only cares about himself, but only one scene at the beginning really shows it to be true. The rest he plays as caring, and foolishly aloof to the things happening around him.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
Cruise plays more of a thieving rogue in this, if that helps you decide. But the problem is that he is constantly told that he only cares about himself, but only one scene at the beginning really shows it to be true. The rest he plays as caring, and foolishly aloof to the things happening around him.
So Nathan Drake.
 
22% now. 64 rotten reviews. Only Universal monster movie that is further down in the rankings is The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor which had 12%.
 

Undrey

Member
Honestly I liked this movie as much as I thought it would (that is, I liked it). It was a good action movie with good characters and a bunch of great scenes. Nothing spectacular but it's not as bad as people make it out to be. It's a good start to the Dark Universe and I hope their next movie is more well received critically. Honestly I just want more good Frankenstein and Dracula movies.
 

Slayven

Member
Honestly I liked this movie as much as I thought it would (that is, I liked it). It was a good action movie with good characters and a bunch of great scenes. Nothing spectacular but it's not as bad as people make it out to be. It's a good start to the Dark Universe and I hope their next movie is more well received critically. Honestly I just want more good Frankenstein and Dracula movies.

So is it true, that
the ending leaves Tom Cruise as a god?
 
Top Bottom