Absolutely enjoyed the hell out of it. The beginning to midway portions had a good amount of history plot that was well done. Things taper down a tad when Russell Crowe's organisation enters the fray but overall it is very good. Sofia is stunning and does a great job of portraying one very pee'd off evil princess. 8/10.
The Mummy
- Thread starter the shadow
- Start date
Surprised with the positive reviews so far - I thought this was pretty rubbish. The worst Cruise film I've seen 
Really... not great. Not enough action for an action film. Not enough adventuring for an adventure film. Not enough horror for a horror film. Not funny enough to be a comedy. Eh.
Rating - 4.5/10
My company's rating - 5/10
The basic premise was spelled out in about 2 minutes and the rest of the film, bar the discovery of the mummy, required no 'detective work' or discovery from anyone. Way too much 'foreshadowing' with what would happen. It was absolutely 'on rails'. So disappointing that there was no hunt for the knife nor for the mummy nor for the ruby (location revealed at the start of the film). Only when Russell Crowe decided to reveal his identity did I think 'ooooo' but that 'arc' ended in a silly way.
That would have been ok if the lead characters were interesting but they just weren't. Tom Cruise wasn't funny not particularly charismatic. The interaction with his buddy was fairly mute, not particularly amusing at any time, and it went very American Werewolf in London too. The female lead was awful, even less interesting and had zero character. I was not invested in the outcome at all.
Some Easter eggs in there to them remaking the wolfman.... and possibly the creature from the black lagoon? Also I spotted that book during the Russell Crowe fight was from the Brendan Fraser film
That would have been ok if the lead characters were interesting but they just weren't. Tom Cruise wasn't funny not particularly charismatic. The interaction with his buddy was fairly mute, not particularly amusing at any time, and it went very American Werewolf in London too. The female lead was awful, even less interesting and had zero character. I was not invested in the outcome at all.
Some Easter eggs in there to them remaking the wolfman.... and possibly the creature from the black lagoon? Also I spotted that book during the Russell Crowe fight was from the Brendan Fraser film
Really... not great. Not enough action for an action film. Not enough adventuring for an adventure film. Not enough horror for a horror film. Not funny enough to be a comedy. Eh.
Rating - 4.5/10
My company's rating - 5/10
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,310
- Location
- ..
Just taken my kids to see this, paid for tickets and sat down for the movie, the manager then came in and said we couldn't watch it as it was a 15 rating, so 0/10 from me 
No way - felt much longer!
Must admit I am quite surprised (mind you, the difference in the scores in that photo above is pretty wild, 17% on one, 6/10 (60%) on the other) , I actually enjoyed The Mummy, I found it to be a decent popcorn movie, thought Sofia Boutella was brilliant and I felt it set up the series of films well enough. Mind you, I also like all the original Dracula, Wolfman, Mummy, Black Lagoon, Nemo etc movies too (the black and white ones). I think I gave it 7/10. An enjoyable fantasy romp imo. Despite it being slaughtered in most comparison ratings with Wonder Woman I actually found it to be on a par with Wonder Woman for me. I got about the same enjoyment out of each film. I think I gave Wonder Woman a similar score too. Maybe its a marmite film.
My thoughts too, the film imo was progressing nicely until they shoe horned Russell Crowe and the organisation/Dark Universe which detracted the focus of the plot. The ending was a tad lazy but still enjoyed it nevertheless. Surprised quite a lot of people in here didnt like Sofia. She had a bigger appeal for me rather than Cruise.
Watch it this morning and I'm glad I didn't have to pay, it's like the film couldn't decide what it wanted to be so stuck every genre possible in there and hoped it worked, one minute it's horror then action then it's a comedy regarding how long Tom Cruise can last and rinse repeat.
If they'd just attempted to make a good Mummy film instead of setup for the Dark Universe it could have been better.
If they'd just attempted to make a good Mummy film instead of setup for the Dark Universe it could have been better.
The UK cut (can't speak for any other versions) is 1hr50 including credits. It's definitely not 90mins!
Only just got to see this - just how much sugar was the 5 year old who wrote the script on? some of the most utter tripe I've seen and I've seen some bad movies in my time. Especially after the first movie this is quite disappointing. Nothing like the potential I thought it might have from the trailer.
For me this was it's biggest failing. The dialog is extremely immature, no body talks naturally and has some of the weirdest reactions. There was also zero chemistry between any of the cast and there was just no connection with the audience. Everyone just seemed to be phoning in their performances
But it looked nice and was well made with loads of polish. So maybe they tried to save it in the editing suite and post-production, but there's only so much you can do with the material handed to you and couldn't be saved without having to re-film huge parts of the movie again.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 139
So essentially its nowhere near as good as the original?
It's not a remake of the Brendan Fraiser films. It's a movie based around the mummy concept/legend. There's been lots of mummy films going back to the early 1900's.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 139
Ahhh
Ahh i see. Guess i cant really judge it till i see it in that case.