Strictly based on anecdotal information, I went and saw it and was rooting for the Mummy the entire movie. I associated it with WW aftermath. The task of vilifying a strong female character became exponentially harder in the wake of WW.
brandon baerga Because just like the Spider-Man franchise, they couldn't leave well enough alone and Hollywood had to fuck it up with another instalment
It flopped mostly for the same reason Baywatch and Ghostbusters did: no one wanted it. The original Ghostbuster movies and the 90s/early 2000s Mummy movies were all good movies and did not need reboots in any way (and Baywatch doesn't even have enough following to warrant a movie).
agreed and most people didn't go watch ghostbuster because it was just another lib movie to force ideals on people. which women can be hero's and bad ass's without all the feminism bullshit. just look at wonder woman that was a great movie that didn't force feed some sort of ideology one people thats what made that movie even better. BTW if you haven't seen wonder woman its amazing.
Not defending the Ghostbusters remake-it was a bad movie-but I didn't think it "forced ideals" on anyone. If that's what you saw, you were probably looking for it.
Brendan Fraiser's Mummy movie was such a beautiful affair. The way it was filmed, cast, music, and script were true movie magic that has not been replicated since. Warm, witty, and exciting The Mummy with Rachel W & Brendan F really had romance in spades, too.
I never wanted to watch Mission Impossible, all the reviews and trailers highlighted gimmicks like sunglasses. That's how this Mummy's trailer felt. Tom Cruise's Vanilla Skies was good though.
Yeah, because Brandon did wonders with The Mummy 3. Sophia should have been the new star of the series. I was actually looking forward to a badass female mummy. Instead I got some young undead chic thirsting for Cruise. Imagine my disgust , at the end, when Tom became the "god of death". I was screaming "Get over yourself Tom"
Simple. It didn't have Brendan Fraser... those films were actually fun and enjoyable with a Mummy I actually was afraid of as a kid. Imhotep was the best.
@Milomondo I agree with you and they shouldn't have gone for Tom Cruise, because of his baggage as well and they didn't need that circus midget if The Mummy was going to be female. I would have gone for John Ritter's son Jason Ritter or Justin Long, one of those 2 would of had better chemistry with Annabelle Wallis being how Jason Ritter is 4 years older than her and Justin Long is 6 years older than her. Tom Cruise is old enough to be her father being how she was 1 when he was in Legend with Tim Curry and Top Gun with Val Kilmer.
*Why are y'all forgetting Rachel Weiz?! She was the perfect match for Brendan's Rick O'Connell* Their kid was cute but the new Evelyn actress in the 3rd film.... meh Brendan though... it's like replacing Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones
I didn't like the girl that replaced Rachel in that one Mummy movie. They had her voice down, but she was just not the right part. Also their son Alex looked older then the parents!! That was wrong casting there.
Her name is Maria Bello … she’s not a very good actress. Especially for a role like that , she did ok in NCIS which she did refreshingly well . But not a good replacement for Rachel Weisz .
The Mummy, and Universal, are missing what made the original movies enjoyable in the first place. Audiences who fondly remember monster movies aren't looking for fx heavy adventure movies, they want creepy stylish well crafted story telling. Set a mood. Make us care. If the studio doesn't know what fans want, then hand it over to a film maker who *is* a fan, and give them control. There are so many great people who could produce an amazing film with universal's material.
Precisely. Movies that has way too much cgi and special effects in it, tends to overlook other more important factors, like what you said and just plain old 'fun'. There's more to a movie enjoyment than just special effects/cgi.
Atmospheric stylish horror movies fare well with more involved cinephiles. I was wondering in another threads what it would take for a horror franchise to take off today though. I'm starting to think ditching conventional desaturated haunted house movies and incorporating some elements of indie style could be one way to revive the genre, but it also needs some element of viral following, something relatable, like what spawned the found footage craze. I don't even know if anything similar could ever be done.
+gaming TV the most egregious example of this that comes to mind is" avangers: age of ultron" we even got the defend the objective for 5 minutes sequence.
for me if a movie has tom cruise I know it's going to be a horrible, poorly acted, tom cruise worship fest...I can't stand any of his films...the original top gun might have been the last of his movies I could bare to watch. The latest top gun, couldn't get through the first 10 min
This true, but this new The Mummy has so much to offer that couldn't be realized back then. This new film looks like it was derived from that 2004 movie: Van Helsing, and that Bram Stoker short story: Jewel of the Seven Stars
During most of the movie I just thought the mummy was sexy. You aren't supposed to think the monster in a horror movie is sexy! You're supposed to be scared of them!
The way we perceive villains has changed tremendously in modern cinema, though. I was quite scared of Imhotep in the Brendan Fraser series, but also attracted to him. It's a marvellous dynamic that scared me even more, had me thinking I was a psycho to find someone that malicious sexy. I think it's the overkill with CGI and lack of intrigue that did Sofia Boutella's character in.
I think it's obvious even from the trailer that it is not a horror movie. It is sad to see big budget films be this uniform in the way they go for spectacle. The only scene that looked remotely interesting was the scene when the mummy escapes, moving like a demented contorsionist. I wonder how a successful horror franchise could take off today. I am more into more "artsy" attempts at genre, like "it follows" or even "the neon demon", for all its faults. But those would have trouble gaining mainstream appeal. What could make the masses interested in a harror movie today, besides going full action? could a better crafted dark blockbuster in the same style do the trick?
Now I'm curious if they stole the story from Bram Stoker's "Jewel of Seven Stars" - Just because it's odd for them to make the Mummy female. It's just not effective for a horror movie. Female vampire, sure. Female mummy, just seems foolish...
I don't know. we so often assume women are supposed to be pretty, there are quite a few interesting things you could do with a female mummy. You can go gross cadaver. You can go sexy femme fatale, like you said about vampires. you can go any brand of sorceress archetype, since mummies aren't quite as established a mythos as vampires are. Making a horror "monster" female is unusual though, and therefore is a gamble, i agree with you at least about that.
Tom Cruise, much like Johnny Depp, has been acting the same for the past 10 years now. I dont see a character, but just Tom Cruise acting like Tom Cruise in every action movie he's ever been in. They even made Cruise be in the military to show how bad ass and tactical he is. What made Brendan Fraser's character good, was that he was just this normal guy. Not some legendary military hero that can survive anything.
Adrian Soto in the first mummy...Brendan Frasier was in the French foreign legion...he and his friend Benny were the only 2 survivors of a doomed unit trapped in the ruins that got wiped out. Must be you watched the movie after that part.
Because they rebooted a horror movie as an action packed spectacle of CGI? Spot on, Fraser's Mummy holds up because it is so campy and it fit right in with the audiences at the time, when we still got decent movies in theaters and not sequelised franchises that are starting to show their age.
Says the person that can't even spell Brendan Fraser correctly. Let me guess now you love the 3rd movie also, although it was a shit storm of epic proportions xD
As an actual archaeologist, I'd love to see a realistic Mummy film whete most of the protaganist's is consumed with paperwork, report writing and having to justify their budget to investors.
Why not combination of both? Imagine this scene: protagonist is consumed with paperwork, and is calling his investor to justify his finding because he found a few things, among which would be of course mummy, the investor for some reason would not see any point in paying so much anymore, at which point the mummy awakens. Protagonist then switches from arguing about budget to hastily informing investor that the mummy he found has awaken at which point the investor considers it a poor attempt to get more money and ends the connection. At that point, protagonist is in the middle of a nowhere with no budget and with a mummy slowly clawing it's way from sarcophagus.
ninjaraph soooo true!!!!! ironically, he shines in movies like Rain Man, Magnolia (my favorite) and Tropic Thunder, were he was not the center of the movie's universe!
Simple. Visually unappealing. The "Mummy" being in the present day, a chick with grey paint a couple tattoos and black hair and no epic landscapes of ancient egypt with pyramids and vast deserts where her power is making a black CGI cloud was all evident to everyone who saw the trailer. Now compare that to Brendan Fraser mummy... Beautiful dessert shots, Pyramid backdrop, Creepy decayed body of villain, and the power to make his face in a massive sand storm all set in a past historical time adding to the visual appeal.
Merchant Ivory yeah this make sense.. the trailer is a turn off.. but i love movies like this.. so when i wanna go watch it i read th reviews first.. and th review sucks.. so i made up my mind th other day not to watch it. but my bro persuaded me to watch it with him so we went.. but i actually enjoyed it so much.. more than brendan fraser's the mummy.. sofia is really good in it.. she makes me feel like she is really th daughter of pharoah from 5000 years ago.. i just cant stop thinking abt it huhu
So true, plus the 1999 Mummy went for golden era of Hollywood glam with the backgrounds, especially with things like the tombs and the pharaoh's palace in the opening. It was not just that it was set in the 1920s-30s, they really wanted something nostalgic of that golden age. So they went big and fantastic! To create that sense and feeling. I've seen the trailer for this new Mummy, and IDK, the mummy here feels like just some random demon girl. She doesn't even feel or look like an Egyptian mummy. This was the same problem I had when I saw the trailer to that one movie about the Egyptian Gods…forget the name, but it came out like last year or so. While some were complaining that the actors all looked too white and not real Egyptians, I looked at it and thought; "Why do these Egyptian gods look like Roman gods wearing Roman looking armor?" When you do a simple google search, let alone actually go see paintings depicting the ancient Egyptian gods, their armor and clothes are depicted as being very colorful, inlaid with jewels and such. The one movie just depicts the armor like the stuff you've seen in a million gladiator movies. In fact I didn't even know it was about the Egyptian gods until I read a review about it!
there's no comparison,1999 mummy movie is a classic,using real Egyptian names and locations,even if they lived at different times,you could relate to the names,especially if you have researched Egypt at all.
I don't think I would have so much have mind a made up Egyptian name so long as it has the feel and spirit of sounding ancient Egyptian. But as far as her tattoos on her face…I looked at some of the trailers and looked at her face closely, she has a lot of random Xs, Os, and arrows on her face which looks really, really, stupid for an ancient Egyptian mummy. I mean it looks like she has the cheat codes to some old video game on her face. Or it also looks like ruins, which makes me ask: Why would a 5000 year old Egyptian mummy have 5th century Viking writing all over her face? Like the make up artists and character design artist couldn't bother two seconds to look up actual hieroglyphs or tattoo designs from actual mummies from that time period? That's the beauty of mummies, they still have skin and there are some who have tattoos! I think that was something the other movies did better. The opening scene with Anck-Su-Namun with her gold body paint, and rather ancient tribal looking black panthers felt like an ancient design. The Magi's tattoos even though were modern Arabian also looked cool on their faces. Because, whether or not it really read something (can't read the language) it looked believable and felt real. (For all we know the writing on the one magi's face said, "The Mummy" or nothing at all and was just gibberish.) Even Rick in the second movie gets a tattoo that looks and feels like an ancient symbol.
To me, the original film had interesting characters. Eve was a nerdy beautiful but next door type of protagonist and Brendan Fraser was O'Connel not Fraser. The new one, one the other hand is just another Tom Cruise loving Tom Cruise kind of thing while the female lead is a typical pretty blond girl who doesn't convince anyone in her character. Also, I think cinematic history has pretty much proven so far that almost all remakes that are successful, remake an old mediocre film, making it better. When you try to compete with something that is already loved by the audience and doesn't have enough flaws, well, no one wants to see it.
James Perkins Can you look at a movie which almost nobody would ever watch, and which has not even one semblance of similarity to the Brandon Frasier movies as "the original" ?
It is the original, but nobody except a very small amount of die hard movie collectors would have seen it. So... it does not count anymore. Not in a cultural sense, nor in any way except having once exist.
I feel like i'm the only one who doesn't care that Brendan Fraser isn't in it and that it isn't a horror franchise? Remakes, reboots, and reimaginings aren't supposed to be exactly the same and shouldn't be expected to have an actor that was in the originals.
not a flop overseas is true, but it is a fact it is a flop in the USA market. It seems Tom Cruise is no longer America's favorite pretty boy. How long before Cruise loses favor with Scientology when he is no longer a high money earner?
Tom Cruise's net worth is $470 million, plus recurring residuals from many of his movies where he's a producer. I don't think he's too worried about the money.
I came down to comment and see that a ton of people have said it already: the number one reason I've heard for people writing off the movie is just that the 90's Mummy is just so beloved. When you take on a title that people adore so much, it's going to raise expectations and raise skepticism, and even though the 90's Mummy wasn't the original, that one seemed like a clever and thoughtful reworking of the source material -- and not to mention the huge time gap between the films' release, which I think was a major factor -- while this one honestly just felt like a cash grab, a lazy reworking of many viewers' childhood favorite to try and make a buck. To be honest, I think the film would have done MUCH better if they'd given it a different title, just made it its own thing. "The Curse of the Mummy," etc. People would have respected that more, and it would have gone a way to negate comparisons.
1. it sucked 2 Everyone's watching either Guardians or Wonder Woman 3. Brendan Fraser's trilogy, although with its flaws, is a beloved series and people would've been more attracted to the film if Fraser starred in it. 4. The Mummy is appropriate as a horror franchise or campy fun. Not an action film.
I still haven't saw this movie yet n I'm already hearing it's bad but plp ik did see wonder women and guardians they say it's good I had plans to see wonder woman
The problem .in my opinion ,of the 1999 and it`s 2 follow ups ,is it focused on Indiana Jones type action and the Horror came off as an excuse for it.I do think the new Mummy movie succeded in horror better then the Frazier ones but it still was too action oriented.The Wolfman 2010 was a great 21st centuary take on classic horror(despite it`s bad boxoffice). The 2017 Mummy was good enough to not be a disapointment and I hope the Dark Universe continues,with horror oriented movies not action oriented.
She really was the best Mummy. But they didn't expand on her character enough character development. I wanted a sequel where she fought another Mummy for supremacy, and by the end of the movie she would realize that what she would realize what a monster she's actually become. I would go see that.
Nobody asked for it. Thats why. Also recycled plot, piss poor trailers, and bad casting with Tom Cruise only for the sake of having Tom Cruise in your Universe.
I'm mad they didn't offer the role to Brendan, the guy who needs it the most and would help resurrect his career. Many people want to see him back on screen yet Hollywood refuse to do it so that's their downfall.
Hollywood only cares about money, so they go back to the same brands and franchises that worked in the past. I can't think of any original awesome action adventures these days. The best entertainment in the past 15 years have come from *video games*.
Dont just look at big Hollywood. There are a lot of good independent movies out there. Or try international movies. If you are ok with a lag of Stars then you really should try some independent films. They have a lot more freedom to make good movies. But there are many shitty movies too. Learning by doing
WOW! Speaking of whitewashing you hit the nail right on the head... because of this phenomenom people of color are simply left out or replaced in the history of this world when it comes to positive images... the reality is so-called white people are only around 8% of the world population... and their numbers are getting smaller every day so is their ability to deal with reality in any shape or form. The truth is you're either an African or a descendant of an African. Please Google: Merle Streep says " We're all Africans... really " Please Google article: " We're all Black..."
This movie was a mess. Couldn't decide if it was a humorous movie or a horror movie (ironically, the 1999 Mummy worked because it was successful on both fronts, as a action/horror movie and also one with comic moments). And the whole movie was basically a trailer to introduce various characters for Universal's "Dark Universe." How stupid was that? Instead of focusing on this movie as a stand alone movie to deal with the Mummy character, the producers (and tommy himself?) made a confusing, boring mess that couldn't decide what kind of movie it wanted to be. Even Marvel didn't do such a stupid thing, they made a lot of stand alone movies involving each different comic book hero before entwining them into the Marvel Universe years later.
The 1999 Mummy was considered to be in the Romantic/Adventure genre. They figured the couldn't stick with horror because the mummy isn't that scary. And they aced it. Poo on Tom , you can tell he had some control over this movie. It looks like all his other movies. No story just action.
Tom Cruise was the reason why The Mummy flopped, because he changed the script and only cared about his own ambition over others, he is selfish piece of shit. To me Sofia stole the show despite the fact that Cruise shorten her parts just to beef up his and feed his own ego. Universal has 20 months to get it right with Bride Of Frankenstein and they should sever ties with that piece of shit Cruise and have Channing Tatum replace him as Nick Morton.
Lynnette Johansson we want our good old days back can we just please have our peter parker and brendon back please i beg of you hollywood😭😭 why this tom cruise always keeps coming back.
I went in to expect this to be shitty and rushed as Fantastic four but I really enjoyed this movie. The easter eggs to other monsters and witnessing Hyde was goddamn amazing. The ending was set up pretty well too. This is a movie I would rewatch.
farmers, sequel's aren't always bad, it's what they do to the sequel that's bad! An of course You are right, to much of a good thing or bad, is never good! Regards
Because people are tired of Tom Cruise's 60-year old ass being paired up with women 20-30 years younger than him. He was hot during the 80s and 90s, but he peaked two decades ago. As far as the movie itself, nobody gives a shit about female mummies. It's too gimmicky, and doesn't look anything like the earlier mummy films.
Well, Electric-Shock....she wasn't too far off. He'll be 55 next month, so he's closing in on the mark. For me it isn't all about looks....it's about appeal, and he lost that a long time ago with me. He's nothing but an overrated, egotistical, self absorbed, overpaid....past his prime and should be "has been"...but that is my opinion.
Tom Cruise = 55......he is still fighting the aging process but father time overtakes all of us at some point....he might have another 5 years left until it hits him....I will say, you may be right on the possibility of him taking some form of drugs..steroids or HGH or something...
Exactly, people like to blame the critics, but trailers play a large role in what people choice to see. And after the first weekend its all about word of mouth.
Yeah, I agree. I was prepared to give the movie the benefit of the doubt until I saw the trailer. It played out like a mashup of clips from the Brendan Frasier Mummy movies and some of Tom Cruise's action flicks, it didn't give me anything that made me want to go see the movie.
As a classic horror fan, the CGI action and modern setting were off-putting. The atmosphere was an important part of the classic Universal movies; villagers armed with torches and pitchforks, explorers in pith helmets, gypsies, rundown castles, gaslights, foggy cobblestone streets, graveyards, dungeons, makeshift laboratories, etc...
I loved the movie! They may have been trying to make something similar- but to me it felt like a complete remake on an almost clean slate- I think it worked well for those who hadn't seen any of the mummy movies. In any case I can see how people thought it was 'overcrowded', but I myself didn't find it that way.
From the moment I heard that Cruise was taking over The Mummy franchise, I knew it was going to fail, big time. Tom's ego is just too huge and too wrapped up in his ridiculously inflated Scientology-bullshit-fueled sense-of-narcissistic-self for there to be any chance of this sad reboot recaptureing the fun campy goodness of Brendan Frasier's 1999 movie. I wish I could say I'm sad to say I was right, but I just can't. I'm celebrating just as much as I'm sure Brendan is, right now.
+Shadelings I don't think that would be right to say. For most of his life he has been the greatest entertainer in the country. He has given us so many good movies and even today. 1980s: Risky Business, Top Gun, Rain Man, The Color of Money, BOTFOJ. 1990s: A Few Good Men, IWTV, MI, Jerry Maguire, Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia. 2000s: Minority Report, Collateral, The Last Samurai, Valkyire, Tropic Thunder 2010s: Jack Reacher, MI series, Edge of Tomorrow. Yes since 2010s he has been woefully inconsistent outside MI franchise but you can't neglect the fact that even his movies recieved poor reviews has been atleast one time watch. And I don't think you should take away the credit after all he has been in Greatest Movie Star for more than 3 decades.
@@anuragvatsa7352 Oh, my dear, it is DEFINITELY the right thing to say. As far as I'm concerned, the moment he accepted slave labor from Scientology to build that ridiculous luxury hangar of his, he completely cancelled everything I once admired about him. What's sad to me is that in this obnoxious, hyper-focused, celebrity culture we currently live in, people like you are more than willing to give him a pass simply because he's a celebrity and has made good movies in the past.
@@shadelings Well, that's your personal choice just like its Cruise's personal choice. And as far as controversy is concerned, every actor is controversial. I mean you will truly love RDJ despite he has been a black mark on Hollywood so why Cruise should be treated like this. And all I cares that guy entertain me & even mostly people in the world too. Not only him but also Depp, RDJ, DiCaprio etc. As far as Cruise's life in Scientology is concerned. I never judged him on this because we have heard one part of the story and all I have read about it, I have concluded that media & Leah Remini makes it a bigger deal just for TRP. Renee Zelleweger, Graham Norton, Chris Pratt all those people say he is a good man and even my personal experience say he is a good man.
It would actually be interesting to see some dimension to Tom Cruise Character being Set instead of a straight up good vs Bad thing. The Princess Mummy had a far more interesting character and room to grow as a character than blonde.
Like my husband said. No Brendan Fraser, then its not a fucking Mummy film. Yes the 1932 will always be consider best, but let's be honest, we all enjoyed the 1999 version.
RckerMom87 would you consider the mummy 3 with fraser to be a good mummy film as it seemed like a shit one to me but i can only judge by the first few minutes of the movie as my eyes started to bleed ay that point and i couldnt watch no more.
Boris Karloff was awesome - Frasers movies where more fun than horror and the new one was meant to be a action movie - but a lot of action-special effect-movies are pretty shitty nowadays.
"Fate of the furious have shown. Audiences are only willing to show up if the movies are any good" Hahaha its a sad time when the fast and furious franchise is thought of as "good"
I do feel they have moved away from the spirit of the original film somewhat, they are still fun to watch, but not the same is it? All the cars are just generic and overpriced show pieces rather than its street racing roots.
Eh, the Fast and the Furious is pretty much like Resident Evil (though I actually think Fand F movies are much bettter)...They just have a crazy loyal fanbase, no matter what.
mannn saying Fast and Furious is better then The Mummy is such and insult to The Mummy.. i don't care how bad The Mummy movie was the fast and furious movies make me wanna gag
Now this new twist version of the movie script of (The Mummy) was really good; But I admit that it wasn’t great do to the fact it was a bit difficult at times when watching it trying to fallow along with its story in order to better understand what it is all about, and to add what was going on in this movie in order to properly explain the whole entire storyline of it to the audience who were watching it. Now these are my best descriptive opinions on why this movie wasn’t a huge hit at all of the movie theaters’s box-offices’s everywhere when it was once out in all of the movie theaters.
InnerAtmos that is true but if you look up Set, you will read the story and most of it makes sense as to how they tie that Egyptian God into the movie and what Set can do. Hope this helps.
Modern films have no soul. You know why ANYONE who has an iota of care about quality beyond michale bay special effects, remembers these black and white classics so well? Because each film was made with a story to tell, it took itself seriously, the actors took their roles seriously, the movie dared to be original, didn't rely on hype and all that faff, AND they gave the audience a layered experience. Any 5 year old kid can be enthralled by flashy visual effects and big explosive sound. It takes a unique story and believable characters to capture the minds of the 5 year old, the 10 year old, the 18 year old, the 30 year old, the 50 year old, and the 65 year old altogether. This movie, and many in the past 25 years have been made as soulless eyecandy rather than an original work of cinema art.
"Oh Brendan Fraser's getting on a bit isn't he? hmm.. we need someone to come in who's younger to appeal to a new generation.. but really captures the comic range of Fraser, as really Fraser, Weis and Hannah were the only thing carrying the franchise...." ... Tom. Fucking. Cruise. It's not even that he's a total wang, it's literally just that you'd be hard pressed to find a worse person to take over from Fraser, unless you wait for Trump to get out of jail.
Yes, this movie was not a flop over seas! It made more than its money back. Therefore it has potential of making allot of money on video release. After all, the USA only has 5% of the world's population
I liked the movie tbh, but I wouldn't say it was better than the ones in the past. I believe the reason why it flopped is because of the American critics. American media takes its movies like how the French take their wine. They nit pick at the smallest mistakes and want only perfection. After all every movie has its flaws. I thought it was about time to recreate classics into the modern era. It's much scarier to know we can't defeat a monster in the movies with modern technology.
I don't get what critics were looking for. More about the expanded universe inside its introduction? Some Oscar worthy writing in a summer blockbuster? People are so jaded they can't even enjoy a summer action flick anymore. *smh
If you stop to think about it, you'll realize there is one really important, though not necessarily obvious reason this movie fails: poor cinematography. You can forgive almost anything if what you're watching is beautiful, and the culture of ancient Egypt is practically a gimme for gorgeous set pieces. Brendan Fraiser's The Mummy had warm vibrant desert vistas, rooms of gold and jewels, foggy catacombs and firelit nights in 1920s Cairo. This movie is blue and grey and all the props are black. It has no color, and the filming has no beauty, tension or cleverness. CGI can enhance beauty or it can do what it does here and fill the dull frames with more elaborate dullness. There is no great still from the trailer that makes you go "oooh!" and "awe!" The closest they get is the double irises and symbols on Sofia's face, and that isn't enough to make me see a movie.
The Real Reason Why The Mummy Flopped is simple= The critics don't understand a shit. The Mummy with Tom Cruise too me was one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. In my opinion he had to win an Oscar, a Golden Globe, an Emmy, a David di Donatello for Lifetime Achievement and a Golden Lion at the Venice Cinema. The Mummy is a good movie like Forrest Gump and The Lord of the Rings.
There's only one answer here: The Mummy is an overblown action movie, not a horror movie. A universe based around the Universal Monsters needs to be a HORROR universe, not a big-bang-boom action universe. The producers were utterly clueless going in.
The reason the mummy reboot failed was because they ruined it already not having the original cast. They're what the people fell in love with and i loved all of them. I didn't even get interested since they were replaced and what's laughable is they thought it'd be ok because it had Tom cruise lol
Artist Rahul not for mainstream??? How is this not??? This is as mainstream as you can get. Taking well known horror icons and planting them in a action/mystery/thriller. Add in a a list star and a summer release and you have yourself a recipe for a blockbuster. You are so wrong when you say this isn't mainstream.
I don't trust critics, ever since the first Clover Field movie. I enjoyed it, but that shit was slammed by critics. Same thing with the recent movie Passangers, it was incredible, but critics hated it. But than they give shitty boring movies high praise like Moonlight.
People have wildly different tastes. That is the problem with comparing reviews. For example, I thought Passengers was boring and overall not a good movie. MrSirFluffy thought it was incredible. But then again, I thought Guardians 2 was boring and not really funny at all (and yes, I loved Guardians). That makes me a "1 percenter"!
Ya frnds u r right . Either they must have taken brandon fraser for lead or must have shown egyptian style mummy from old mummy type movies it would have average hit. Their little bit money would have recovered in both the cases.
The reason why "The Mummy" was flop because somewhere in the middle, I started rooting for Boutella. She delivered better performance than anyone else. She is a lovable character at some point (after getting kidnapped). If the studio wants to continue with Mummy v2, you need to make Boutella as the Lead. Make her the good guy. Tom Cruise is better for Mission Impossible type movies.
It's ironic that the original Universal Monsters were the FIRST shared universe in cinema back in the day and now Universal has been trying to do it again, but in the wrong direction.
Tom Cruise has made some very good movies over the years, Oblivion was the last great one he made. But in this film he is miscast! Having said that, this film is still very entertaining with some great action scenes & spfx(if you saw this movie in a theater or on a widescreen). This film has been misjudged by the critical intelligentsia, but it is still not a great film, for it could have been better. In the end, I was sympathizing for antagonist Princess Ahmanet, and no one else. Tom should never have been cast here because in this film he's just Tom Cruise. He sucks the oxygen out of the room, not because of his talent but because of his star power and ego! The film became a Cruise vehicle - - get it ;-) If they make a sequel, which is less than likely, they have to get rid of Tom, and bring back Sofia Boutella at all costs!
i think the actress who played the Mummy was INCREDIBLE. if they really had to reboot the mummy they should have kept her but bought back Brendan Fraiser. personally i quite enjoyed the Mummy but then again i love anything Egyptian themed
Unless a movie is successful domestically, it isn't really considered a hit especially when there's the intention to launch an entire universe on its back. So it is definitely a flop.
The Creature from the Black Lagoon might have been a better place to start with the series. Just something new and different. But I don't know, The Invisible Man with Johnny Depp would have been a good place to start too. And I like Tom Cruise, but I think for something like this, you need someone new, Chris Pratt would have been perfect! And why not throw the old fans a bone and have Brendan Fraser's character be Chris Pratt's great grandfather or something.
No, Johnny Depp would kill the Invisable Man like Cruise killed the Mummy. Depp has killed every iconic role and made them much much worse. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Tonto. WTF!!! Is he wanting to be the next Steven Segal?
True. Because it should of been more primarily focused on the egyptian princess and more detailed on her store backline like the Brandon Fraser trilogies. It was too focused on Tom Cruise and took away from the main character of the movie,the princess,Sofia Boutella.
When I saw the trailer, it reminded me of a horror version of Mission Impossible, Cruise fighting a mummy instead of bad guys. Despite the reviews, I still would go and see it..
Biggest issues with the movie is the shitty beginning (Stupid flashback with voice-over by Crowe about a story the audience later learn was actually erased from History by ancient egyptians themselves : so, how does Crowe know ?) that indicates as soon as the film starts it was badly written or badly edited or had the studio execs putting their noses and fingers again where they should have not. Then what follows is correctly done but has no true imagination hence no surprise. Even the finale can be guessed at least one half of an hour before it happens on screen ! Some people should (re)watch Sommers/Fraser's version and learn how to make an enjoyable movie !
I think Tom Cruise is an over rated, self-aggrandizing actor that appears in movies where he portrays the "single person to save the day" and he has his own production company to market just that. He is boring and trite and I enjoyed him getting his butt kicked in "Edge of Tomorrow" until, again, he is the only one to be the hero. YAWN. He destroyed "Mission: Impossible" from the original series because suddenly the team was evil and he would be the only one to "save the day" .He's never been a GREAT actor. He just seems to thrive on his own ego. You don't have to wonder what his role is... you already know. Bleh like Bebe7473 says.... he only takes options where he is the "last hero standing".
asian love forever Brad Pitt has a down to earth vibe. Tom Cruise is creepy. His couch jumping, snide interviews, Xenu loving weirdness and crazy laugh of the brainwashed make him seem unlikeable. His ego is too big to support his tiny body. Brad Pitt seems likeable and he is a decent actor.
Because it looked like a CGI shit fest. When is Hollywood going to understand, Alien Covenant, this Mummy movie, have shitty, massive CGI scenes in it. Generally speaking, we fucking hate that. The 1999 Mummy with Brendan Frasier was a good movie. Yes, the Mummy was CGI until he regained his full organic body, but the CGI was toned down and done well. STOP FILLING OUR MOVIES WITH FUCKING CGI. I'm personally tired of it. So fucking tired of it. A lot of CGI doesn't fit in the real, organic world. It totally breaks immersion.
CGI actually works well in a lot of places. Mad Max Fury Road, for example, used lots of extremely believable CGI to craft it's sets. Lots of it. But you didn't notice it. The problem is when CGI becomes both overly noticeable and just entirely unbelievable.
Zack Stuart Bray - Of course. Like I said, the movies I pointed out in my example (The Mummy and Alien Covenant) have large, shitty CGI scenes. The xenomorphs from the originals look way better. Nightmare on Elm Street reboot was not good in large part because of the terrible CGI. Star Wars prequels, which I do like, was bashed so pretty hard because of the overuse of CGI, and JJ Abrams made it a point to return to practical, organic scenes and effects in 7. There's many examples of good use of CGI, but lately I feel like I can come up with a longer list of movies that looked terrible because of it, imo. It seems to be mostly reboots.
The problem is, if it doesn't sell in US it's a flop. Entertainment business is nuts. There are international stars making millions for their films in their country but if it's not making millions in the states its a flop? Sad, I was reading somewhere that this actress was massive "Angelina Jolie" kind of star in her country but when she came to the US, she wasn't known for anything "famous". Another one is " Aamir Khan is the most famous international film star in China". I've never heard of him. Dying to Survive made 3.097 billion dollars over there. Hello Mr. Billionaire 2.539 billion. Avengers: Infinity War 2.391 billion over there. So those two movies made more than Avengers. Do you consider them a flop?
Actually, overseas draws did not even manage to pay for the *HUGE* budget the movie cost.... Big budget movies (over 100 million), have a *LOT* to recoup, and even pulling in around 400 million was not enough to pay for this *MEGA CGI* monster. Like Silent Runner said, if it doesn't kill it in *America,* it is probably going to flop. Not counting *Water World,* which managed to break even, and then some from overseas grosses!!
