Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by Workshed, Dec 5, 2016.
But was it scary?
Seems like this will lose money according to an article I read.
The International market like with many big movies is what will prevent it from being a major failure.
Ah, not really but it had more scares than the Brandon Fraiser The Mummy (1999)
I liked this movie more than I expected after hearing the lukewarm responses to the film. There was mix of CGI and practical effects, leaning more on the CGI side of fence. Tom Cruise did a fine job as the lead, I guarantee if this was 1999(and the Brandon movie never existed)this film would have been huge for him. I know ticket prices are more expensive now, but this movie did almost the same "worldwide" as the 1999 film.
As anyone who saw the 1999 version, there was the whole Indiana Jones vibe, heavy on humor from a lot of characters. In the 2017 version the humor is kept to a minimum, but it is there and it worked. As far as the action, Tom Cruise was in his element, now I'm fully aware some scenes had to be CGI, but this guy was doing a lot of standard stunts. Running, fighting, climbing, jumping, underwater ... you name it Tom did it. Props to him for really physically getting into the role.
As far as the horror/scares, I would say there was about three times I honestly jumped. Regardless if they were cheap or not, they did jolt me and I'm not a afraid to admit it. Thought the mummy/zombie creatures were quite effective imho. They looked really good , part of them were CGI and some parts were practical effects. It was a nice blend.
Russell Crowe's character was a big surprise to me, which I won't give away. And there's "An American Werewolf in London" element in the Mummy 2017. See the movie to appreciate(or hate) this little reference. Now only AFTER I saw the movie did I hear about this "Dark Universe" stuff. Will it go through with it's plans or not remain to be seen, but I'm all in now. Just can't imagine Tom Cruise continuing but we'll see.
Yeah, it wasn't as bad as rumored.
It was entertaining enough.
There was some cool shots in there, like the one where the zombies rise from their graves, in London.
Looked like something out of an old Hammer movie.
I wish they had stuck with that gothic look, throughout the movie.
When all hell broke loose in London, it did remind me a bit of the climax in Lifeforce
I found this one very forgettable. It honestly made me appreciate the 1999 version after seeing it. There's a couple of good bits in it that show potential but it's tone is all over the place. The comedy aspect felt forced and totally wasn't needed. It's like they were trying too hard to copy Marvel and forgot their universe should be based on horror and aimed to adults. It also didn't feel like a complete movie with it left way too open and the ending feeling rushed.
I honestly hope they bin this universe and go back to the drawing board.
The Dark Universe might be over before it even really started.
Too bad. I didn't mind The Mummy. I was cool with the humour and thought it was fine.
I feel like this was mentioned already but not in this thread by the looks of it. Good riddence I say. These types of moves don't work too well as action/horror/comedy hybrids. Give me a proper horror of the Mummy and I'll be there in theatres.
If Universal really wants to take inspiration from comic books for a shared universe concept, they should look into the Marvels miniseries. I think a "monster of the week" series of films, built around a Phil Sheldon-esque protagonist, might work better than whatever they were going for with the Dark Universe.
The writing was on the wall when they postponed Bride of Frankenstein indefinitely.
This pretty much boils down to one fundamental problem they have, and that is that the ones with super powers were the bad guys. And they're trying to flip that script but nobody's buying it (literally).
The thing is the executives are right the Universal Horrors were the first major movie mash ups, but they did it not by following the Marvel model but instead more like the Godzilla model where you throw a bunch of monsters together and one's the least worst so you kinda root for them. And that would be the Wolf Man.
These past few years have shown Horror can be a hit. And they can do it with sensible budgets and not really big stars.
But I don't know... Universal has struggled for so long with these classic horrors revamped as action movies I think the general public has soured so much it's impossible to turn these around in the general public's minds. Anyone who sees these franchise's name on the marquee are just going to keep on walking.
Meanwhile the original films retain high value, especially compared to their contemporaries. All the Mummy stuff I saw on the shelves this Halloween carried Karloff's face not Cruise's (or what's her name if you want to get technical). It's an amazing thing to consider these films still are bankable 75 years later. But if Universal keeps this up they may even lose that!
I'm not at all sorry to hear this news. A Bride of Frankenstein film starring Angelina Jolie as The Bride sounds like one of the worst ideas ever.
This also makes the recent The Mummy film even worse in retrospect. So much of that movie was spent on world-building (at the direct expense of the supposed plot of the film), the fact that that world will never actually come to fruition makes it that much more of a waste of time.
I don't know I think they work pretty good when done right. (I assume you are only talking about Universal Horror movies , not working well) The Branden Fraser Mummy movies were pretty popular. They hit on everything you stated, action/horror/comedy. All 4 films combined made around $1.4 billion worldwide.
I thought Penny Dreadful did a really good job with some of those characters. I still haven't seen the new Mummy and I'm really not looking forward to it.
I wish I could make a Mummy and Creature from the Black Lagoon movie though. I have a few good ideas. Usually that's enough for me to get rolling with an outline and story. But I don't think they would sell well with the need for overly action oriented movies.
As a kid I enjoyed the first 2 Branden Fraser Mummy movies but I don't think they're that great now. Admittedly I don't remember a lot about them but this new one makes them seem far more appealing.
Back when those Branden Fraser Mummy movies came out I never associated them with the original Mummy though. It never even crossed my mind till much later that it was a remake. It's just so different. They feel more like Indiana Jones. I feel like this new one shouldn't have tried to replicate that. It just didn't mesh well for the new film. They were better off going the route of Van Helsing if they wanted to world build. That was action packed but still more horror based.