There's one flaw with this video, you keep mentioning how something like Dracula could have been a better starting point., but you don't mention they did try that. Dracula Untold was intended to be the start of the Universal Monsters Universe (not yet called Dark Universe). They may have tried Frankenstein if the Frankenstein name hadn't already had a couple of not successful movies recently (Victor Frankenstein and I, Frankenstein)
Yes that's a good point, although I think they could have still hypothetically started with a Dracula film and not suffered because of it. I, Frankenstein... that's a real abomination.
Georg Rockall-Schmidt they should do a Mina Harker vampire movie, shes part Buffy part Veronica Mars. I also think they should have Frankenstein's monster's bride be into voodoo
Georg Rockall-Schmidt To be fair, you did say "if they captured Dracula well", which Untold definitely did NOT do. It had potential, but it was honestly destroyed by its PG13 rating.
I believe that Universal is trying too hard with it's "dark" push now that the public is more open to more adult films. The Brendan Fraser Mummy series was well made in creating a world that's absurd from it's supernatural content for a skeptical audience, but it was malleable with its swashbuckling protagonists facing a genuine danger. Making a monster movie too serious closes the door for a movie goer who wishes to enter the realm of disbelief.
I think Tom Cruise could have worked. The problem is that Tom Cruise was acting in this movie as if it was mission Impossible or Jack Reacher. We've seen Cruise portray unique characters over the ages. like Lestat, or comedy cameos as a fullblown egotistic CEO with a beard. Or assassin. But its like Georg says. Here he and everything else is just generic and flat. Nobody made an effort except for the mummy herself and Russel Crowe. And they didn't even have all that much screentime. Honestly. It reminds me of Batman v Superman. You know what you want from a mummy movie, but they instead pack all kinda things in that you dont care about or should be in their own respective films, like Russel Crowe's transformation.
Well technically, Kurtzman is talking about needing a movie star to play characters who are unlikable, not just playing a character in general. Though the logic is still questionable.
@generic generic what? Is that true? Wasn't Tom Cruise moving away from Scientology because of his 2nd wife? I read somewhere he rarely attended meetings and stop coming; I think she was trying to get him away from that crazy cult
@@mallorywingate103 no way would he ever give up, or they would give him up. Though it is clear that he's in it because he believes that nonsense and perhaps (likely?) uses it for some tax "reduction" ?
People give Tom Cruise too much credit and too much power on set. They see him as some sort of untouchable film god, but the fact is that he is just as capable of making a film worse with his presence. In fact, it’s the very fact that everyone gives him that much power in the first place that makes it so dangerous.
a) The previews showed generic action scenes instead of teasing good content. b) The villain felt futuristic or alien, not ancient and evil. c) There wasn't nearly enough to do with Egypt. It was way too generic and felt like the vast majority of action films instead of horror or mummy movies.
Wes -- I think your Point #2 is the clincher. The old b/w Mummy pictures seemed like they were loosing an ANCIENT EVIL and these trailers made the Mummy look like someone from the future with Biff in charge.
I always liked the first one. It did what it had to. The only way to go with the Mummy was to make it an Indiana Jones inspired adventure movie. Nobody's going to be scared of a fucking mummy anymore. This isn't the 1930s.
Van Helsing should have been the first movie, as it could have introduced a lot of these characters as references and cameos, also he's a protagonist, rather than an antagonist.
There're already been the shitty Van Helsing movie, which hogged and soiled Dracula, Frankenstein and werewolf as well. I can understand why they weren't eager to touch any of those.
They should have made the Van Helsing movie part of the Sony Sinister 6 world. Or clover field but not that one as much. Maybe the M Night “GLASS” world ???
You know what we need? A Sumerian film in this vein. Lots of things are known about ancient Egypt, but Mesopotamia seems a bit more obscure-- or at least to me. The most ancient "gods" of humanity can be a truly terrifying thing. It really needs to be explored more in film! What do you guys think?
Honestly, 1999's The Mummy would've had a stronger chance at starting out the Dark Universe than today's Mummy. Rick was a likeable quirky hero we would've enjoyed seeing again in another monster movie (imagine Rick in Dracula and all the snarky jokes that would've ensued, LOL). Imhotep, himself, made for a powerful presence onscreen and would've stood on his own feet if he had to co-star in another monster movie. The reason why we remember the 1999's Mummy is because it established a strong and memorable cast with prominent (and colorful) villains. This is what's needed to create a universe similar to Marvel's.
I wouldnt say that Tom Cruise is bland, i never realyl cared about him until the Oblivion and Day after Tommorow came out. As a sci-fi fan, i was really surprised by the movies and Tom Cruise´s performance. I guess it depends on the movie. And i also somewhat liked the new Mummy, although the 1999 The Mummy is going to be always my favorite.
Yes I think that Tom Cruise is super famous for a reason, he delivers an action hero, he conveys heart and emotion to a certain degree, and is entertaining to watch. He is not so type cast that he can't be versatile or stuck in one character (like Mark Hamill really got the image of Luke Skywalker stuck on him that even he admitted he couldn't shake off). I can watch a movie with Tom in it and know it will not be cringey or overdone, but enjoyable and fairly reliable...
Mummy 1999 - funny adventure movie , great characters, basically it was the Indiana Jones of the 90' . Mummy 2017 - serious, dull , Mission Impossible with supernatural elements.
Completely agree with you. The 1999 version was funny, well acted with just enough special effects. The 2017 version is flat, uninspired and relies heavily on its CGI, which is the problem with most recent movies.
Nico Meier yup cgi is abused and done lazily. Sad that Terminator 2 looks better then 95% of the current films and it was made at the very start of cgi.
@Paul Heap Saw T2 in the theater, CGI is cheap looking and overused these days. T2 is the perfect example why you mix CGI with practical effects. Come back when you actually know what your talking about, kid.
Kid. Firstly,duck off condescending price. T2 is my favourite movie, but if you think the CGI looks better than 95%, you don't know what your talking about, kid. Don't be a practical effects hipster. T2 wasn't at the beginning of CGI in movies, try 30 years after the first use.
I think part of this too is that while Marvel was definitely already eyeing a franchise future - hence the post-credit scene - they didn't let that vision on the horizon dazzle them to the point of forgetting what was going on right at their feet: the work of making a good movie. I've never read a single Avengers comic; I'd never even *heard* of Iron Man before I saw the IM trailer. But I loved it so much after I saw it in theatres, I bought it on DVD. Why? Because of good writing complemented by good casting. The dialogue is sharp, and the quips are on point. The writers do an excellent job of establishing Tony as both the too-smart-and-weathy-for-his-own-good playboy (that we deep-down want to see get his come-uppance) AND SOMEHOW as the likeable/charismatic guy that we instinctively root for. From there, the movie's plot is successfully engineered to 1.) necessitate Tony's arc reactor; 2.) force Tony to look at what his company actually does; and these things together 3.) propel Tony's moral arc/personal growth as a person. We, the viewers, witness Tony's transformation over the course of the movie, and the movie concluded with a good ending. We don't have to "stay tuned" for whenever the next one comes out. Like the 1977 Star Wars movie or the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, Iron Man simultaneously can stand alone *or* be the first in a new series. I, a non-comics nerd, left that movie theatre feeling thoroughly satisfied. It left a good taste in my mouth. It made me want to see more. Which...is the whole point after all.
Kathryn Flynn I’m opposite of you as I grew up reading all the marvel comics. Robert Downey’s portrayal of Tony Stark is in my mind the whole reason why it took off. In my minds eye, he is Iron Man. He plays him absolutely perfect 👌🏽
The ending is a huge part of that for me. Up until the final moment (spoilers) when Tony says "I am Iron Man" at the press conference, everything was in place for him to play the part of billionaire playboy with a secret superhero identity, basically a low-rent Batman. It would have still been a pretty good movie, but when Tony uttered those four words, it became a great movie.
@@handsomebrick the old secret identity convention was pretty outta date and really only works for certain heroes, IE Spidey, Bats, Supes, Daredevil, etc. But it never fit Iron Man, Cap or any of the Avengers. "I am Iron Man" totally caught mr off guard and I loved it.
His character in this Mummy is nowhere close to Hunt. In fact, if I had to name one good thing about this movie, it would be Cruise's opportunistic, cowardly character. Which even has a full character arc.
lowell houser yeah First reboot was and still is a fun movie to watch and work because it took a different style to the same concept and made it good but the mummy (2017) reboot doesn't bring anything thing new to the table
+Caelithar You might choose to listen to Brendan Frasers commenting the first movie in the audio options, absolutely hilarious. Apparently the cast had had a huge blast during the whole filming affair and enjoyed themselves thoroughly which imo shines through in every moment of the movies
The Mummy, where the protagonist is actually the mummy and the hero, but he/she wakes up in the far future. That concept alone is far more interesting.
the mummy stories work better if it takes place back in the 1800s when the world was actually obsessed with archaeology and mummies. this movie just didn't get the atmosphere right
That would be an interesting twist. Set it in the 1800s-early 1900s, and basically have cruise become immortal (I don't remember if that happened in the movie) through a curse or whatever. Dracula already is, from Dracula Untold. Just keep adding and eventually have the ensemble movie take place today with the immortals meeting up. Of course, they should start with a good movie before counting their chickens from the eggs.
@jack bran The Brendan Fraser Mummy movies were successful and fun to watch so it's possible to make a modern film with these properties. The problem with this one in my opinion is that it was trying so hard to become a franchise that they didn't put the work in to make an actual good movie.
Funny enough, I wonder if it would've helped if they had tied this movie in the Fraiser movies. It wouldn't have been hard to say that this group they're trying to show us that fights evil was formed by the O'Connell's or Fehr's character or some combination or that Cruise's character is a descendant of the O'Connell's or something. Hell, that would've given them some roots to start with and something to work with.
+Chris McWilliams That moment when RU-vid commenters come up with better ideas "on the fly" than big studio's writers during 2 years of brainstorming. In moments like this I imagine Hollywood writers as 5 idiots sitting in a lotus position, repeating "target audience" and "charts" as their mantra.
"It's very hard to come up with villains that have a unique and interesting backstory." That's something that only a creatively bankrupt person would say. It's painful to hear it.
The problem with the Mummy is that it built the film around the cinematic universe idea instead of the other way around. Unlike the Marvel movies, they sacrificed the film's individuality to advertise the next three or four films. Take a look at the first Iron Man film. It stands 100% as its own great film without the crutch of the Avengers to hold it up. There's tiny (and I mean tiny) hints dropped throughout the film of a larger world, but for the most part the film is individual. The only major tease for what's to come takes place at the absolute tail end of the movie. IM doesn't rely on that scene to be successful. With films like The Mummy, the removal of all the "expanded universe" elements severely harms the film's plot and destroys the foundation of the film. Universal is relying on the "More To Come" aspect of The Mummy to make a profit instead of just making a good movie and building the Dark Universe off from there.
Agreed. This is why Iron Man 2 is my least favourite film of the series: of all the Marvel movies, I think it's the one that most mishandled the balance between "individual film" and "part of an expanded series". I didn't even know Marvel's plans for an expanded universe when I saw Iron Man 1, but half of Iron Man 2 was setup for SHIELD and the Avengers Initiative, or Easter Eggs for other movies.
Van Hellsing would have been an excellent universe jump start. Introduces the iconic hero. Could have the monster hunter organization wanting to recruit the loner. Perhaps have him hunt a lesser know creature like the Black Lagoon Creature. Tease the hunt for Dracula with the Harkers appearing to request assistance.
My first exposure to Van Hellsing was while reading the actual Dracula novel by Stoker. In my mind, he came off as a mild, aged doctor who diagnosed fatigued people and recommended/performed blood transfusion. When and how did he become an "iconic hero?" Hugh Jackman??
Before Jackman actually. I think it was the Hammer adaptations of Dracula that first introduced the idea of Van Helsing the Vampire Hunter (portrayed by Peter Cushing, acting opposite of Christopher Lee's Dracula no less)
Yeah i agree. that movie sounds way more interesting, and i would much rather want to watch that one. especially if its set in a dark and gothic victorian setting, instead of having everything take place in the bloody modern world...
I think the problem was that they used the Fraser version as the source material. The Mummy shouldn't feel like Indiana Jones it should feel like H.P. Lovecraft.
Or, that they didn't use the Fraser version enough. What if they placed Frankenstein and Dracula and the Wolfman in the same universe as the Fraser movies? Plus The Rock is more popular then ever now, and he's already a character in that universe. I think the last movie in that series was in 2008, that's not so long ago, that's the same year that the first Iron Man came out. (Also, the original Universal Mummy series was fairly adventurous in tone, with lots of globetrotting and action and magic and even comic relief, it could be argued that the Fraser ones weren't a huge shift really.)
That's a well put observation. If the movie appeared to have a Lovecraftian feel based on the trailers, and interviews I would have gone to see it. They probably could have made it cheaper too being that Lovecraft is more psychological horror than mind blowing visuals. In other news at one point there were plans to make a At the Mountains of Madness film staring Tom Cruise. I had strong negative feelings about that. Very strong. I don't know if that will still happen, but I hope not.
Yeah, the 30's one may have very little on-screen mummy, but the mummy's mind-control powers are freakin' terrifying if you think about their implications. That could be a really horrifying modern dreamy/paranoid thriller.
@spacedoohicky Tom might actually do well playing someone who was losing his grip on reality, I know his parts in The Mummy where he started to realize he was losing touch with reality were decent. I think it really needed more of that kind of psychological horror.
@Azriel Legnasia Maybe. He doesn't really do scared very well though. Tom Cruise acting scared is not convincing to me. It could be just be me. Who knows. Lovecraft is all about hopelessness. Do you suppose Tom Cruise would be in a movie where he loses everything, and has no control over that? Maybe I'm not giving him enough credit. I just don't remember a movie where he portrayed such a character. Plus Tom has to monopolize the center of attention. This to me feels like a disservice to otherwise good films. At this point in life I don't want to see a Tom Cruise movie. I'm disillusioned with star power.
Never bothered with this one. Was given the impression it was gonna have the same problem as I, Frankenstein and Dracula Untold. This whole insistence on being as over-the-top as possible with massive action set-pieces and superhero-esque characters doesn't appeal to me. I want something that is more subtle with gothic atmosphere.
For me it was the fact that they made a generic action film instead of a period piece gothic horror. I don't want to see action films made out of classic gothic fiction unless it's a completely different story borrowing elements from its predecessors like the first Underworld.
More people need to be watching your content, mate. it's genuinely some of my favourite stuff to watch. You are seriously one of the most criminally underrated channels on this site.
QueensOwnHussar He's got quite a substantial amount of subscribers (123k). *Boots to Reboots* channel on the other hand is very underrated in my opinion.
only for people born within the era of that specific time who watched that specific reboot. Im sure People from the previous two reboots have/had radically different opinions. And when this IP is rebooted again... successfully... People will have a different opinion as well. Especially since the mummy reboot you're speaking of right now was campy and designed to work for that movie scene. At this point its nostalgia, especially for those who were young and grew up with it. Younger people now who go back and watch it wont at all attach to it like the younger half of millennials did, just like those same millennials wont connect to the previous iterations of the mummy.
My biggest problem with this movie is how tonally inconsistent it was. It tried to be humorous and light-hearted at some points, but they could not balance that side of the film with its darker aspects - the bad one-liners and jokes also did not help. Not to mention the movie felt like a huge setup for future films of the universe that character development and the story's coherence got neglected in the process.
What's the problem with studios having a hard time making standalone films? You can even have a franchise in mind, just make it a movie with no strings attached, and people will come to the sequels because they found the previous one wellrounded and with _a coherent plot_ . They could make more money if they just focused on one moment for one second. Short term saving vs long term saving is not common knowledge I guess.
I'll go off on a tangent and say I'd much rather see the Mummy character introduced into the (already rather expansive and already including Dracula & Dr Jekyll) Penny Dreadful universe where it would be actually relevant (and far superior aesthetically). Also, Eva Green.
ColtSteele Bit Tom Cruise would probably buy the rights and insist on playing the lamp...and that at some point in each film the lamp should be lowered at the end of a long rope.
In that case the post credit scene would have to be Samuel L. Jackson appearing as the silhouette lantern announcing that Cruise is not the only super lamp in the world, and that he's just become part of a bigger universe.
Instead of an Egyptian film featuring mummies, how about an Egyptian film featuring Nyalethotep, the Crawling Chaos. I would definitely be interested in that.
They can't help it, they've been making easy money this way for so long, but now they're running out of franchises to milk dry and they forgot how to make actual movies.
I have to disagree. While there may only be 7 basic plots, we've been telling great stories for thousands of years. Movies have only begun to slow their roll in the past decade or two. We didn't just suddenly run out of stories. The thing is, it takes so much money these days to make a huge blockbuster film. You know, the type of film that also brings in a huge amount of profit. Sure, they could make a $3mil horror film that comes back with a measly $9mil (still makes twice the profit of budget) but why not go for gold? Spend $300mil for a chance to make a billion! Well, that's a risk. You have to do something that you know will put butts in seats. Something that already has a fan base. Good, original stories are plentiful in Hollywood but studios don't want to take the risk with so many unknowns.
One of the reasons that I love your channel is your understanding of atmosphere. If someone had shown me one of your videos and said that it was a show from the BBC or ITV, I would have believed them (not because of the accent), but due to strong scripts and great presentation. Keep them coming...
Netflix's Dracula proved that a modern Dracula tale could be done right. A charming actor, a good foil/opponent and showcasing his abilities would draw people in! That show did an incredible job at showing the absolute horror of Dracula, him healing while you grow sick and die.. him emerging from a wolf in a gory and visceral manner. We need more of that stuff, more showcasing what makes these monsters different and interesting! It's so easy to do someone new with Dracula, or a Mummy or something.. almost nothing has been explored in the mainstream! Dracula can turn into bats and a wolf, or a mist, he can hypnotize and has superhuman abilities! Van Helsing showed a few unique uses for his abilities, like walking on walls. A mummy could be done well, like how in the originals we got to see his body slowly come together as he got stronger, with modern effects that could be awesome! Show us some cool stuff with Egyptian gods or magic, and show the body horror of the embalming process and psychological torture of walking around in a dried out rotted corpse while sentient! Make us feel for the mummy and sympathize with him/her. Frankenstein is actually an intelligent person in the novel, and has a few interesting abilities. They could showcase cool scientific horror and the disgusting pseudoscience that inspired the book, like galvanism and human experimentation. My point is, there are many ways to make these monsters interesting and fresh, but no one is willing to try! Look at shows like Hemlock Grove for cool werewolf visuals and ideas, or Teen Wolf with really neat ideas on different kinds of shifters. Movies like Underworld, Daybreakers, or Van Helsing prove you can do a unique take on these kinds if monsters. There is proof out there, there are a few amazing examples out there. We just need someone to put them together and make something new and exciting.
Kinda figured the new Mummy movie wasn't worth watching when the trailer decided to use Tom Cruise HIMSELF as a jumpscare to convey that there's horror elements. Seriously, who thought that was a good idea? Did he come out of the bodybag like that in the movie too? Someone please tell me because that's probably hilarious
Dude, I've watched like ten of your videos, and I JUST noticed the lava lamp keeps flowing whenever you jump cut. I was wondering what the hell it was doing there. That's a really clever way to make the edits less noticeable. Well done sir.
Two things could have saved the movie: 1. Instead of Dr. Jekyll, the Russell Crowe character should have been the great-grandson of the leads from the 90s Mummy flicks. 2. JoJo posing. The internet would have gone crazy and the free advertising in memes alone would have saved a fortune on marketing.
I wanted to give it a shot, but I was leery of Universal putting the cart before the horse. I kinda enjoyed Dracula Untold, but trying to force what's been a horror genre character into a superhero mold was a tortured effort and I got the sense that The Mummy was going for a superhero film feel. The more I learned about the plot points, the more apprehensive I became about the movie. I'll rent it on home video, but Universal needs to get a clue if they want to make this shared universe thing work at all.
Not to mention Dracula Untold is offensive to people in the Orthodox Christian world where Vlad Tepes is considered a hero. (They don't care that Bram Stoker took the "Dracula" name from him, since it's clear that the characters have no connection aside from the name.)
handsomebrick You mean the guy famous for impaling thousands of people at a time and letting them die as slowly as possible? The guy who supposedly ate his bread with human blood? The man who's residence supposedly stunk of dead bodies? Yeah sounds like a stand up guy. Who wouldn't consider him a hero?
Shoot Right Here One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The end justifies the means and so on. He defended his country, and much of Christianity, from the nefarious Turk. To his people he was a hero.
Cthulwho? He killed much more than the turks, and I'm not sure how a "Christian" can justify inhumane atrocities as a legitimate means. But if that's how it is going to be seen so be it.
Shoot Right Here Not sure how a Christian can justify inhumane atrocities? The many many Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the killing of children for playing with the remains of a pagan statue, the beheading over over 4,000 Saxons who refused to convert for Charlemagne, the "pacification" of Ireland, the Albigensian Crusade, the burning of Synagogues all over Europe, the beheading of Protestant women, the Jews of Seville being killed or sold as slaves after being made to wear badges of shame.... That is just one tiny percentage of acts carried out by "right minded Christians" in times of yore (and not so yore).
When it comes to a universe where all the monsters are together, a successful example was Penny Dreadful. I was really impressed and loved the take on some of the characters. Also I am one of those people that will roll up for a Dracula or Frankenstein film just because it is Dracula or Frankenstein. I enjoy seeing the movie's take on the concept. But does anyone get excited for the mummy? (Unless of course it is Impata from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Would probably go see that.)
Tom Cruise had an ENORMOUS effect on how the film was made. Kurtzman literally gave him all the control he wanted, and Cruise was even bragging about it... until the film was a flop. I know this because I worked on the film and I witnessed the two personally. Cruise was not cleaning up after Kurtzman; he had control from the beginning. The fact that there's a question about who was in control and ultimately responsible shows just how effective Tom Cruise's PR people are. The bottom line is, The Mummy failed because of Tom Cruise's ego.
Actually there are 3 problems: 1. THEY STARTED WITH THE MOST POWERFUL MONSTER: After watching this, no other monster will be able to even match the mummy's power. Making hard for the other monsters to surpass her. 2. AUTOMATICALLY ANNOUNCING THEIR UNIVERSE: Not even the Monster Universe started with Godzilla it was until Godzilla was a good movie to announce their Universe in Kong Skull island. Universal is just showing desperation to try to joint the van wagon that is the Cinematic Universes. 3. THE DIRECTOR IS NOT A WORLD BUILDER: Alex is no world builder, he is the type of guy that throws everything at you at once not allowing for a suspension to be build, not even characters. I mean he has participated in some of the worst movies, like: Transformers Revenge of the Fallen and the Amazing Spider-Man 2, just to mention some of his work. But I say this Universe has potential and a movie to prove it was The Wolf-man in 2010 by Joe Johnston. The director created scary moments, atmosphere, he stayed loyal to the original concept of the Wolf-man, and actually created a monster one could be afraid of. I still do not understand why people did not like the movie when it came out, it was really good.
Honestly if they just had their movie be more like the VVitch instead of Marvel then I would be down for a Dark Universe. These "running from explosions" movies are really starting to bore me.
I resented the fact they were revisiting The Mummy (1999) which was such a cherished movie of my childhood, with Tom Cruise as the lead (who is suited for more of an explosive action movie) and an apparently uninteresting monster. It also seemed to be the wrong tone for The Mummy, which these days is a monster which shouldn't be represented in the serious kind of way it was in the trailers. I also did infact see it as a cash grab which made me only interested in seeing how much of a failure it was going to be.
*snorts* Yeah Maleficent really isn't scary at all. :p Women can be great villains but a lot of time it is true they rely heavily on sex appeal and being more of a weird femme fatale (think of all Batman's female villains,). They also tend to make great witches/ ghost villains most of the time when they are used as monsters. They aren't usually used as things like a mummy.
For older viewers and real horror fans, the 1932 mummy is much more important than the mummy in the Brendan Fraser films. If they were going to go dark, they should have gone properly dark.
Instead of an Egyptian mummy I wish they picked a different location like South America. I think an Aztec Mummy would have put a different spin on it and maybe given the movie new life. Idk like Apocalypto but mummies.
meikoblock Aztec you say? How's about this for the "dark universe"... First movie is Dracula, in this movie people become vampires through the power of a mask. In this movie Hellsing must kill his his adoptive brother, Alucard after he became a vampire. The big question of the movie is "where the fuck the mask come from?", this question is answered in The Mummy. Opening scene, Hellsing's best friend who isn't dead visits Aztec ruins and finds who created the mask... The mummy or should I say MUMMIES! These mummies are actually vampiric gods and have powers beyond normal vampires (imagine The Thing but a vampire) and it is up to Hellsing's grandson to slay them. Next film DRACULA IS BACK BAYBEE and put a curse on the Hellsing family, so now Hellsing's great great grandson must travel to Egypt to slay him. Next film Frankenstein: Dr. Frankenstein is a serial killer who targets women, he gets found out and uses a dead body to disguise himself. Next film Dr. Jackel and Mr. Hyde: Dr. Jackel is the leader of a crime syndicate and it is up to Dracula's son to stop him. Next film I don't fucking know anymore: A priest of a prison church gets crazy with the idea of going to heaven, so he uses magic that Dracula taught him to achieve this. Hellsing's great great great granddaughter joins forces with the creature from the black lagoon to stop the priest. Next film The Mummy 2. This film has nothing to do with the other mummy movie (it somehow is part of the hypothetical dark universe just because) The Mummy is the corpse of Jesus Christ spread across America a race is made as a conspiracy to find the body parts by the President of the United States.
the film was ok but not one that i'd bother watching again......it's a pity because it had potential and the girl who played the mummy did a great job.....cruise was average but the blond chick was absolutely awful to watch
Just found your videos and I love your style. No jump-cut nonsense just you simply talking about valid points without any unnecessary fluff. Plus the lava lamp is great!
Tom Cruise is too big of a name to be in a Mummy film if that makes sense. He overshadows the Mummy itself. Universal had a decent Universe if they could have combined Brendan Fraser's Mummy and Hugh Jackmans Van Helsing and took it from there. The films are varying in quality, but you got solid lead right there. Finally, the Mummy was always my least favourite Universal Monster. They're the ones I revisit the least. Wolfman and Frankenstein have much better films.
DeckyStrikesBack His name was literally above the title in most of the promotional material I had shoved down my throat. You could have been mistaken that The Mummy was the lead actor in "Tom Cruise"
A successful film production doesn't ask itself what people want. The truly celebrated films in history are the films that TAUGHT the audience that they wanted it, without knowing it before seeing it.
"And its very hard, in any movie, to come up with a villain with an interesting and unique backstory" PLEEAAASSEEE TELL ME I HEARD THAT WRONG! Yo this man should not write stories ever again without doing any literary studying. Read some books. Watch other movies. Watch TV. Read Comics. Play some RPGs. Do something that involves digesting plot and narrative storytelling. How can someone involved in designing characters, have such an egregiously stupid comment like that? This man must be making excuses for a failure, and not speaking his honest opinion, cuz this is... this statement is just booty.
I think he's being honest. HE has a really hard time coming up with the kind of villains he THINKS he needs. And truly, he has never written one,, so there ya go. It's really hard for him. Give him another couple franchises, a few more IPs to ruin, another couple billion dollars, he might start to improve! And that's what Hollywood's all about, isn't it? Just shoveling money into a fucking tar pit till little Alex figures it out. Goddamn some things are too insane to explain. Isn't there some savage hedge fund manager somewhere who's asking "Who keeps giving my clients' money to this fuckwit, and who do I need to kill to put an end to it?"
@@Trollificusv2 Yea i completely get that, thats why i said "Yo this man should not write stories ever again without doing any literary studying. Read some books. Watch other movies. Watch TV. Read Comics. Play some RPGs.". If its so hard for Him to do, they he's got some homework to do, because writing interesting villains shouldnt be such a problem. Especially in the modern era of storytelling, where theres so many examples, because thats one of the story-choices that have been the most appealing to some of the larger demograph of media consumers
@@bloodydove5718 Yep. Somewhere in this thread I wrote a tl,dr post about making a character with flaws, but relatable, with real relationships and understandable desires, who finds himself (herself) in a position where there are no good choices. So they do something bad, bringing them into conflict with...OUR PROTAGONIST! Bam! An empathetic "villain". Kurtzman's mind is warped by the demands of Hollywood Blockbuster storytelling. He should ask himself "Who was the "villain" in Inception?" "Who was the "villain" in The Prestiege?" His concept of conflict is clearly too simple. Yes, Alex, if you start every villain's character with "So, he wants to conquer the univierse...", the problem isn't endemic to "writing villains".
In a movie, yes, it is pretty hard to come up with an interesting backstory and explain it to the audience. Just look at 95% of movies in the last two decades. Hell, your favourite movie villain probably don't have any backstory at all, they just look menacing and cool.
Frankly, call me old fashioned in my morality, but I would me more comfortable if movie companies would wait until one of their movies is successful before they announce that they're starting a "cinematic universe" and plotting 15-20 movies down the road even before the first damn movie comes out like they're doing now. Look how DC is mishandling things, trying to ram as many people into movies as possible to try to catch up to where it took Marvel YEARS to get to. In order to set up a cinematic universe with movies, it needs to be done right and everyone except Marvel are really fumbling the ball in their desperation to pull it off. The DC movies are the closest ones but they're only pretty much saying "Me too! Look at me!" with mostly utter failure movies. I wish that most of Hollywood would just stop with these "cinematic universes" and "endless franchises" and just go back to making movies again.
In full honesty I was rooting for the Mummy, as all heroes seemed like terrible people and I never liked them. The Mummy might as well been a flock of killing birds as it has no personality. So if you don't care for anything in the movie you won't remember seeing it.
I went into cinema to watch this with an open mind, as I always do with movies, but was bitterly disappointed with it. First - being made into a fast paced fast action movie with an action star, Tom Cruise totally ruined the concept of what the mummy is actually all about - slow burn, creeping horror and suspense. (Brendan Fraser's Mummy was more of an adventure movie which was passable). Second - The Mummy was more concerned in setting up the Dark Universe than it was in being a focussed plot driven storyline about the Mummy itself that it lost its way. These are to my mind the two major faults which ruined the entire experience for me personally and can see why it flopped..
A movie review without time wasting and unfunny skits at the start, during, and end? That also is informative and entertaining? My goodness man, you've certainly earned a sub this day! Huzzah!
I honestly will admit I would love to see this 'Dark Universe' Franchise, if for no other reason than to see a rebirth of the old school monsters that we saw in black and white but have yet to see them together in the same universe as of recent (the movie Van Helsing was a derpy, but fun try). But yeah, they kinda shot themselves in the foot for using the Mummy as the opener, rather than Dracula or Frankenstein.
Can support this "nut" remark with anecdotal evidence. I have a buddy whos sister works for Bad Robot. Said while he was hanging off the Burj In Dubai for that one scene, he kept trying to take his shirt off. Thought it would look better. Also, supposedly has his own door into their offices. No one uses the Tom Cruise door except Tom Cruise.
That's a little more on the pile of crazy he has built up over the last few years. It's just too bad that he apparently doesn't have someone in his life who cares enough to lure him away from the Scientologist people and get him somewhere so he can be deprogrammed.
I assume the white-haired guy is the director of the movie; if that is the case, then he should not be a director. Being a "good" actor does not automatically make me like their character, being a well written and understandable character does. If it's hard to come up with interesting backstories for your villains, then that goes for the heroes as well. And really, shouldn't the villains have the best thought out reasons and backstory?
I think if the _Mummy_ was a straight up horror movie (with the right director, actor, writer, etc) it would have had a better chance. Because not only would it honor its roots from the original Boris Karloff version (atmosphere, intrigue, and ambiguity), but it would've lived up to its name, and maybe offer something new to the genre. When I think of "Universal Monsters" I think of stars like Lon Chaney Jr., Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, Basil Rathbone, and so forth. It's not like horror movies haven't made a profit. Look at _Silence of the Lambs_ , _Get Out_ , _Jaws_ , _The Blair Witch Project_ (1999), _The Sixth Sense_ , _The Exorcist_ , etc. And those said movies are still fondly remembered even today. Sure, Hollywood, in a nutshell, is a business: they want money, and they want a formula that works. But by copying the same current formula over and over again (with _Avengers_ style movies and so forth) it'll start to get stale. Once it does people will want something different.
In my opinion this movie would have been better if they actually toned it down a bit and made it more like the original Mummy movies from the 1930's and 1940's. Sofia Boutella would have still been an excellent Mummy if they had done it in the style of the original movies with practical makeup effects and flashbacks and let the Mummy come to life and go after the one's who desecrated her tomb or still go after Tom Cruise's character in a bid to regain her mortality and use him as a vessel for Set.You don't need a generic actor to play these monsters as the real acting skills come from wearing makeup and barely being able to move but still being scary like actors such as Boris Karloff,Lon Cheney Jr,Christopher Lee and Tom Tyler did,I personally think a return to the original style of the Universal monsters would generate more interest.
I worked at a shop with one of the engineers that built the rex. Fun fact: it had 2 3000psi hydrrolic pumps, used one of the longest commercially available rams for the lunge motion(which was reused in a stego for 2), and ran better after it rained as the extra water weight gave the system more resistance to motion.
I think Kurtzman inexperience as a director isn't a sign of his lacking talent. I think his poor writing in film after film is a sign of his lacking talent. He's not been successful due to talent. He's been successful due to doing what he's asked to do, whether or not it's any good. Generally, it isn't any good.
Quality wise: Alex Kurtzman Commercially wise: Well it hasn't gone wrong. By the end of this week it will have made 3x times its production cost, which is good going for any film.
I've seen a lot of "rant" channels in my time and I have to say, in the three days that I've known your channel, yours is quickly rising to be one of my favourites.
Quite a few years ago now, Universal released all their black & white movies in a series called Universal Classic Monsters, or something like that. The movies in the collection were all on DVD, director's cuts, and also included a documentary as part of the special features. I hadn't, at that stage, ever seen any of them, but the covers instantly attracted me (they used the original movie posters as the DVD covers) and I always loved horror. So I put them in chronological order, started with Dracula (1931) and worked my way up to Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954). Boris Karloff in Frankenstein and The Mummy were what hooked me and, if Universal had stuck to this style of horror movie (less gore and action, more implied threat and general shivers-up-your-spine creepiness) they might have done better. But they instead tried to remake the Brendan Fraser movie and that just completely stuffed it for me - there's a reason those movies are set in the 1920's. That kind of story does not work in 2017. It was just a bad idea compounded by a bad script and bad casting - Tom Cruise is no Brendan Fraser....nor a Boris Karloff, either.
I will eventually see this film out of curiosity. I must admit to being the kind of person you mentioned in the video, one who found the announcement of this being a film universe very concided. I find this is what turned me off to DC's movie universe as well. Instead of making a good film, they focus on setting up a sequel or next film in the franchise. It's putting the cart before the horse, and I find it incredibly annoying and insulting to modern audiences.
I have not seen The Mummy, but a year ago I would have said this was going to be my most anticipated movie for the year. I saw Dracula Untold and for the most past enjoyed it. I started hearing rumors afterwards that is was intended to be a starting point for a Universal Horror Monsters shared universe. I got excited real quick and heard that the next movie on the slate was going to be The Mummy. But then hearing back and forth that Dracula Untold was getting thrown out of the mix kind of turned me off of the mummy movie because I was honestly only planning on seeing the film wondering how it would connect to Dracula Untold. But I decided that I'd at least see some of the trailers before I made a decision and the first trailer did actually interest me enough to want to see it. But then I saw the second trailer with the paint it black song played throughout it and something about it just turned off my desire to see it. Then the reviews came in and I just decided to wait on it until it came out on video. Personally, just my feelings from the reviews seemed to suggest that it suffered from issues similar to Amazing Spider Man 2, Iron Man 2, and Batman v Superman in that it's really more concerned with setting up a franchise instead of just making a good movie. And while I'm actually a big fan of these Shared Universe ideas, I liked seeing the movies, shows, and collecting comic books that all tie them together, I also want some passion and creativity in making it work together. Just because there are some big names attached to the project doesn't immediately sell me on wanting to see it. I enjoy the MCU, the Conjuring universe, the MonsterVerse with Kong and Godzilla, and for the most part the DCEU, I just don't see the Dark Universe working for me. The next film in the series is intended to be a Bride of Frankenstein movie and right now my interest level is at zero.
They should have "started" officially with Dracula Untold. No, it wasn't a super-blockbuster on the scale of Iron Man, but it was solid, gorgeous, and memorable. The difference is that Robert Downey Jr playing a snarky playboy genius who's been well-established for decades has a much bigger potential audience than does Dracula. Face it, hokey vampire/monster movie fans aren't as numerous as comic book fans. For folks like my wife, who've seen each and every monster movie Universal put out, and nearly every spin-off, and fucking adored all of them, _Dracula Untold_ was fantastic. She's exactly the type of fan Universal should have been aiming to please, but were ignored for "broader appeal". Universal needs to understand you make existing fans of your properties happy first, and then you slowing bring in other groups. But if you make something for every group, your most fervent fans don't get the focus and attention they need.
That's mostly due to some recent massive successes that made a lot of money in China. It's like how MMOs have been constantly been coming out ever since the colossal success of WoW, massive profits have a way of blinding investors to obvious problems.
Only true for shlocky CGI fest movies nobody asked for. People like to ignore the fact that for Marvel, Star Wars etc, ie movies people actually want to watch, the EU and US market is just as important. Hollywood gets only so much miliage out of their 'new' market. Here's hoping the chinese wise up soon so the uncreative hacks can go die in a hole.
After that new The Invisible Man film I believe the universe could work in a more realistic setting. It turns the mad scientist who made himself invisible with his experiments into a more meaningful story about abuse and how abusers are hidden in plain sight; One more people can relate to as you said. Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde could then work as a serious psychological thriller on dissociative disorder. Dracula can potentially work as a literal sociopath elite businessman whose charm makes both his opponents and women do his work; Turn blood-sucking more into how he ruins others' lives by draining women and men of their spirit/will to live without his grace (though I'm just spitballing that one.) Frankenstein could also work as a child whose mother wanted but never could have; She makes him up of stillborn babies or he's a failed test-tube baby (It's a reach.) The Mummy can potentially lean on racism and prejudice, making the mummy into a curse from their ancestors which is perpetuated by an authoritative, controlling family. While these may all work or fail, and something that I feel would need the right director/writer to do justice, making the monsters who wear the skin of humans .is the best way of bringing the Universal Monsterverse to the mainstream. Adapting to serious modern topics and issues could work
I recently saw Sonic The Hedgehog movie and there's something important about it that contrasts what most/other studios try to do. Yes the movie hints at a bigger universe, yes there's a double sequel bait at the end (one being mid-credits scene). But for the 90 minutes of it you're not being beaten over the head with references you're supposed to understand 3 movies down the line. It tells one coherent story and if the movie bombs you won't have to bother yourself with all unresolved plot points. The main plot is resolved, we're glad you spent your time with us. BvS, Dark Universe, Amazing Spider-Man are "franchises" dragged down by lingering plot points that were planned for a different movie. Ones that you could easily remove from the runtime and introduce in the sequel. Which is why I respect Sonic. It wasn't amazing. It wasn't groundbreaking. It was very predictable and riddled with cliches. But it didn't pretend to be SEGA Cinematic Universe and I appreciate it very much.
While you might find Cruise unlikable, and I can certainly understand that, it's clear he is still very likable (and bankable) to a big swath of the movie-going audience. Mission Impossible: Fallout has become the most successful film in the franchise's history earning more than $791 million worldwide. Think about it, he has been starring as this character for 22 years, and the franchise is more popular than ever.
To answer your last question first. I agree it was an adequate movie. But mainly I'm intruiged with your first film choice. The ending of the film with Tom Cruise as whatever he was seemed to be like he was supposed to be a focal point for the franchise. But Dr. Jeckyll was the Nick Fury of the Dark Universe. Your suggestion that they start with his film, makes far more sence than the Mummy setting up Tom. But they seem to have not plotted out the films well. As I understood it they were coming out with Bride before Frankenstein. Which if I have it right makes no sense. Now I'll disagree with the film flopped because there was no public interest. There was more interest in The Mummy before it came out than in Finding Nemo. But Nemo had a better marketing campaign, and was a superior film. Nope sorry an ad with Cruise stuck to a crashing plane for most of it, doesn't make me want to see the film. Shame they didn't have your input. I can see a film where Jeckyll tries curing evil, unleashes Hyde, Joins up with a whatever the group was called. And at the end of the film finds a better formula for controlling Hyde, when the organization girl comes in and says. "Sir something has been found in Egypt. And f I'm right about what it is, the world may soon wish it had stayed buried."
Huh. Good point. Admittedly, this wasn't all laid out for them like Star Wars was for LucasFilm, but they've done an equally poor job at figuring out a good way to present the world of the Universal Monsters that would engage people. But that's Hollywood, I guess. Studio Head: "Here. I got this IP. Where's my billions of dollars?" Movie Person: "Well, you've got to plan out the movies, build up the characters, have a goal..." Studio Head: "No want steps. Want billions!" Which sounds silly, but it would explain what we've gotten with Star Wars, Star Trek and the Dark Universe. F these people.
@@Trollificusv2 Funny you should say that. It was a big failing with Justice Leauge. Marvel. O.k. heres a group of movies highlighting most of the charecters so you'll want to see them interact when they come together for the big group movie. DC Heres 30 seconds of a blurry Flash video. Se you at the big group movie.
