The Mummy (2017)

Call Me Jimmy

copeyhagen wrote: »

one word, scientology. no chance of getting an Oscar, or Oscar role with that joke of a fairytale controlling him.

yes good point, the best thing he can do for the world is make scientology the most money as possible so I wouldnt expect him to shift gears or go indie any time soon

The Davestator

copeyhagen wrote: »

one word, scientology. no chance of getting an Oscar, or Oscar role with that joke of a fairytale controlling him.

Yep, because God or Allah is a much more believable fairy tale!

Ben Gadot

copeyhagen wrote: »

one word, scientology. no chance of getting an Oscar, or Oscar role with that joke of a fairytale controlling him.

It's sad if scientology is having a negative impact on the roles available to him regardless of how ridiculous it may be.

When Hollywood is so willing to forgive rapists, paedophiles and general thugs, the impact Cruise's beliefs have had on his career becomes a bit of a farce. It says more about those who control Hollywood than Cruise.

Oafley Jones

Ben Gadot wrote: »

It's sad if scientology is having a negative impact on the roles available to him regardless of how ridiculous it may be.

When Hollywood is so willing to forgive rapists, paedophiles and general thugs, the impact Cruise's beliefs have had on his career becomes a bit of a farce. It says more about those who control Hollywood than Cruise.

I really don't think being a scientologist is getting in the way of his choice of roles.

conorhal

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I really don't think being a scientologist is getting in the way of his choice of roles.

Not at all, Cruise is very 'brand conscious', For a while it seemed that that he felt should go for a bit of Oscar bait to polish his brand. He swung a few times, but missed, and then went right back to churning out Cruise branded product. He seems most at home in franchises centered on him that portray him with a sense of confidence, competence and assurance that his brand likes to portray him as oozing in spades.

Ben Gadot

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I really don't think being a scientologist is getting in the way of his choice of roles.

I think Cruise would be working a lot more than he is if it wasn't for scientology. Of Cruise's major ventures in recent memory, Jack Reacher and the MI films wouldn't have been made without him being producer/buying the rights.

Edge of Tomorrow is one of the most well received sci fis in recent years but the marketing of the film was non existent. So you likely have a scenario where a studio saw the film as low risk and director wanted Cruise specifically.

Universal seem to be trying to recreate the whole "classic actor for classic monster" kind of thing by hiring Crowe, Depp and Cruise so were willing to take a seismic risk here. It could still work in terms of overseas returns yet overseas returns didn't save the last Terminator film and its continuity.

Oafley Jones

Ben Gadot wrote: »

I think Cruise would be working a lot more than he is if it wasn't for scientology. Of Cruise's major ventures in recent memory, Jack Reacher and the MI films wouldn't have been made without him being producer/buying the rights.

Edge of Tomorrow is one of the most well received sci fis in recent years but the marketing of the film was non existent. So you likely have a scenario where a studio saw the film as low risk and director wanted Cruise specifically.

Universal seem to be trying to recreate the whole "classic actor for classic monster" kind of thing by hiring Crowe, Depp and Cruise so were willing to take a seismic risk here. It could still work in terms of overseas returns yet overseas returns didn't save the last Terminator film and its continuity.

Seriously, being a scientologist in Hollywood isn't a disadvantage. I don't think you realise the reach of the church.

Ben Gadot

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Seriously, being a scientologist in Hollywood isn't a disadvantage. I don't think you realise the reach of the church.

Maybe so, perhaps it's more the public's reaction to scientology that is hindering guys like Smith and Cruise.

Agent Coulson

I think Cruise does a lot of these films these days just to fulfill is adrenaline junkie addiction from doing the crazy over the top stunts himself.


Cruise's next film American Made might be the one for the awards it reunites him with his Edge of Tomorrow director Doug Liman.

American made trailer.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057749202

AMKC

Hande hoche! wrote: »

It's an interesting one to look at its box office. In the US, both Baywatch and the latest Pirates film under performed. Which was much to the benefit of Wonder woman. Unsure as to how it will fare, all in all.

That Baywatch film is the biggest load of trash ever created. Pirates Salazars Revenge do is a very good movie that deserves to do well.
This The Mummy also looks terrible and from the reviews I have seen I will not be bothering to go see it in the cinema. They were all either 1 or 2 stars thats just terrible. So will this be Tom Cruises first ever flop or has he been in a film that was a big flop before?

Ben Gadot

It was poor. Sofia Boutella is the only good thing about the film. Such a talented actress. Hopefully this doesn't hurt her too much.

Mitch Connor

The comedy elements of this movie let it down big style. Jake Johnson's character just not right for this movie - or what he is tasked to do in this movie just shouldn't be in there.

Every emotional or possibly character building moment in this movie is punctured by needless comedy.

I found it mostly mindlessly entertaining - type of movie I would leave on in the background while playing a computer game or something. My mate, who is a MASSIVE Universal Monsters fan - has all the original movies on DVD, watches them, studies them, knows them inside out - absolutely hated this, thought it was one of the worst movies he has ever seen.

Spoiler questions:

Isn't Set (who the mummy is trying to bring to life in Nick) mentioned to be the Eygptian version of Satan - so is Tom Cruise's character not now, basically, Satan? Or at least a being powerful, and evil enough to be able to provide the mummy character all the powers she had. Seems like he really should have just become the Dark Universe big bad at the end of this.

The change of story to the princess simply trying to bring evil into the world so she can rule it was a poor change. preferred the resurection of their love plot from previous movies.

His split personality between good/evil (at the end) is a mirror of Dr Jekl and Mr Hyde - so it seems and odd thing to have brought into the movie.

Why the feck for Dr Jekl wait til 20 seconds before turning to take the serum? Even more annoying - why wait til then to PUT THE CONTRATION TOGETHER?

Why does Cruise stab himself rather than letting the princess do it? He only regains some control after seeing Jenny - if he hadn't he simply would have been Set? He also had little faith in himself so why did he think he could regain control? Why does he allow the ultimate evil into the world? HOW DOES HE CONSIDER THIS CAN'T BE THOUGHT OF AS A MISTAKE?

This should have been renamed "The Mammy" for irish audiences

Sad Professor

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

yes good point, the best thing he can do for the world is make scientology the most money as possible so I wouldnt expect him to shift gears or go indie any time soon

That he would have to go indie really sums up modern Hollywood and the dilemma faced by movie stars, who when they aren't making 200 million dollar action blockbusters have no where else to turn but 10 million dollar indie movies or tv. Cruise is too big a star for either. I suppose he could take a page out of Pitt's book and do some supporting roles or swallow his pride and do a lousy Netflix movie, but I kinda admire his stubborn commitment to making big movies, though I'm not sure how much longer he will last. Things must be bad when he has to take a gamble on a first time director. Someone needs to hook him up with Nolan.

CiDeRmAn

I saw this yesterday and I've already forgotten most of it.
Pretty substandard stuff, not a patch on the Brendan Fraser picture all those years ago.

smurf492

Saw this today... On the fence about it. Some very dodgy comedy pops up which feels quite forced but also did not think it was as bad as the reviews would have you think. Probably the fact that it is a potential franchise starter is why it is getting overly panned... Thought there were some nice nods to different characters in the monster universe. I like Cruise but he overpowered the film so much so that it could have been called "TOM CRUISE feat the Mummy"... So I enjoyed it as a popcorn flik and a decent enough time waster

Faith+1

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I saw this yesterday and I've already forgotten most of it.
Pretty substandard stuff, not a patch on the Brendan Fraser picture all those years ago.

Just seen it myself tonight and completely agree. The Fraiser original is a masterpiece compared to this sh*te....I generally enjoy most movies Cruise is in but I felt he was totally miscast in this.

Ben Gadot

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The comedy elements of this movie let it down big style. Jake Johnson's character just not right for this movie - or what he is tasked to do in this movie just shouldn't be in there.

Every emotional or possibly character building moment in this movie is punctured by needless comedy.

I found it mostly mindlessly entertaining - type of movie I would leave on in the background while playing a computer game or something. My mate, who is a MASSIVE Universal Monsters fan - has all the original movies on DVD, watches them, studies them, knows them inside out - absolutely hated this, thought it was one of the worst movies he has ever seen.

Spoiler questions:

Isn't Set (who the mummy is trying to bring to life in Nick) mentioned to be the Eygptian version of Satan - so is Tom Cruise's character not now, basically, Satan? Or at least a being powerful, and evil enough to be able to provide the mummy character all the powers she had. Seems like he really should have just become the Dark Universe big bad at the end of this.

The change of story to the princess simply trying to bring evil into the world so she can rule it was a poor change. preferred the resurection of their love plot from previous movies.

His split personality between good/evil (at the end) is a mirror of Dr Jekl and Mr Hyde - so it seems and odd thing to have brought into the movie.

Why the feck for Dr Jekl wait til 20 seconds before turning to take the serum? Even more annoying - why wait til then to PUT THE CONTRATION TOGETHER?

Why does Cruise stab himself rather than letting the princess do it? He only regains some control after seeing Jenny - if he hadn't he simply would have been Set? He also had little faith in himself so why did he think he could regain control? Why does he allow the ultimate evil into the world? HOW DOES HE CONSIDER THIS CAN'T BE THOUGHT OF AS A MISTAKE?

They explain it poorly but the impression I got is that Set would only embody Nick if Ahmanet completed the ritual. Nick stabbing himself prevented Set from doing so, and only has the level of power as Ahmanet now.

But again that's me filling in blanks that I shouldn't have to.

Mitch Connor

Ben Gadot wrote: »

They explain it poorly but the impression I got is that Set would only embody Nick if Ahmanet completed the ritual. Nick stabbing himself prevented Set from doing so, and only has the level of power as Ahmanet now.

But again that's me filling in blanks that I shouldn't have to.

I don't think that is right - because

Dr Jekl says his plan is to stab Nick with the knife himself, to complete the ritual and then destroy Nick/Set immediately, thus ridding the world of... Evil? last bit I am unsure of - might just be they need to complete the ritual and then destory him rather than just kill nick - cause the ritual would just move to the next 'chosen' if it isn't Nick. anyway -
the prodegium plan was to complete the ritual themselves without the princes -
so the princess didn't need to do the deed herself.

Ben Gadot

The same principle applies in that if Jekyll stabs him he is still completing the ritual so to speak....well in his own mind at least. A self sacrifice is different to being treated as a sacrificial lamb.

CiDeRmAn

Why look for logic in a film featuring, mostly, scenes of Cruise running away from things.
It seems to be the type of role he was made for.
The plane crash was well done, but much of the rest of the film was forgettable.
I did like the Jekyll to Hyde transformation though, subtle, mostly down to the acting chops of Mr Crowe.

Mr E

Better than the reviews would have you believe. Some good set pieces (

plane crash, Hyde

), some bad set pieces (

ambulance, city sandstorm

), but it was watchable overall.

I'd give it a solid 6/10, which is on a par with the 6.0 score on IMDB and is fairer than the 34% on Metacritic or 17% on RT.

Agent Coulson

Where ever he is these days Brendan Fraser must be having a small smile to himself.


It was a very average film and even the set pieces for a Cruise film were underwhelming they seemed to make the story up as they went along and don't seem to have a long term storyline in place for the Dark Universe.


Studio's really should stop trying to copy Marvel and concentrate on getting there own product in order before trying jumping on a universe bandwagon.

ancapailldorcha

Is it fun at least?

Agent Coulson

I didn't find it that fun even in a mindless way I was checking my watch even 15 minutes which is never a good sign.


Watched Brendan Fraser's Mummy the other day and that still holds up if you want fun watch that.

ancapailldorcha

Really annoying when you get an itch to go to the flicks and there's nothing on.

Surreptitious

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Really annoying when you get an itch to go to the flicks and there's nothing on.

I just clicked on this thread and feel the same way. The Mummy got bad reviews.

Agent Coulson

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Really annoying when you get an itch to go to the flicks and there's nothing on.

It was the Mummy or Baywatch for me today both of which are getting panned but I though at least the huge sets pieces that Cruise does well would at least be worth the price of admission.

Sadly they lacked as well.

ancapailldorcha

Might finally start Game of Thrones...

StringerBell

Cruise should already have at least 1 Oscar imo at this point, and in his condition you would think he has plenty of time left to pick one up for a broodier, moodier role at some point in the next 10 years

I think he is simply taking on projects, doing films that actually interest/excite him and give him that buzz he craves while he can still do the crazy ****, and more power to him. He has been one of the most consistent box office draws of all time, and though The Mummy is getting bad reviews, and will be called a flop probably, it is still making money and doesn't actually fit the flop category. The budget was circa $125m and it took in $170m + on opening weekend.

It had some good moments, it was well made imo, some nice set pieces etc but just didn't hit the mark, or rather the marks it did hit were too low! It happens, it will be forgotten about when the next Cruise film comes about. He has made some dodgy ones along with some great ones over the years

Hande hoche!

Saw this film earlier on in the week. Was decent big screen fair. The C130 scene was quite impressive. As were some of the Middle Eastern scenes. The comic relief sidekick was dreadful though. Likewise some of the England based scenes dragged a bit.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Really annoying when you get an itch to go to the flicks and there's nothing on.

Yeah, that's how I ended up going to see this one. Would recommend it ahead of Baywatch.

Conall Cernach

I saw this at the weekend and enjoyed it. It wasn't incredible or anything like that but it is something I'd watch again and I'll probably go to any sequel. I think it was let down by falling between the two stools of action and horror and not being entirely one thing or the other. The 15A certificate probably affected the horror element. Russell Crowe's character was

completely surplus to requirements too and was only there to expand the universe a bit.

Kirby

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I'll probably go to any sequel.

I don't think there will be one. Its been critically panned. More importantly it won't make enough money. It wont flop, it'll make money....just not franchise money.

I didn't think it was good enough to warrant a sequel.

pixelburp

Kirby wrote: »

I don't think there will be one. Its been critically panned. More importantly it won't make enough money. It wont flop, it'll make money....just not franchise money.

I didn't think it was good enough to warrant a sequel.

Is it showing in China? That may change the complexion of the box office takings. Plus the cynicism with which the film seems constructed screams having been made for foreign (well, non english speaking i guess as we're a foreign market afterall) markets....

Agent Coulson

It opened world wide at the same time $52m of its $178m total so far came from China.


Budget for making it was about $150m.

Ben Gadot

https://www.google.ie/amp/variety.com/2017/film/news/the-mummy-meltdown-tom-cruise-1202465742/amp/

It seems easy to have a go at Cruise so the article reads like educated guesswork. Either way Cruise was admittedly one of the disappointing aspects of the film, as in totally miscast.

I've always liked him as an actor but if this is true and the reason Boutella's sparse screen time was for his gain then he has gone down in my estimation big time.

Ultimately I blame Universal for this misfire though, from hiring Cruise and Kurtzman to their strategic planning for the film, they have ****ed up at every corner, with the hiring of Boutella the only saving grace.

Agent Coulson

The Mummy set to lose $95m is the Dark Universe dead before it even starts now I wonder.

‘The Mummy’ Will Lose $95M: Here’s Why

This will likely be one of the final nails we place in The Mummy‘s coffin.

After consulting a number of film finance sources, Universal’s Tom Cruise movie stands to lose an estimated $95M off of a final estimated global box office tally of $375M. That’s $75M at the domestic B.O., and $300M from overseas.

This despite the fact that the movie was the biggest global opening ever for Cruise at $169.3M. However, relative to the production investment here, which we are informed is estimated at $345M in total production and global P&A spend (broken out $195M production cost and $150M distribution/ad expenses), those records — and even this weekend’s No. 1 overseas hold of $53M — are not enough to get Mummy over these hurdles.

What’s really going to make The Mummy ancient history at the foreign B.O. this week is the opening of Paramount’s Transformers: The Last Knight, which will steamroll its way into 42 markets this weekend including China, South Korea and Russia. That trio has been prime for the Cruise monster pic. In addition, Last Knight will take the big theaters away, specifically 1,031 Imax theaters in 52 territories (Mummy had 363 over the weekend).

Furthermore, Mummy is minting money in a theatrical market where there isn’t any downstream ancillary business for American movies. We’re talking about China (current B.O. $81.4M), which reps 34% of the pic’s foreign tally. Even if Mummy crosses $100M in China (Cruise’s Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation made over $135M there), only 25% of that is coming back to Universal’s bank account.

Mummy isn’t working in Europe in a big way ($7.8M UK, Germany $4.8M, $3.4M France) or in other markets where there’s a mature downstream. Some of the slowdown in Europe has to do with the heatwave there. Most theaters don’t have air conditioning like the U.S., where it’s a cooling oasis during the summer. In addition, Latin America doesn’t have a reputation for being a big Cruise territory. Mummy has $9.3M apiece in Mexico in Brazil. Those territories ended their runs for Rogue Nation at $12M and $10M, respectively. There’s hope for ancillary monies in South Korea, where Mummy has made $24.1M, and Japan, where it opens on July 28. International TV and home entertainment in South Korea and Japan are bigger than most countries, with the latter as good as Germany.

http://deadline.com/2017/06/the-mummy-tom-cruise-box-office-bomb-loss-1202114482/

Ben Gadot

The Bride of Frankenstein will be made....That much I'm sure of.

constitutionus

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I saw this at the weekend and enjoyed it. It wasn't incredible or anything like that but it is something I'd watch again and I'll probably go to any sequel. I think it was let down by falling between the two stools of action and horror and not being entirely one thing or the other. The 15A certificate probably affected the horror element. Russell Crowe's character was

completely surplus to requirements too and was only there to expand the universe a bit.

i agree with a lot of this.

the brother seen it and thought it was crap so it put me off going (i actually went to see guardians of the galaxy for the third time instead).

but last week had nothing that interested me so i gave it a shot.

im glad i did. its nothing to write home about but i thought it was a nice mix of the brendan fraser films and "an american werewolf in london".

i havent seen cruise play this much of a prick since edge of tomorrow and i gotta say i like it when he goes against his usual type. crowe hamming it up as a cocknie eddy hyde was enjoyable and i gotta say i couldnt stop laughing at tom getting bitch slapped by the mummy near the end for about 2mins straight.

that alone was worth the fee for me.



6.5/10 from me. theres worse to watch when its lashing out.

Ben Gadot

Yeah that beating at the end was fun. As I may have said previously it was nice to see a beating sold convincingly for once.

You could buy that Morton had no choice but to stab himself to beat her.

pixelburp

So in case people were wondering, and possibly to nobody's surprise either, it looks like the so-called 'Dark Universe' is dead:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/alex-kurtzman-chris-morgan-exit-universal-monsterverse-1055854

It's not officially canned, but all signs point towards Universal quietly shelving their second attempt at making a crossover universe. One line in the article though got my attention:

Universal is exploring its options. One road involves offering the IP to high-profile filmmakers or producers (Jason Blum has been mentioned) with ideas for one-off movies not connected to a larger universe. And the studio could find a new architect who could overhaul the concept.

I dunno, I would have thought the idea of giving the keys to a horror franchise to a known producer of popular and successful horror films was a better idea than to Tom Cruise, but here we are...

branie2

I really enjoyed it

El Duda

Its just so baffling that they decided to take The Mummy, Dracula, The Wolfman, Black lagoon, Frankenstein etc... and make them into an action franchise.

Horror icons into an action franchise.

Just think about that for a minute. They actually looked at that list of 'monsters' (hint: MONSTERS) and agreed the best route to go down was the Tom Cruise vehicle/action film.
I'm not in the movie industry in any way shape or form and even I know that the way of getting a Dark Universe up and running is to apply them to the modern jump-scare horror formula. The Conjuring/Insidious films are among the most financially successful films around at the moment. they are easy to plot and fairly simple to make. Its just so simple. All arrows pointed in one direction and they still f--ked it up.

I hope people lost their jobs for The Mummy. Worst film i've seen in 2017 by a mile.

El Duda

El Duda wrote: »

I hope people lost their jobs for The Mummy. Worst film i've seen in 2017 by a mile.

have you seen "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword"?

haven't watched "The Mummy" - but it can hardly be worse than the above.

pixelburp

glasso wrote: »

have you seen "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword"?

haven't watched "The Mummy" - but it can hardly be worse than the above.

I've watched both and honestly The Mummy was a worse film; at least King Arthur had some semblance of competency, and wasn't trying to shove a franchise down the audience's throat every second scene. Nor was King Arthur trying to pass its lead off as being in his 30s (Russel Crowe, 2 years junior to Cruise, called the latter's character "... young man", ha!)

Even the decision to go with an action-heavy slant could have worked if it went for broke & something like the Hellboy films, all colour & imagination.

Instead it was obvious Cruise wrestled control of the production & turned it into another showcase for his (admittedly admirable) desire for crazy stunts. The scene on the cargo plane was genuinely thrilling, but the rest of the film was a muddy mess.

JP Liz V1

Was Crowe not doing his own standalone film with his character Jekyll & Hyde?

AMKC

Only seen this film this evening but it was so bad it was funny. Really glad I did not spend money to see this in the cinema. The plane scene was the only good part and even at that you can get better Tom Cruise plane scenes if that is what you want aka The Mission Impossible films.
The ending made absolutely no sense either. Just terrible.

nix

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Was Crowe not doing his own standalone film with his character Jekyll & Hyde?

Pretty sure that was likely the intent, but the film was so bad id say it shot any chance of doing any spin offs..

pixelburp

This film killed off the entire "Dark Universe" franchise in the crib; there was a whole slew of films planned that died with this flopping.

If there's one silver lining to this film, is that it spawned an apparently excellent Game adaptation.

coolisin

pixelburp wrote: »

This film killed off the entire "Dark Universe" franchise in the crib; there was a whole slew of films planned that died with this flopping.

If there's one silver lining to this film, is that it spawned an apparently excellent Game adaptation.

There's another silver lining the invisible man from this year.