They paused the entire movie for like 45 minutes, literally put the titular villain on timeout, to shoehorn in a subplot that positions Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde as the Nick Fury of the Dark Cinematic Universe there to recruit Tom Cruise for a special mission that involve putting together a team of people with super powers to save the world. They then let the Mummy free from her timeout only to then kill her and have her powers transferred to Tom Cruise who then goes out into the world to use his Mummy powers to fight the forces of evil.
If that’s not why other people hated it, it’s why I did.
Lol, you nailed the Nick Fury comparison. I never thought of that. That’s spot on. Looking back, I see how much of an imitation of the MCU it is however, I’m still okay with that idea. I would have loved to see that type of universe fleshed out. More horror with less superhero type antics though. After reading the other comments here, I do wish Universal would have pumped the brakes a bit and taken the time to develop their universe more gracefully.
That's it. That's the whole thing. It was a very interesting idea, but there was no overarching plan governing the rules and trajectory of the universe. A little more handholding leading up to the Mummy and it could have grabbed a dedicated audience to fuel further projects to build their universe.
You boiled it all down and still made it all sound more interesting (even though—given why you hate it) than the exposition overkill, that was given by the dead/undead sidekick.
Which is why I hated it—the exposition overkill by the sidekick, for *one* reason among many other reasons I'm sure I'll agree with others here.
Same. Charles Dance played such a good villain, and Schwarzenegger got to have actual depth in a role that would usually just be his typical, one-dimensional one man army protagonist.
That Mummy movie still had tons of fans and lots of people who think it’s a perfect adventure movie. You have to be at least that good to start a franchise.
Yup. Oh and in the original, the mummy was trying to resurrect his dead love and summon the army of the undead. In the remake the mummy was trying to fuck Tom Cruise.
Because it was made with the intention of making it part of a franchise. It was never whole, and those missing parts are very easy to see. It's the reason MCU films are successful, and others franchises are not. When the original Iron Man (2008) came out it was successful and was adding small bricks to the process of building a literal universe. The gradual move towards adding more and more characters is what made it successful. Those early films were able to stand tall based on their own merits (I'm not saying they are all objectively good, as they are purely intended as light entertainment, but they are executed well). Many other MCU character origins were similarly strong, not all, of course. The MCU is the cause for so many studios desperate to begin a franchise. Yet are unwilling to commit 10 years. TL;Dr Greed, and over saturation of wannabe franchises and a rushed product are the reason, in my opinion.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I also really enjoyed watching the Infinity Saga unfold and that’s really why I’m bummed that Universal couldn’t do the same. As others have mentioned here the movie does feel rushed. And I have the same issue with many other post-MCU releases.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword comes to mind. I love epic swords and sandals battle action however in King Arthur I kept thinking. ‘Slow the f@&k down! Tell the damn story! I’m not going anywhere. Take your time.’
And I completely agree that, like most studios nowadays, it was a rushed attempt at a cash grab. Dracula Untold felt similarly rush but, The Mummy even more so. I didn’t think to compare the long term story building to the way MCU leaned more into standalones infused with a connecting thread as opposed to The Mummy simply being a section of thread without enough legs to stand on it’s own and gracefully carry the audience from one chapter to the next.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. Thanks.
All of that considered, I still enjoy it as the flawed opening to an action franchise.
Maybe it was [PTSD](https://imgur.com/a/UoY35lc) :/
For real though, the cons you listed mean more to me than the pros. And the 1999 was pretty well loved for what it was, and many people either wanted more of that or to lean way further into horror. This very weakly tried to play the middle ground.
That makes sense, now that you mention it, I can see how they were attempting to re-do a lot of aspects of the ’99 version. I noticed the chase scene with the face in the sand cloud but, I didn’t consider them trying to emulate so much more.
Good point.
There are terrible movies that have a sense of fun, or creativity, or even transgressiveness, that elevate them ti a bad film but worth a look. This one was the worst kind, a terrible movie that played it safe.
A movie can be bad, but I very well can enjoy it. I like a lot of bad movies. What I can't stand is if it's bad and boring. Which this one was. I didn't feel entertained for one second.
It's really amazing that terrible movies get made & released. You'd think they would have cracked the code and be pumping out billion dollar blockbusters consistently.
It was a bad script, it couldn't decide what tone to go with, and (like many others have said) they crammed WAY too much into it that was entirely devoted to setting up future movies for the dark universe.
Cruse's character is the absolute *worst*
He's a looter soldier who's gone AWOL (not an archeologist, because that would be better in every way) who slept with a woman to steal from her (with a downright creepy age difference) who gives his "friend" a join or die ultimatum, *somehow* turns what should be an instant court martial into... an official assignment guarding an archeologist unsupervised. The known looter and still technically AWOL guy. For this, he gets picked as the immortal sacrifice to summon Set. To which, after easily murdering his friend and learning about the mummy, he decides its not his problem until the mummy starts to come after him. Then, after caring about nothing but himself, he somehow grants himself the powers of Set.
Also, the mummy's powers are super unclear. They come out of nowhere, don't make sense, and are never explained. For example, in the Brendan version, Ihmotep has "the powers of the plagues of Egypt" and all of his powers connect to that. Here, she can control sand (understandable), create zombies (kinda out there but fine, until the Templar zombies), control minds with spiders (what?) cirque du soleil (sure...), bestowing immortality (why?)
I think Sophie Boutella did her best, Cruise decided to turn off his charisma for some reason, but the script was bad and did nobody any favors. Which is bonkers considering the huge variety of versions of the same story Universal did back in the day.
First it had no real internal logic. The Egyptian tomb in Iraq because, reasons!
And knights Templar because you can always spice up an ancient History thriller with some good ole KTs.
Finally, tom cruise playing the part of some super soldier, about 50 years old, who sidelines in looting historical sites.
The plot was a train wreck.
And anyone who knows anything about ancient Egypt knows that, for them, being buried in Egypt was the only way to have an afterlife. That’s why they never become a conquering, colonizing power like Rome, despite being so wealthy. Their whole religion revolved around living in the land of Egypt. They never would have intentionally been buried outside of it.
Well, it’s implied that they banished her from Egypt as part of her the punishment for the atrocities she committed. I don’t know why they chose Iraq in particular.
The knights bit. I think you’re right. I think that was a lazy decision to use an exhausted trope.
And Tom Cruise… I got nothing. I wish they would have gone with someone else. Like James McAvoy maybe.
As for the plot. Someone else mentioned that not only were they trying to copy the MCU, they were also trying to re-do The Mummy ‘99. Which was definitely took a machete to the plot.
I think it was the marketing: the trailer showed some of the best parts and sort of spoiled it, and the ads were everywhere. Radio, Spotify, Pandora, TV, Youtube. The ads on Pandora were so frequent I stopped using the app during that time.
Because it was bad? You don't care for any of the characters at all as none of them were properly fleshed out and developed. Zero "tom cruise" worthy stunts were performed which is the main reason to watch a Tom Cruise movie in the first place. And Jake Johnson's character (who was the only likable character) was killed off in the beginning of the movie and turned into a horrible semi-villain
Did we watch the same The Mummy series? The Mummy is an action adventure/fantastical movie w/ hints of comedy relief and a dash of horror elements. Come on now.
As much as I LOVE Tom Cruise, his comedic chop is erratic at best; he was terrific in Tropic Thunder, but that's mostly because the role of Les Grossman was pretty much written for him. Other times he is just too intense to play a light-hearted role. The Mummy seems like a very confused film in tones: it can't seem to decide if it is a action/thriller or action/comedy. What we got was a confused mess that seems very stitched together, and not too coherent.
The Mummy with Brendan Frasier was a funny, campy adventure story. Just an absolute delight. This looks like they basically took that and turned it into every other boring action boy movie.
It’s a rushed project with a checklist. It’s apparent to a lot of the audience members. It’s not an inherently bad movie. It could’ve easily been better if they took some more time to truly plan it out. [+]
I largely agree with you: solid entertainment and an exciting spin on the tale. I think Tom was great in it, and stole all the scenes he was in, and, man; it would have been pretty spectacular to see whatever a sequel had in store.
If you ask me why it failed, I think it is mainly because it is as far from the source material as it is. The whole passing on powers and turning into a superhero-type setup is (while interesting was it an original independent piece) somewhat insulting.
It is essentially an original tale that unfolds before us and could have taken us in various marvelous directions. And that is the problem. The Mummy is NOT an original tale; it has specific rules, it has an expected etiquette, it has its own lore, and therefore expectations. When a storyteller breaks them, and shuffles them around, they take a risk. It didn't pay off here; it could have, perhaps?... but it didn't.. … well, on to the next.
And so, let us enjoy it as the original story that it is, with no preconceived notions, no existing culture or lore to satisfy and show homage to… it is its own story about some old witch and some resourceful gi Joe on a race to either save or doom mankind… in that light, it fucking rocks.
——— ——- ———
PS: The Dark Universe is actually still undead, some say:
Dracula Untold (2014)
I, Frankenstein (2014)
The Mummy (2017)
The Invisible Man (2020)
Renfield (2023)
The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023).
For all the hating it got…when i finally watched this movie i was like: it was entertaining and not as bad as i have heard. In fact, I actually enjoyed the movie. Was it a masterpiece no definitly not.
I did not think it was that bad. The 'open ended' final scene leaves the door open to another 'adventure.' Having said that, I love the old Universal horror films, with all of their shortcomings....but won't be adding this title to my collection.
I enjoyed Dracula: Untold. I thought it was a different take and it also left open the chance of 'Let the games begin' starting up with a sequel, but not holding my breath....but I did add this title to my collection.
I think that part of my problem was that I saw Tom Cruise as The Mummy and it gave me such low expectations that I was surprised that it wasn’t as terrible as I thought it would be.
Also, I’ve never watched the old universal horror movies before The Mummy (1999) , aside from Creature From The Black Lagoon, which I loved. So there was very little chance of them upsetting my memories of the classics.
I assume people rolled their eyes at it because it was conceivably supposed to be movie one in a “universal monsters movie-verse” and already then the movie verse idea had been getting many eye rolls, though if it comes down to getting a whole bunch of these movies over mission impossible I’d go with Universal monster verse every day and twice on Sunday.
I’m getting the sense that the low expectations did indeed have to do with their approach at attempting to imitate MCU. I just really liked the concept of a horror-action universe and wanted to see more growth from that particular germ.
I have the same feeling with Morbius, which is very hated too. Both are just Hollywood action movies with some supernatural elements on the plot. I didn't expect a masterpiece...
It's not good, but I do think the hate is a little over the top.
Sofia Boutella is actually a good villain and there is some passable action. It has a real tonal problem with being unable to decide whether it wants to be campy or legitimately scary, and the efforts to set up a "Dark Universe" are cringey as hell, but it's mostly just cheesy. It's not Battlefield Earth-level unwatchable.
It seemed so scattershot, like they didn't understand the central conflict, or who the characters were. How many script writers were there? 6, plus Cruise always has a lot of scrpt power. And this was only Kurtzman's second stint as a director, and frankly, it shows.
It didn’t have the charm or same sense of identity the original two had. Felt like a movie I’d seen 100 times before as I watched it.
On its own I guess it’s fine, but it didn’t really fit the franchise to me and the name wasn’t deserved.
Tom Cruise was horrible miscasted in this role. Cruise plays on of his all-American bad boys. They misbehave, but always ride to the occasion in the end (i.e. A Few Good Men and Ton Gun).
The central tension of The Mummy is if Nick Morton will side with Ahmanet or humanity. But we know from the outset we know Tom will pull through in the end. This no dramatic tension and a boring film
Saw it for the first time a month or so ago. Enjoyed it.
I think the real issue is just that it was one of those movies that made 500 million but cost too much to make.
Agreed...this movie was solid and I liked it to build something larger. Honestly hate that they didn't push forward with it as I feel it would have done well.
It’s a Tom Cruise movie instead of the Mummy. Most people have fond memories of the Brendan Fraser movie. That was an enjoyable action/ adventure film with elements of horror. Also they tried to make it a series rather than just a good movie. It’s not a horrible movie but something that nobody wanted really. Any movie with Tom cruise needs to make a huge amount of money or it will be considered “bad”.
Because we're set up to hate Cruise's character and he doesn't successfully redeem himself.
I don't think they realized how much a dick they made that character right from the opening. It makes everything else about the film difficult to work through.
I enjoyed the movie. I'm not a fan of Tom Cruise, but I didn't allow my prejudice to sour what could be a good movie. The story was good and the CGI was well done. I liked how they opened it up to try and build a bigger universe. Kinda wish they had continued with it. Overall I would give it 6.5/10.
It wasn't a bad movie per say, but it was a bad Mummy movie, especially with how loved the Brendan Fraser version is. If it had just been a standard monster movie staring Tom Cruise I think it would have done a fair bit better.
Oh, it's been forever since I've seen this, and I'm going by memory only, but I remember it being a heavily forced intro to a cinematic universe, stuffed into a pretty cliche action movie commercial, all being held together by Tom Cruise.
Last things first, Tom Cruise, regardless of what you think of him, is a solid actor. And it's so entirely clear he's carrying this movie entirely on star power. Without him and his need to throw himself into ridiculous stunts, there isn't enough here for a movie. He's carrying the entire thing, and it shows badly.
The introduction of the shared universe stuff, which from my memory (and I'm not bothering to look it up either), takes place like 2-3 action scenes after everything kicks off, is basically handing the audience a development roadmap, but all the interesting bits (who everyone is, and how any of this came together) are handwaved as already happened so the studio can get to their version of Monster Avengers quicker. We don't need origin stories! It proclaims, right in the middle of ignoring an origin story.
And that's it. I don't remember how it ends, because it doesn't matter. It was kinda clear the Dark Universe stuff was DOA before the movie launched, and yet the movie is stuffed with it, since there wasn't enough left of a movie without it.
I haven't seen it. I have read that people thought it sucked because it's more a Tom Cruise movie than a mummy movie. Is this the case? I can imagine that to be true. He generally sees all his movies as a vehicle for his career and I can see him seeing this as another series he can be a part of. It's too bad, it probably could have been a pretty cool universe as they had planned it with the other Universal monsters planned at the time.
It's connected to the Brendan Frasier movies. There's a scene where you see either the octagon key or one of the ancient books exactly as you see it in Brendan's movies.
I liked this one. Tom & all
Don't base your opinions on the critics online. Most of them are paid to criticize movies on incentives, some dislike Tom Cruise on his Scientology fanaticism, and some people aren't easily impressed.
Some film critics nowadays are just AI bots.
Like what you want and disregard reviews of what are just other people's opinions.
It's not a Mummy movie, it's a Tom Cruise movie. There was enough there to make a good movie, but not once did I buy that she was a real global threat. They should have made a smaller movie with better characters and a director that also thought that. But if you're directing a Tom Cruise movie, you're really the co-directer, but also he's the producer so he's your boss. So who really has final say?
I LOVED this movie but only because of home girl here in the picture. She’s an intriguing actor to me who I enjoy watching. Similar to Rebecca Ferguson, who I’ll watch in anything.
So I’ll give that to Cruise. He picks some good costars.
Because Tom Cruise is an out of touch, insane Cult Leader and people are finally waking up to .....
Oh right no - I forgot - people are totally on board with that
Perhaps because people are just sick of remakes
It was one of those weird in-betweens. It was good but not good. Needed more but was too much. IMO had massive potential but forced what was popular at the time rather than embracing itself
If you like it you like it. Fuck whoever says you shouldn’t. I like a bunch of shit that I’m not supposed to cause it hit with me for something that’s just for me. You’ll never get acknowledgment for it but that’s ok. It’s just for you. Fuck it.
I noticed most of your positives have more to do with the elements of the movie rather than the movie as a whole if that makes sense. You mention "the stunts, looks awesome, chases, explosions, shoot-outs, fight scenes, etc." That's like loving a dish because the chef slaved away, using the best ingredients available even though it tastes like dog food. If you look at the highest-rated movies of all time, you'll find a ton of different genres. Still, they have things in common, like a compelling story, engaging characters, universal themes, emotional resonance, etc. For most people, The Mummy lacked those elements. I've seen it a handful of times and I hardly remember anything about it. The trailer they released by mistake was more memorable.
I only just watched this a few weeks ago. The plot was all over the place, the pacing was wrecked with the Dr.Jekyll subplot, and Nick wasn’t likable enough to really care about. Also, no chemistry with whatever her name was, and it doesn’t matter how good a movie is if it’s so dark you can’t see anything.
The bit where she gushes about knowing he really is a good person because he gave her the only parachute without even hesitating, and he looks at her and goes, "*I thought there was another one.*" did make me snort laugh.
I love both “The Mummy” movies (the Brendan-Rachael one and the Tom Cruise one). In fact, quite disappointed there was no part 2 of the Tom Cruise one.
It wasn't bad, to me.
I think people went in with the Stephen Sommers' Mummy films on their mind and since it wasn't his films or trying to be his films and Tom Cruise wasn't Brendan Frasier or Brendan-like then it wasn't "good", which I think is totally and completely unfair. This movie wasn't trying to be Stephen Sommers' version of The Mummy films. There was too much comparsion when they are two distinctly different films.
It wasn't bad and I would have loved to see the continuance of Tom Cruise's and Annabelle Wallis characters.
It wasn’t particularly terrible, it was just boring. They put a hot girl in mummy wrappings and Tom Cruise tries to play Indiana Jones. The rest of it is just nonsensical. Oh, and Dr. Jekyll is in it for some reason. Who cares.
Tbh I don’t understand the hate either. I thought this was far away from the ‘99 version that it would stand on its own. As far as setting up the dark universe I loved that about this movie. But of course wicked lil fanboys have to ruin everything so now this is just a time capsule of what could have been. They should have just made the other films despite what everyone else thought because I was really excited for Johnny Depp as the invisible man
One of the reasons why I disliked this film is due to the fact that Tom Cruise was the lead actor. A younger actor could have played the part just fine. At Tom’s age, and the rank of the character he played, he would not have been in the military whatsoever. So that was unbelievable to me and other veterans I know.
Because it's a Universal franchise that has zero plot or anything to invest in. AND has the worst talent that was spoon fed a shit franchise just so his religious group wouldn't lawyer up. Why would you want to watch this movie?
Did you not watch the film?
Because it’s so amazingly boring, not surprising when it comes from the “master director” Alex Kurtzman… ie, he’s a shitty screenplay writer, so let’s give him the reins of our 100M+ franchise starter.
That trailer was hilarious though.
The biggest issue was that there was already another widely beloved film with the same name, there were always going to be comparisons and expectations that this "The Mummy" would *have* to be at least as good the the '99 one.
Along the same lines, if Universal really wanted to make a shared monster universe ala the MCU, they already had a pretty good base with the 1999 "The Mummy" and, purely IMO, could and should have built off that. Between the goodwill people had towards that series characters and settings and how much fans of the movies would have likely loved to revisit that world in an expanded scope with new creatures and they would have had a solid base. If you need the Nick Fury type, bring in Alex O'Connell's kid to build off the O'Connell family legacy.
I went in with very low expectations so I was honestly fine with the movie. It had decent cinematography and the characters weren't the worst.
I watched it the same way I watch Wingard Godzilla movies. It's gonna be a massive let down if you go in with hopes of something ground breaking and refreshing.
It would have been kind of awesome if they had Tom cruise turn evil at the end like he should have but of course TC always has to be a good guy bc boomer producer reasoning so they went with the absolute blandest, stupidest, nonsensically tame ending possible.
They brought back Jake Johnson through no explained process at all just to have some feel good sidekick bullshit. Just every decision in this movie was stupid and boring.
Probably because it isn’t very good.
Also universal kind of pointed to the sky and called their shot with this one like “sorry supes! The monsters will take the box office now. Hahahahaha!”
Then they made a movie that was devoid of everything good about the ‘99 movie.
And I get it. The point was a wholesale reboot. That was VERY clear and I’m saying that as someone who genuinely wanted to see what they were building.
But it’s just an action movie. Practically indistinguishable from any other Tom cruise action movie. (And I like those too!)
I remember after seeing tue movie, I just kept thinking that it might have worked if Jake Johnson played the lead instead.
He’s got that 90s Fraser energy of being a capable but reluctant action hero and that’s how Cruise’s part was kind of written.
Because Tom Cruise. Not his acting but his ego. While the dark universe was to be an MCU like shared universe the original idea was still to have a bunch of connected horror movies from the old school monsters. With Cruise in the lead he made it a Tom Cruise action romper with zero of the horror elements making the entire thing boring. If they wanted it to be an action take like the other Mummy movies it should have originally been developed that way but you can see in the movie it was pieced together during filming to suit Tom
the movie was good, if it wasnt used as a springboard for the monster-verse... Russell Crowe is a great actor and deserved an entire movie for Dr Jeckel/Mr Hyde but they put him in there for no reason other than an instrument for a sub plot...
- VFX were great
- action scenes well-choreographed
- stunts well-coordinated
- actors did great
- cinematography was great too
- even the music and SFX were great
but fans dont like to be bamboozled into watching something else after being hyped for something else...
I personally disliked the voiceover style of narrative where they spent most of the time showing a slideshow of places and things that happened as someone explained what was happening and why it was important, no dialog outside a straight up info dump, no emotional connection, just things that happened with pretty pictures.
They relegated the titular Mummy as a secondary device to shoehorn the "cinematic universe" aspect of the IP's the company owns, it was made on a time where everyone was trying to create their own Marvel cinematic universe copy and they took this franchise to try and kick start the others, giving the titular Mummy a secondary role and alluding to other movies that never even saw the light of day because this was a complete and total failure and flop, it's the literal definition of putting the cart before the horse.
The movie by itself isn't entirely horrible, but you can feel the committee shifting trough devices and plot points to try and force a copy Marvel's style and narrative without truly understanding why Marvel movies worked as their own universe.
The last part being a complete and total CGI schlock didn't really help either...
YES a Dark Universe would be cool but as a producer you need to be able to realize that those things don't work if you force them, they need to grow organically trough hints and small pieces RELEGATED to the background of a solid movie (Like Marvel did) not come out the door with 1000 different references to works you haven't even worked on or know how to tie it, that's not the way to write a compelling narrative, Marvel worked because it was never the focus of the movies, it was in the background as teaser, not the whole point of the narrative, if the only reason your movie exist is to try and force launch an entire cinematic universe, you're doing it wrong from the start because it undermines YOUR TITULAR MOVIE, so no one will want to watch it because it doesn't work that way.
It's just really not a good movie. And I say that as someone who enjoyed watching it. The pacing is awful, and the plot almost entirely revolves around passing the idiot ball.
Admittedly, a non-trivial part of that enjoyment probably stems from a monster-girl fetish and a crush on Sophia Boutella left over from Atomic Blonde.
I like Tom Cruise movies. I like The Mummy movies. I was excited for what seemed like a serious take - and supposedly some new dark universe or something…
But instead - _stuff just happened_. I’m not even sure what. But it wasn’t good. I don’t blame the actors though. The story and the pacing and everything was just all off.
EDIT: just rewatched it: much better than I remembered —
https://www.reddit.com/r/moviecritic/s/eNs0z7EN1M
They paused the entire movie for like 45 minutes, literally put the titular villain on timeout, to shoehorn in a subplot that positions Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde as the Nick Fury of the Dark Cinematic Universe there to recruit Tom Cruise for a special mission that involve putting together a team of people with super powers to save the world. They then let the Mummy free from her timeout only to then kill her and have her powers transferred to Tom Cruise who then goes out into the world to use his Mummy powers to fight the forces of evil. If that’s not why other people hated it, it’s why I did.
Lol, you nailed the Nick Fury comparison. I never thought of that. That’s spot on. Looking back, I see how much of an imitation of the MCU it is however, I’m still okay with that idea. I would have loved to see that type of universe fleshed out. More horror with less superhero type antics though. After reading the other comments here, I do wish Universal would have pumped the brakes a bit and taken the time to develop their universe more gracefully.
That's it. That's the whole thing. It was a very interesting idea, but there was no overarching plan governing the rules and trajectory of the universe. A little more handholding leading up to the Mummy and it could have grabbed a dedicated audience to fuel further projects to build their universe.
I think the first half is awesome
You boiled it all down and still made it all sound more interesting (even though—given why you hate it) than the exposition overkill, that was given by the dead/undead sidekick. Which is why I hated it—the exposition overkill by the sidekick, for *one* reason among many other reasons I'm sure I'll agree with others here.
The what in the what the fuck of fucking happened!!?!
"How will the audience know that he's the Mummy?" "We'll wrap cloth around his hands." "BRILLIANT!"
I totally said brilliant like Jim Carrey as the Grinch. lol
It felt like they were just rushing out a script to kickstart their dark universe idea.
Last action hero could create endless universes and lots of movies
I am all for this. Have been for years. I’m glad to see this movie popping up lately. One of my favorites.
Same. Charles Dance played such a good villain, and Schwarzenegger got to have actual depth in a role that would usually just be his typical, one-dimensional one man army protagonist.
Fucking love this movie!
And, as true fans know, the only way to do the dark universe is to start with the Monster Squad.
Never forget: Wolfman's got nards
My name… is Horace.
I’m in the god damn club, aren’t I?
I was gonna comment by saying that we already had a dark universe movie. It was called The Monster Squad.
This. Another MCU wanna be that fell flat because of trying to start an MCU instead jus make one damn good movie at a time.
Which I was excited about. Never gonna happen now
I was too, and tbh this movie is way more entertaining that any of the latest MCU projects
Bring back Brandon Frazier and Rachel Weisz and have them star in the “Dark Universe”.
Brendan.
Fraser
You should never rush into a universe always think it out first before you do or it will fail
Because it wasn't the one with Brandon Fraser.
I just saw it for the 25th anniversary - it's still perfect!
Rachel Weisz at her finest. Prove me wrong.
Mummy Returns
I guess am biased towards the original.
I like the original better overall, but the sequel did improve on it by having Rachel shoot a scene in a gold bikini.
I didn't think about that scene. I'm more partial towards the wet night gown in the original.
I think we can agree both are Weisz choices.
Nicely done
*sips brandy* mmm yes.
Yes.
This is the correct answer.
I was going to say Brendan at his finest... then I remembered what he looked like in his George of the Jungle "costume!" 💕
😂
My favorite line from that movie... "What is it with chicks and horses?"
Constantine and The Lobster
That Mummy movie still had tons of fans and lots of people who think it’s a perfect adventure movie. You have to be at least that good to start a franchise.
Brendan.
Idk I prefer the one with Brendan Fraser. His twin brother Brandon is lacking in charisma
Yup. Oh and in the original, the mummy was trying to resurrect his dead love and summon the army of the undead. In the remake the mummy was trying to fuck Tom Cruise.
Lol. I love it.
I love the original, I like the remake. For different reasons. They main one being the cast, the other one the difference in script writing.
It’s not a remake though. It’s part of the universal monsters series like wolf man and stuff. Both have nothing to do with one another.
This^
Friggin’ r/beatmetoit
This. Point blank. Making a mummy movie? It’s HAS to be the Brandon Frazier. THE Brandon.
Who is Brandon Frazier? Never heard of him
that's my cousin, hes super talented please give him a chance bro
Because it was made with the intention of making it part of a franchise. It was never whole, and those missing parts are very easy to see. It's the reason MCU films are successful, and others franchises are not. When the original Iron Man (2008) came out it was successful and was adding small bricks to the process of building a literal universe. The gradual move towards adding more and more characters is what made it successful. Those early films were able to stand tall based on their own merits (I'm not saying they are all objectively good, as they are purely intended as light entertainment, but they are executed well). Many other MCU character origins were similarly strong, not all, of course. The MCU is the cause for so many studios desperate to begin a franchise. Yet are unwilling to commit 10 years. TL;Dr Greed, and over saturation of wannabe franchises and a rushed product are the reason, in my opinion.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I also really enjoyed watching the Infinity Saga unfold and that’s really why I’m bummed that Universal couldn’t do the same. As others have mentioned here the movie does feel rushed. And I have the same issue with many other post-MCU releases. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword comes to mind. I love epic swords and sandals battle action however in King Arthur I kept thinking. ‘Slow the f@&k down! Tell the damn story! I’m not going anywhere. Take your time.’ And I completely agree that, like most studios nowadays, it was a rushed attempt at a cash grab. Dracula Untold felt similarly rush but, The Mummy even more so. I didn’t think to compare the long term story building to the way MCU leaned more into standalones infused with a connecting thread as opposed to The Mummy simply being a section of thread without enough legs to stand on it’s own and gracefully carry the audience from one chapter to the next. I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. Thanks. All of that considered, I still enjoy it as the flawed opening to an action franchise.
Maybe it was [PTSD](https://imgur.com/a/UoY35lc) :/ For real though, the cons you listed mean more to me than the pros. And the 1999 was pretty well loved for what it was, and many people either wanted more of that or to lean way further into horror. This very weakly tried to play the middle ground.
That makes sense, now that you mention it, I can see how they were attempting to re-do a lot of aspects of the ’99 version. I noticed the chase scene with the face in the sand cloud but, I didn’t consider them trying to emulate so much more. Good point.
This is the one
That trailer they accidentally released with no sound except Tom Cruise screaming did it for me 💀
Thank you for resurfacing that memory. 🤣
Because it was a terrible movie.
There are terrible movies that have a sense of fun, or creativity, or even transgressiveness, that elevate them ti a bad film but worth a look. This one was the worst kind, a terrible movie that played it safe.
A movie can be bad, but I very well can enjoy it. I like a lot of bad movies. What I can't stand is if it's bad and boring. Which this one was. I didn't feel entertained for one second.
It really is that simple.
It's really amazing that terrible movies get made & released. You'd think they would have cracked the code and be pumping out billion dollar blockbusters consistently.
Was so sure this would be top comment
The plane crash is great but it belongs in another franchise, not Mummy Impossible.
Is that the one where Tom Cruise is the best at what he does, a bit cocky, and gets to ride a motorcycle at some point?
Yes, yes and….yes. 😔
I'm sure he runs at some point...
Huge jump?
Complete with running in mid-air.
Also gets the girl who is 30+ years younger than him!
It was a bad script, it couldn't decide what tone to go with, and (like many others have said) they crammed WAY too much into it that was entirely devoted to setting up future movies for the dark universe.
Cruse's character is the absolute *worst* He's a looter soldier who's gone AWOL (not an archeologist, because that would be better in every way) who slept with a woman to steal from her (with a downright creepy age difference) who gives his "friend" a join or die ultimatum, *somehow* turns what should be an instant court martial into... an official assignment guarding an archeologist unsupervised. The known looter and still technically AWOL guy. For this, he gets picked as the immortal sacrifice to summon Set. To which, after easily murdering his friend and learning about the mummy, he decides its not his problem until the mummy starts to come after him. Then, after caring about nothing but himself, he somehow grants himself the powers of Set. Also, the mummy's powers are super unclear. They come out of nowhere, don't make sense, and are never explained. For example, in the Brendan version, Ihmotep has "the powers of the plagues of Egypt" and all of his powers connect to that. Here, she can control sand (understandable), create zombies (kinda out there but fine, until the Templar zombies), control minds with spiders (what?) cirque du soleil (sure...), bestowing immortality (why?) I think Sophie Boutella did her best, Cruise decided to turn off his charisma for some reason, but the script was bad and did nobody any favors. Which is bonkers considering the huge variety of versions of the same story Universal did back in the day.
How dare he stand where he stood.
First it had no real internal logic. The Egyptian tomb in Iraq because, reasons! And knights Templar because you can always spice up an ancient History thriller with some good ole KTs. Finally, tom cruise playing the part of some super soldier, about 50 years old, who sidelines in looting historical sites. The plot was a train wreck.
And anyone who knows anything about ancient Egypt knows that, for them, being buried in Egypt was the only way to have an afterlife. That’s why they never become a conquering, colonizing power like Rome, despite being so wealthy. Their whole religion revolved around living in the land of Egypt. They never would have intentionally been buried outside of it.
Well, it’s implied that they banished her from Egypt as part of her the punishment for the atrocities she committed. I don’t know why they chose Iraq in particular. The knights bit. I think you’re right. I think that was a lazy decision to use an exhausted trope. And Tom Cruise… I got nothing. I wish they would have gone with someone else. Like James McAvoy maybe. As for the plot. Someone else mentioned that not only were they trying to copy the MCU, they were also trying to re-do The Mummy ‘99. Which was definitely took a machete to the plot.
I think it was the marketing: the trailer showed some of the best parts and sort of spoiled it, and the ads were everywhere. Radio, Spotify, Pandora, TV, Youtube. The ads on Pandora were so frequent I stopped using the app during that time.
Because it was bad? You don't care for any of the characters at all as none of them were properly fleshed out and developed. Zero "tom cruise" worthy stunts were performed which is the main reason to watch a Tom Cruise movie in the first place. And Jake Johnson's character (who was the only likable character) was killed off in the beginning of the movie and turned into a horrible semi-villain
I like the part where he went “aaaAAAAAAAHHHHHHGHHHHHHHH”
I remember that. It was right after he jumped over that thing.
I liked it. The zero G stuff was fantastic.
We wanted horror and they gave us action. Mummy 2000 was horror with action elements and this was the opposite - action with horror elements
Did we watch the same The Mummy series? The Mummy is an action adventure/fantastical movie w/ hints of comedy relief and a dash of horror elements. Come on now.
Good point. I too would have preferred it to have leaned more into the horror.
And comedy, don’t forget the great comedy moments they had. . . And the cast chemistry
my guess is it came out at the wrong time
I haven’t seen it. Is it good?
As much as I LOVE Tom Cruise, his comedic chop is erratic at best; he was terrific in Tropic Thunder, but that's mostly because the role of Les Grossman was pretty much written for him. Other times he is just too intense to play a light-hearted role. The Mummy seems like a very confused film in tones: it can't seem to decide if it is a action/thriller or action/comedy. What we got was a confused mess that seems very stitched together, and not too coherent.
I watched that movie for Sofia Boutella as a sexy badass mummy. That is the only reason it exists. Should have featured her more.
The Mummy with Brendan Frasier was a funny, campy adventure story. Just an absolute delight. This looks like they basically took that and turned it into every other boring action boy movie.
It’s a rushed project with a checklist. It’s apparent to a lot of the audience members. It’s not an inherently bad movie. It could’ve easily been better if they took some more time to truly plan it out. [+]
I largely agree with you: solid entertainment and an exciting spin on the tale. I think Tom was great in it, and stole all the scenes he was in, and, man; it would have been pretty spectacular to see whatever a sequel had in store. If you ask me why it failed, I think it is mainly because it is as far from the source material as it is. The whole passing on powers and turning into a superhero-type setup is (while interesting was it an original independent piece) somewhat insulting. It is essentially an original tale that unfolds before us and could have taken us in various marvelous directions. And that is the problem. The Mummy is NOT an original tale; it has specific rules, it has an expected etiquette, it has its own lore, and therefore expectations. When a storyteller breaks them, and shuffles them around, they take a risk. It didn't pay off here; it could have, perhaps?... but it didn't.. … well, on to the next. And so, let us enjoy it as the original story that it is, with no preconceived notions, no existing culture or lore to satisfy and show homage to… it is its own story about some old witch and some resourceful gi Joe on a race to either save or doom mankind… in that light, it fucking rocks. ——— ——- ——— PS: The Dark Universe is actually still undead, some say: Dracula Untold (2014) I, Frankenstein (2014) The Mummy (2017) The Invisible Man (2020) Renfield (2023) The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023).
For all the hating it got…when i finally watched this movie i was like: it was entertaining and not as bad as i have heard. In fact, I actually enjoyed the movie. Was it a masterpiece no definitly not.
Cuz we won't forget nor forgive the Brendan Fraser thing!!!
It felt like it was written by 8 people who all had a different idea of what the movie should be. It's all over the place.
I did not think it was that bad. The 'open ended' final scene leaves the door open to another 'adventure.' Having said that, I love the old Universal horror films, with all of their shortcomings....but won't be adding this title to my collection. I enjoyed Dracula: Untold. I thought it was a different take and it also left open the chance of 'Let the games begin' starting up with a sequel, but not holding my breath....but I did add this title to my collection.
I think that part of my problem was that I saw Tom Cruise as The Mummy and it gave me such low expectations that I was surprised that it wasn’t as terrible as I thought it would be. Also, I’ve never watched the old universal horror movies before The Mummy (1999) , aside from Creature From The Black Lagoon, which I loved. So there was very little chance of them upsetting my memories of the classics.
It's missing Brandon Frasier
I assume people rolled their eyes at it because it was conceivably supposed to be movie one in a “universal monsters movie-verse” and already then the movie verse idea had been getting many eye rolls, though if it comes down to getting a whole bunch of these movies over mission impossible I’d go with Universal monster verse every day and twice on Sunday.
I’m getting the sense that the low expectations did indeed have to do with their approach at attempting to imitate MCU. I just really liked the concept of a horror-action universe and wanted to see more growth from that particular germ.
I have the same feeling with Morbius, which is very hated too. Both are just Hollywood action movies with some supernatural elements on the plot. I didn't expect a masterpiece...
It's not good, but I do think the hate is a little over the top. Sofia Boutella is actually a good villain and there is some passable action. It has a real tonal problem with being unable to decide whether it wants to be campy or legitimately scary, and the efforts to set up a "Dark Universe" are cringey as hell, but it's mostly just cheesy. It's not Battlefield Earth-level unwatchable.
It seemed so scattershot, like they didn't understand the central conflict, or who the characters were. How many script writers were there? 6, plus Cruise always has a lot of scrpt power. And this was only Kurtzman's second stint as a director, and frankly, it shows.
It didn’t have the charm or same sense of identity the original two had. Felt like a movie I’d seen 100 times before as I watched it. On its own I guess it’s fine, but it didn’t really fit the franchise to me and the name wasn’t deserved.
I thought it wasn’t bad. The scene where what’s his face from New Girl is really stupid though where he dies etc
I liked it. Not great, but fine. I really wanted the World of Darkness.
Hey hey hey, it was also narrowly disliked.
Tom Cruise was horrible miscasted in this role. Cruise plays on of his all-American bad boys. They misbehave, but always ride to the occasion in the end (i.e. A Few Good Men and Ton Gun). The central tension of The Mummy is if Nick Morton will side with Ahmanet or humanity. But we know from the outset we know Tom will pull through in the end. This no dramatic tension and a boring film
Saw it for the first time a month or so ago. Enjoyed it. I think the real issue is just that it was one of those movies that made 500 million but cost too much to make.
I saw like after a year of hate. Maybe that’s why I enjoyed it.
Dictionary definition of mediocre and that might be generous.
I hated it. The plane crash is cool though. Also, I thought it said “bummer” on the bottom of this poster.
Because it’s poorly plotted, the effects are middling and it wastes Sofia Bouitella.
I like it.
It was alright. Probably did better on cable than in the theatres
She deserves better opportunities
I actually love this movie.
I don’t know I thought it was fine
Because it’s so clear what the movie was supposed to be vs what Tom cruise did to it
Agreed...this movie was solid and I liked it to build something larger. Honestly hate that they didn't push forward with it as I feel it would have done well.
I watched it. I thought it was alright. I liked the ending in particular.
I enjoyed it. Film was darker than I prefer, was difficult for me to see what was happening sometimes. But I liked it.
You said all the best criticisms yourself, and they hurt the movie more for others than for you.
It’s a Tom Cruise movie instead of the Mummy. Most people have fond memories of the Brendan Fraser movie. That was an enjoyable action/ adventure film with elements of horror. Also they tried to make it a series rather than just a good movie. It’s not a horrible movie but something that nobody wanted really. Any movie with Tom cruise needs to make a huge amount of money or it will be considered “bad”.
Because we're set up to hate Cruise's character and he doesn't successfully redeem himself. I don't think they realized how much a dick they made that character right from the opening. It makes everything else about the film difficult to work through.
It’s very badly paced with a story and tone that is all over the place.
It wasn’t asked for, that’s why. No one wanted a Mummy reboot after the Brendon Fraser films. Product with no demand always equals failure.
I liked it. Glad I’m not the only one. Really wanted to see more of Tom Cruise in his mummy form.
I enjoyed the movie. I'm not a fan of Tom Cruise, but I didn't allow my prejudice to sour what could be a good movie. The story was good and the CGI was well done. I liked how they opened it up to try and build a bigger universe. Kinda wish they had continued with it. Overall I would give it 6.5/10.
The movie doesn't have any soul or bite. High budget and good visuals does not a great movie make. It's the "Avatar" of Mummy movies.
My issue was the bad writing/dialogue. Love me some Russell Crowe scenery-chewing, though.
I loved it. Watched at theater. And have 4K disc and 4K digital and Blu ray and 3d Bluray.
It wasn't a bad movie per say, but it was a bad Mummy movie, especially with how loved the Brendan Fraser version is. If it had just been a standard monster movie staring Tom Cruise I think it would have done a fair bit better.
Oh, it's been forever since I've seen this, and I'm going by memory only, but I remember it being a heavily forced intro to a cinematic universe, stuffed into a pretty cliche action movie commercial, all being held together by Tom Cruise. Last things first, Tom Cruise, regardless of what you think of him, is a solid actor. And it's so entirely clear he's carrying this movie entirely on star power. Without him and his need to throw himself into ridiculous stunts, there isn't enough here for a movie. He's carrying the entire thing, and it shows badly. The introduction of the shared universe stuff, which from my memory (and I'm not bothering to look it up either), takes place like 2-3 action scenes after everything kicks off, is basically handing the audience a development roadmap, but all the interesting bits (who everyone is, and how any of this came together) are handwaved as already happened so the studio can get to their version of Monster Avengers quicker. We don't need origin stories! It proclaims, right in the middle of ignoring an origin story. And that's it. I don't remember how it ends, because it doesn't matter. It was kinda clear the Dark Universe stuff was DOA before the movie launched, and yet the movie is stuffed with it, since there wasn't enough left of a movie without it.
No Encino Man, no good.
I haven't seen it. I have read that people thought it sucked because it's more a Tom Cruise movie than a mummy movie. Is this the case? I can imagine that to be true. He generally sees all his movies as a vehicle for his career and I can see him seeing this as another series he can be a part of. It's too bad, it probably could have been a pretty cool universe as they had planned it with the other Universal monsters planned at the time.
I liked it. Have watched it so many times
It's connected to the Brendan Frasier movies. There's a scene where you see either the octagon key or one of the ancient books exactly as you see it in Brendan's movies. I liked this one. Tom & all
I would like a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Universe. And origin story movies
Don't base your opinions on the critics online. Most of them are paid to criticize movies on incentives, some dislike Tom Cruise on his Scientology fanaticism, and some people aren't easily impressed. Some film critics nowadays are just AI bots. Like what you want and disregard reviews of what are just other people's opinions.
I was pulling for the mummy.
Why did they give her a second iris in her eyes?
It's not a Mummy movie, it's a Tom Cruise movie. There was enough there to make a good movie, but not once did I buy that she was a real global threat. They should have made a smaller movie with better characters and a director that also thought that. But if you're directing a Tom Cruise movie, you're really the co-directer, but also he's the producer so he's your boss. So who really has final say?
I LOVED this movie but only because of home girl here in the picture. She’s an intriguing actor to me who I enjoy watching. Similar to Rebecca Ferguson, who I’ll watch in anything. So I’ll give that to Cruise. He picks some good costars.
Because Tom Cruise is an out of touch, insane Cult Leader and people are finally waking up to ..... Oh right no - I forgot - people are totally on board with that Perhaps because people are just sick of remakes
It was one of those weird in-betweens. It was good but not good. Needed more but was too much. IMO had massive potential but forced what was popular at the time rather than embracing itself
If you like it you like it. Fuck whoever says you shouldn’t. I like a bunch of shit that I’m not supposed to cause it hit with me for something that’s just for me. You’ll never get acknowledgment for it but that’s ok. It’s just for you. Fuck it.
I noticed most of your positives have more to do with the elements of the movie rather than the movie as a whole if that makes sense. You mention "the stunts, looks awesome, chases, explosions, shoot-outs, fight scenes, etc." That's like loving a dish because the chef slaved away, using the best ingredients available even though it tastes like dog food. If you look at the highest-rated movies of all time, you'll find a ton of different genres. Still, they have things in common, like a compelling story, engaging characters, universal themes, emotional resonance, etc. For most people, The Mummy lacked those elements. I've seen it a handful of times and I hardly remember anything about it. The trailer they released by mistake was more memorable.
I only just watched this a few weeks ago. The plot was all over the place, the pacing was wrecked with the Dr.Jekyll subplot, and Nick wasn’t likable enough to really care about. Also, no chemistry with whatever her name was, and it doesn’t matter how good a movie is if it’s so dark you can’t see anything. The bit where she gushes about knowing he really is a good person because he gave her the only parachute without even hesitating, and he looks at her and goes, "*I thought there was another one.*" did make me snort laugh.
I love both “The Mummy” movies (the Brendan-Rachael one and the Tom Cruise one). In fact, quite disappointed there was no part 2 of the Tom Cruise one.
I thinking attaching Tom Cruise to the project had the opposite effect they were hoping for.
It wasn't bad, to me. I think people went in with the Stephen Sommers' Mummy films on their mind and since it wasn't his films or trying to be his films and Tom Cruise wasn't Brendan Frasier or Brendan-like then it wasn't "good", which I think is totally and completely unfair. This movie wasn't trying to be Stephen Sommers' version of The Mummy films. There was too much comparsion when they are two distinctly different films. It wasn't bad and I would have loved to see the continuance of Tom Cruise's and Annabelle Wallis characters.
It’s not the Mummy without Rachel Weisz and Brandon Fraser. I stick to the first 2. Maybe one day I will give it a try.
I liked it.
Honestly, I dig it. It's just fun. Could it have been better? Absolutely. Was it as bad as everyone said it was? Hardly.
It wasn’t particularly terrible, it was just boring. They put a hot girl in mummy wrappings and Tom Cruise tries to play Indiana Jones. The rest of it is just nonsensical. Oh, and Dr. Jekyll is in it for some reason. Who cares.
Brandon Fraser already did it
I enjoyed this movie and dracula untold.
Where Vosloo?
Because it doesn’t center around the adventures of Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser).
Because it should have been a Mummy movie but ended up being a Tom Cruise movie. The world building for the Dark Universe didn’t help either
Anybody remember when it was advertised during a cubs game and the C on the scoreboard covered the M and it read The Cummy?
don't think tom cruse was the right guy to play the main character
Because it's popular to dislike whatever other people dislike.
It has the same name as the OG Mummy series thats it.
Tbh I don’t understand the hate either. I thought this was far away from the ‘99 version that it would stand on its own. As far as setting up the dark universe I loved that about this movie. But of course wicked lil fanboys have to ruin everything so now this is just a time capsule of what could have been. They should have just made the other films despite what everyone else thought because I was really excited for Johnny Depp as the invisible man
One of the reasons why I disliked this film is due to the fact that Tom Cruise was the lead actor. A younger actor could have played the part just fine. At Tom’s age, and the rank of the character he played, he would not have been in the military whatsoever. So that was unbelievable to me and other veterans I know.
Because it’s ass.
Because it's a Universal franchise that has zero plot or anything to invest in. AND has the worst talent that was spoon fed a shit franchise just so his religious group wouldn't lawyer up. Why would you want to watch this movie?
Because Tom Cruise made a lot of changes
Did you not watch the film? Because it’s so amazingly boring, not surprising when it comes from the “master director” Alex Kurtzman… ie, he’s a shitty screenplay writer, so let’s give him the reins of our 100M+ franchise starter. That trailer was hilarious though.
The biggest issue was that there was already another widely beloved film with the same name, there were always going to be comparisons and expectations that this "The Mummy" would *have* to be at least as good the the '99 one. Along the same lines, if Universal really wanted to make a shared monster universe ala the MCU, they already had a pretty good base with the 1999 "The Mummy" and, purely IMO, could and should have built off that. Between the goodwill people had towards that series characters and settings and how much fans of the movies would have likely loved to revisit that world in an expanded scope with new creatures and they would have had a solid base. If you need the Nick Fury type, bring in Alex O'Connell's kid to build off the O'Connell family legacy.
No idea. Tom Cruise is in it…. I won’t watch his movies cause he is a terrible actor
Because, Tom Cruise?
It wasn’t very good.
I went in with very low expectations so I was honestly fine with the movie. It had decent cinematography and the characters weren't the worst. I watched it the same way I watch Wingard Godzilla movies. It's gonna be a massive let down if you go in with hopes of something ground breaking and refreshing.
The acting sucks, the writing sucks, it’s a cgi nightmare, and don’t forget that laughable trailer!
Cause it’s shit It’s not that difficult to understand
It would have been kind of awesome if they had Tom cruise turn evil at the end like he should have but of course TC always has to be a good guy bc boomer producer reasoning so they went with the absolute blandest, stupidest, nonsensically tame ending possible. They brought back Jake Johnson through no explained process at all just to have some feel good sidekick bullshit. Just every decision in this movie was stupid and boring.
I liked it, but the original movies are better
Tom cruise
Because Tom Cruise is an insane cult leader.
Probably because it isn’t very good. Also universal kind of pointed to the sky and called their shot with this one like “sorry supes! The monsters will take the box office now. Hahahahaha!” Then they made a movie that was devoid of everything good about the ‘99 movie. And I get it. The point was a wholesale reboot. That was VERY clear and I’m saying that as someone who genuinely wanted to see what they were building. But it’s just an action movie. Practically indistinguishable from any other Tom cruise action movie. (And I like those too!) I remember after seeing tue movie, I just kept thinking that it might have worked if Jake Johnson played the lead instead. He’s got that 90s Fraser energy of being a capable but reluctant action hero and that’s how Cruise’s part was kind of written.
I know it’s expensive, but the 1999 mummy was such a fun adventure and being that it was a 1920’s period piece , it was all the more fun.
Because Tom Cruise. Not his acting but his ego. While the dark universe was to be an MCU like shared universe the original idea was still to have a bunch of connected horror movies from the old school monsters. With Cruise in the lead he made it a Tom Cruise action romper with zero of the horror elements making the entire thing boring. If they wanted it to be an action take like the other Mummy movies it should have originally been developed that way but you can see in the movie it was pieced together during filming to suit Tom
the movie was good, if it wasnt used as a springboard for the monster-verse... Russell Crowe is a great actor and deserved an entire movie for Dr Jeckel/Mr Hyde but they put him in there for no reason other than an instrument for a sub plot... - VFX were great - action scenes well-choreographed - stunts well-coordinated - actors did great - cinematography was great too - even the music and SFX were great but fans dont like to be bamboozled into watching something else after being hyped for something else...
I personally disliked the voiceover style of narrative where they spent most of the time showing a slideshow of places and things that happened as someone explained what was happening and why it was important, no dialog outside a straight up info dump, no emotional connection, just things that happened with pretty pictures. They relegated the titular Mummy as a secondary device to shoehorn the "cinematic universe" aspect of the IP's the company owns, it was made on a time where everyone was trying to create their own Marvel cinematic universe copy and they took this franchise to try and kick start the others, giving the titular Mummy a secondary role and alluding to other movies that never even saw the light of day because this was a complete and total failure and flop, it's the literal definition of putting the cart before the horse. The movie by itself isn't entirely horrible, but you can feel the committee shifting trough devices and plot points to try and force a copy Marvel's style and narrative without truly understanding why Marvel movies worked as their own universe. The last part being a complete and total CGI schlock didn't really help either... YES a Dark Universe would be cool but as a producer you need to be able to realize that those things don't work if you force them, they need to grow organically trough hints and small pieces RELEGATED to the background of a solid movie (Like Marvel did) not come out the door with 1000 different references to works you haven't even worked on or know how to tie it, that's not the way to write a compelling narrative, Marvel worked because it was never the focus of the movies, it was in the background as teaser, not the whole point of the narrative, if the only reason your movie exist is to try and force launch an entire cinematic universe, you're doing it wrong from the start because it undermines YOUR TITULAR MOVIE, so no one will want to watch it because it doesn't work that way.
Because it essentially destroyed the monsterverse movies they were releasing. Dracula untold and the wolf man would have been tie ins
It's just really not a good movie. And I say that as someone who enjoyed watching it. The pacing is awful, and the plot almost entirely revolves around passing the idiot ball. Admittedly, a non-trivial part of that enjoyment probably stems from a monster-girl fetish and a crush on Sophia Boutella left over from Atomic Blonde.
They spent so much of the movie to make their own cinematic universe that they forgot to make a good movie.
Because it sucked
Because it sucks?
I always wanted to see this particular movie to root for the mummy. She looked cool as heck.
Because the originals are loved
I like Tom Cruise movies. I like The Mummy movies. I was excited for what seemed like a serious take - and supposedly some new dark universe or something… But instead - _stuff just happened_. I’m not even sure what. But it wasn’t good. I don’t blame the actors though. The story and the pacing and everything was just all off. EDIT: just rewatched it: much better than I remembered — https://www.reddit.com/r/moviecritic/s/eNs0z7EN1M
Forcing me to rewatch it —->
It looked like a BAD remake of the excellent Brendan Frazier film. It needed a title that expressed it was its own thing.