The Mummy (2017) Poster

(2017)

User Reviews

Review this title
833 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Life Force? The Mummy? : Jekyll versus the Mummy! Ahmanet and Jekyll Meet Tom!
hilaryswank20113 October 2017
Unexpectedly I found Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hide in this originally supposed to be a Mummy movie! What a remarkable sandwich I bought at theater!

In fact, mixing different feature monsters are fatal for any serious attempt to the tradition of the genre.

Although genre mixture is functional, feature characters' combo is doomed to be a fanny comedy.

From other point of view, I appreciate Ahmanet's horribleness and making audiences think that is a kind of creature from outer space not like traditional mummy with bandages.

Ahmanet is like the female vampire in The Life Force (1985). The filmmakers exactly were affected by Tobe Hooper's sci-fi horror classic.

Audiences a bit confused about the feature of this film. Is it Jekyll movie or the Mummy movie or revive of the Life Force? I think this is the mixture of all of them...

Does it work? no...
134 out of 174 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Dark Universe off to a bad start
Ramascreen7 June 2017
If #TheMummy is supposed to be the beginning of Universal's ambitious Dark Universe that showcases their classic monsters in one big shared cinematic crossover, then they're off to a terrible start.

There's probably only a couple of sequences that somewhat thrill, the rest are just a continuous string of one poorly written, poorly acted and poorly executed scene after another. It feels more like sitting in a dentist's waiting room as opposed to rockin' on a roller coaster ride. And Tom Cruise is just wrong for this role, a huge case of miscast. Perhaps they should just press the reboot button again.

Sofia Boutella plays an evil ancient princess imprisoned in a tomb deep beneath the unforgiving desert. When a couple of treasure hunters and an archaeologist awaken her in our present day, she returns to life to reclaim her destiny while at the same time unleashing unimaginable terrors in this new take that ushers in a new world of gods and monsters. Co-starring Tom Cruise, Annabelle Wallis, Russell Crowe and Jake Johnson, directed by Alex Kurtzman.

The concept of what the writers and director Alex Kurtzman is trying to present to us with "The Mummy" is nothing new, in fact it's quite predictable, but the biggest problem about it is that along the way from point A to point B, they fill it in with moments that just don't work. And it gets even more frustrating when they bring it up again the second, third and fourth time as if shoving it down our throats would make it better. The jokes fall flat so much so you kinda feel sorry for Jake Johnson who clearly wants to make some effort as this film's comic relief. There are also parts that are just absolutely pointless and unnecessary. The characters including Dr. Jekyll frequently draw conclusions out of their butts. I do think "The Mummy" is what happens when the story is forced to serve the visual spectacle instead of the other way around. That said, rising star Sofia Boutella is a marvelous choice, she exudes that thirst for power effortlessly in addition to being incredibly seductive.

But of course, just as expected, instead of it being a movie about Sofia Boutella's The Mummy, it becomes all about Tom Cruise, who as I said earlier is just awfully wrong for this role. I understand that the studios probably think that banking on a A-lister would translate into box office results, but fact of the matter is outside "Mission: Impossible" franchise, Cruise just doesn't fit anywhere else anymore. The character that he plays here is is a thieving treasure hunter, much like Nathan Drake from "Uncharted" games, but all you see on the screen instead is special agent Ethan Hunt desperately trying to be someone he's not. By the end of "The Mummy" you're going to have second thoughts about anticipating the next installment of this Dark Universe, and you're going to want to wish Brendan Fraser had still been around.

-- Rama's Screen --
462 out of 641 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not sure why people hate this movie so much
BeachBoy838 January 2018
I'm a fan of this "type" of movie, i.e. Indiana Jones, clean cut fun. I liked the '99 Mummy version (Brendan Fraser & Rachel Wiesz) a lot, but this movie is not in the same vein. It is not meant to be campy, but it still light hearted.

I like the stories arch, and how it was told. Though Sofia Boutella, Ahmanet, was actually quite good in her role.

Maybe people we expecting a remake of the '99 version, or maybe people didn't expect this from Cruise. Whatever the reason, count me as someone who wasn't disappointed.
86 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's really not that bad!
pjgs20025 June 2017
It's never good when you have to say "It's not that bad!" but I think the Mummy is being treated to harshly by critics. It has a 15% on Rotten Tomatoes. Really? It's not a great movie, but it is fun to watch and I thought the ending was very good. It felt a bit like a B- Movie in the beginning, but I still enjoyed it.

7 out of 10
144 out of 202 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The hate is undeserved
spmact2 September 2017
Based on all the bad reviews I was worried this would suck, but I have to say that while it wasn't as good/charming as the 90s mummy movie, it wasn't bad either. Cruise's character was likable, and while his arc wasn't that deep, it didn't really need to be. The mummy actress impressed me more than I expected, since I didn't really like her that much in Kingsman. People said that this spent too much time setting up the following movies, but I didn't think that was the case. There were small seeds planted, but save for the ending and lack of background for Jekyll, this felt self contained enough. Overall the movie had some fun action sequences and decent characters, and made for an enjoyable popcorn flick. I do not regret watching it.
135 out of 189 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good entertainment
alanpgini30 August 2017
I don't know what people were looking for to rate this so low. It has a good story, especially related to other stories of its ilk. The problem is that they sink too much cash in something like this, without thinking of the consequences. There is clearly supposed to be a sequel, but we all know that this is based upon good box office, and well, that is somewhat weird as fr as how they now deem that a success. I guess 50 million in profit world wide is chump change to these people. One thing is clear as always. If your going to do another in the same genre, you better get more than 15 years over the deal, so its new in people's minds. Anyone with any commons sense at all would know this. And to spend 327 million on it, is beyond insanity. Unfortunately, audiences that liked it will be deprived of one by such short sightedness. As well as the critics weird dislike of Cruise. Personal dislike of an actor in real life, regardless of how uncouth it is, or in speculation of motivations in production, has NOTHING to do with a movie. To me, the story is everything, and its a good one, with effects that merely emphasize it, which is always my criteria in whether a movie is good or not. Sofia Boutella is riveting in this role, especially in the way her unconventional beauty is emphasized by her extreme talent. Its her and Eva Green, who are at the forefront of this type of great young actress of the future. There is no prejudice here. I rate it as I see it, and not with any preconceived notions. Its worth the watch.
104 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
An outright disastrous start for any Universe
"The Mummy" is the first movie in what Universal Studios wants to call their "Dark Universe." Yeah, that's right. Those re-shoots that 2014's "Dracula Untold" went through to tie into a Dark Universe; those don't matter now. That 2010 Benicio del Toro "Wolfman" movie; also doesn't matter.

In a world where Universes are becoming more and more of a thing, Universal seems determined not to let this monster mash-up of The Wolfman, Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde and more slip through their fingers.

And they're also not skimping out on finding A-list talent to help sell the whole thing. So far we've heard Johnny Depp, The Rock, and Javier Bardem's names being thrown into the mix, plus Russell Crowe is already here as Dr. Jekyll.

That last one I think is really cool by the way because while so many others have been portrayed by the likes of Gary Oldman and Jack Nicholson's, Jekyll's best portrayal in the past 20+ years has been ugh….David Hasselhoff.

But now let's talk about "The Mummy", specifically that old trilogy with Brendan Fraser. There's no doubt director Stephen Sommers lucked out with that first film and there's also little doubt Universal wants to move away from that overall cheesiness here. The question is can they still go serious but also have fun at the same time?

And say what you will about Sommers; the guy was a C-grade filmmaker who got a kick out of a cheap thrill but at least you could say he committed to it. This new Mummy is just a wrong-headed disaster.

The set-up is pretty much the same as the older Mummy film although here it's a woman played by "Kingsman's" Sofia Boutella. She's Ahmanet, an Egyptian Princess who wanted power, sold out to some powerful entity for eternal life, and paid for it by getting entombed.

Universal of course is also putting it's faith in Tom Cruise, who plays an Army Vet prone towards treasure hunting. He and several others find Ahmanet's sarcophygus but while bringing it back to be examined, the plane goes down over London and a bunch of strange things happen that they learn can't just be coincidence.

This is Cruise just being Cruise here. He gets to run around a lot doing his "intense face" all while an attractive woman half his age is along with him for the sexual interplay (more on her in a moment). Yeah, there's discussion about his character growing something of a conscience as this goes on but it's pretty perfunctory.

Plus having the Mummy be a woman after Cruise's body so she could plant her demon God inside of him and they can reign as King and Queen; this seems more like it falls into being of one of Cruise's aging vanity projects than on acting skill.

Boutella gets very little to do otherwise but try and be seductive while waving her hands in a threatening manner. Otherwise auto-tune does the rest.

The Cruise character's love interest is an archaeologist played by Annabelle Wallis who looks like she just stepped out from a Paris fashion show into an archaeological dig. Did I believe her as an archaeologist? No. Did I believe she could spell it? Sure. Either way, it doesn't matter. What does is that she and Cruise are DOA in their scenes together.

No character makes much impression here, including Crowe's Dr. Jekyll who's maybe in the film for 20 minutes to explain stuff so simplistic, silly, and predictable that it hardly needs explaining at all before the film rushes through his particular ailment.

For some reason screenwriters David Koepp and Christopher McQuarrie think more explanation is still warranted though and in that they couldn't be more wrong. For something trying to feel new, it's remarkably easy to tell where all this is going.

Their biggest crime is what they do to New Girl's Jake Johnson, a funny actor who they turn into the Dark Universe's version of Jar Jar Binks in only five minutes. He comes in and out of the film at really odd intervals, either screaming dialogue in the hope of making it funny or giving us yet more exposition we don't really need.

Add to that first time action director Alex Kurtzman is a disaster. The action sequences look haphazardly thrown together, just cartoonish and unbelievable, while a spoiler I won't give away about the Tom Cruise character makes them even harder to give a crap about anyway.

The fights are stiff and uninteresting, and the special effects are either forgettable or look just as hokey as they did in the Brendan Fraser movies. The plane sequence we saw in the trailer looks pretty decent but hey, you've already seen the most decent thing in the movie, why pay to see the rest.

Overall this is not just a bad film, but a film that has no idea what it even is. It wants to resurrect classic monsters, but isn't the least bit scary. It wants to take it in original directions, but winds up being an ultra-serious, dull version of the 1999 film. It's silly but not funny, it's a lot of commotion but no excitement, it's a Mummy movie that if the ending of this can even be believed, thinks it's something totally different. This is a worse start to a Universe than King Arthur was.

If you liked this, check out more of Craig James Review on Youtube
382 out of 615 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It is what it is, and for me that was entertaining
amyrperrine-672405 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't watch this with the expectation of being blown away by the story line. I wasn't expecting to be moved emotionally or even invested in the characters at all. That's probably why I rated it so high compared to others. My only expectation was to be entertained and the movie delivered. The effects were alright, the acting OK, the story kind of thrown together, but it worked for what I wanted.

I liked that Tom Cruise varied from his only character and played a hero who... lets just say his elevator seemed to stop one or two floors shy of the penthouse suite. I loved Jake Johnson, but I love him pretty much all the time, the mummy wasn't scary or creepy, but her zombie mummies made up for that and the "heroine" was a loss, the story was more than a little silly (come on, Jekyll and Hyde?) but I finished it, so I was entertained.

I didn't go into this expecting it to be as awesome as the Brendan Frazier films from the 90's, I was younger and had lower expectations in a lot more than just movies, so maybe that's why my panties aren't in a twist about a remake. Also, let's be honest, the story line for the third installment wasn't exactly art either. Hopefully we've all learned from this and realize that a man who only has enough depth to play one character the last 20 or so years is not the best person to give carte blanche.
49 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Among The Worst Summer Blockbusters I've Seen
trublu2158 June 2017
The Mummy has had countless iterations of the character grace the screen for the better part of the 20th Century. With the 1932 original and the fun but lazy 1999 remake and anything in between, we pretty much got it. It can be scary or it can be action packed as it seems Hollywood has left there to be no in between for this type of film. Unfortunately neither of those extremes apply to this one. The Mummy is a pandering and very meager attempt at cashing in on a potential franchise. It's sad to watch because it feels like the studio made this. This doesn't feel organic in any way, shape or form and relies on CGI filled action sequences, Tom Cruise, and cheap scares that end up being unintentionally funny to progress the story. None of which comes off the way it should.

The story is absolute crap to put it as lightly as I can. It is plotted so on-the-nose that you can't have anything left up to your imagination except for some scenes of violence that may have been too much for a PG-13. Outside of that, everything is spoon fed to us as the audience. Instead of making you feel like you can keep up, the movie treats its audience like we are stupid and still expects us to continue watching. Honestly, I almost walked out at certain points, it got that bad. Especially during the scenes with Crowe's Jekyll, which are so heavily plot oriented that you can't get a feel for his character and when you get the chance to, it fails, crashes and burns.

The cast is surprisingly strong on paper but director Alex Kurtzman fails to utilize them in roles that best suit them. Tom Cruise is really the only cast member that fits the part which, when considering what genre we're talking about here, is a horrible thing. Courtney B Vance, who delivered an awards caliber performance in American Crime Story, is watered down to nothing more than a mere walk on role. Russell Crowe is so obviously doing the film for the paycheck, it feels like he isn't even acting and he is just reading queue cards.

As a fan of the cast and the 1932 original, I was left completely disappointed by everyone here. Director Alex Kurtzman, who went from directing a small indie to all of a sudden directing this big bombastic action summer blockbuster, feels out of his element here and misses the beats of a good action movie and completely neglects everything that could make a great horror film. The Mummy is by far one of the worst blockbusters in recent memory and stands as a major misfire for Universal's Dark Universe and Tom Cruise.
269 out of 447 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This film is a pile of hot garbage.
corpsehoarder16 June 2017
There was literally nothing to enjoy in this movie. Cheesy, hollow writing is rarely delivered better by A-List actors.

This is the first DARK Universe film, and there's nothing dark about it. It's hokey without having classic charm.

There is this thing about Dr Jekyll that is beyond hilarious, but not to the film's benefit.

The unintentional hilarity of this film is it's greatest aspect. But will anyone say this was a great movie?? Not if they've ever seen the Brandon Fraser films. Brandon was funny, even with bad lines. Tom can't pull it off, it's just too bad and he's too.. A-list for it.

Gonna have to re-watch the 2001 Mummy to push back the memories of Dark Universe's The Mummy.

If you're gonna brand yourselves as dark, make something EVIL. Jeez.
242 out of 408 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Critics be damned!
ceejay-cj10 June 2017
This is a good start for the rebooting of the Universal Dark Universe, if you're expecting a remake of the 1990's Mummy films then you've got the wrong idea. The first thing you should know is that this has NOTHING to do with those movies and are completely unrelated. This is a re-imagining of Mummy's Hand (1940) that started the Mummy series of movies but with a whole new agenda. This time Universal are making these films to link in with all their other monster movies, Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolfman etc so comparing it with any other Mummy film before it like the critics keep doing is utterly pointless.

The movie is a high entertaining fantasy horror film, its not the glossy action comedy level of the Brendan Fraser films, its darker and a lot more violent but still full of spectacle and a decent amount of humour that doesn't completely dominate the dramatic content as many film allow these days. Only Disney's Goofy or Loony Toon's Wild E Coyote can take the level of battering Tom Cruise gets in this movie and still stay standing. The Mummy is an exotic beauty who can hit like a Mack Truck. There are elements reminiscent of An American Werewolf in London (1981) and Lifeforce (1985) that forge this version of the Mummy and Russell Crowe's Dr Jekyll makes his glorified entrance half way through to remind you this is a shared monster universe so expect more of the same.

Quite simply you either like this sort of stuff or you don't, if you listen to critics they'll convince you this is the worst movie ever made, it's not. It's actually really good fun and nothing more, it won't suddenly change your life and have you buying movie merchandise like a Star Wars film or Marvel franchise flick but it will entertain you if you're not already going into the cinema armed with a critical gun ready to shoot it down for daring to star Tom Cruise like the average Hollywood critic and their anti-Tom Cruise agenda.
287 out of 499 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Too many comparisons to other 'mummy' movies...
silver_duppy15 June 2017
Disappointed...no real story line, predictable events, and choice of a particular character line was lame... Lots of holes in the story... Story jumped all over without real connections to plot... Characters lacked depth... Would have liked to have seen more actual references to Ancient Egypt that would have made the story line more believable. Not a movie I would see again...
123 out of 206 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a terrible movie and a lot of wasted potential
timothymkomiya20 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I've never written a movie review before, but after seeing this one I just had to, I was so disappointed. I was a kid when the previous Mummy series came out, and those movies were infinitely more interesting/entertaining. Its a huge disappointment because this film falls apart for several reasons:

Story- Cursed Egyptian princess is awoken after 5,000 years. Okay, awesome. Has all the same powers as previous incarnation, Imhotep (controlling sands, super strength, animating corpses, etc.). Okay, cool- could've been a little more creative/ original, but okay. You cast Sofia Boutella as the new Mummy- super awesome (I'd never even heard of her before this movie and now I'll probably go see everything else she's ever in).

And then the best the writers come up with is that the endgame for such a powerful entity would be... to just summon a more powerful entity than her into existence? Way to drop the ball- someone should be fired for that hack job. The potential was there to make Ahmanet an infinitely interesting character ( Sofia Boutella's seductive charm alone has you routing for Ahmanet half the movie) but they reduce her to an eye-candy role, writing her to literally need Tom Cruise's body to do what she has set out to do (not even going to delve into that ridiculousness). At least when they wrote Imhotep in the previous incarnation, it made sense in that his motivations were his own power, not someone else's.

And that's without even touching on the rushed backstory for Ahmanet, or the fact that there is really no development in the relationships between the characters nor the characters themselves.

Action- Its like they somehow took all the iconic scenes from the previous incarnation and made them awful. The Mummy absorbing people's life force. The images when the mummy is controlling the sands. The chase/escape scenes. Not only were none of these concepts elaborated on, they somehow managed to make them less interesting this time around, too. If you don't believe me, go back and watch the 1999 version.

Cast- This is probably the most egregious problem with this movie, and its very disappointing because it wasn't all bad. Russel Crowe as Dr. Jekyll? Brilliant. Absolutely awesome portrayal of the Jekyll/Hyde characters delivered masterfully. Previously mentioned Sofia Boutella as the Mummy? What a perfect choice for the role. Even Jake Johnson's Sgt. Vail would've been good if the writing had been better. But 54 year old Tom Cruise as the lead? Embarrassing. Say what you will about Brendan Fraser, but in 1999 he had hit his stride and was funny and charming. He was also in his 30's and much more believable as a treasure-hunting action star. There's no point in even talking about the casting choice of Annabelle Wallis, because her presence might as well have been non-existent after the scene where she slaps Tom Cruise in the face (you know, right at the beginning). The writing didn't make it believable that she is an archaeologist, and the performance isn't memorable in the slightest. Especially if we're comparing that to 1999 Rachel Weisz's Evie who was a dream-babe.

And even without the comparisons, if the two most interesting/compelling characters in your hero-saves-world action movie are A) a character who had all of 10-15 minutes of screen time, and B) the main antagonist, then you did something way wrong.

All in all this was a sad attempt to reboot an awesome story which had great potential- a solid frame of reference in the previous incarnation, a darker, more dramatic/less goofy tone, and almost 2 decades in updates to CGI/special effects which could have made for much more compelling supernatural/action scenes- but it was squandered with terrible writing and awful casting which lead to hollow performances.
131 out of 221 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Decent Entertainer thanks to Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe & Sexy Sofia Boutella
mb145620 June 2017
The Mummy provides good entertainment, at least most of the time. The effects are expectedly very impressive and the performances are first rate as well. My favorite performances were from the Mummy actor Sofia Boutella as the evil Ahmanet and Russell Crowe as Dr. Henry Jekyll. Sofia is sexy and has very expressive eyes. Russell Crowe brings in the needed humor to this serious flick. Tom Cruise as the adventurous Nick impresses in drama, action and fun moments and the pretty Annabelle Wallis as archaeologist Jenny whom he loves also delivers very well although her role is comparitively overshadowed by that of Cruise and Sofia. I like the action scenes and also the humor in this otherwise dark movie yet the end falters. Cruise's character undergoes a transformation in the climax which I felt weakened an otherwise good horror entertainment. One usually connects with the lead character from start to end of a movie but here, the climax spoilt it for me, not because of what happens to him but how that was executed. Anyway, this movie is still watchable despite the flaws but I'd not root for a sequel unless Sofia Boutella is back to haunt me again :)
52 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Welcome to a new world of mediocrity.
GomezAddams6667 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"Dead is just the beginning", right? In this case it might be the beginning of the end of the world of gods and monsters. I have been dwelling on how to review this movie as I want to be fair but I don't want to mislead you.

I will start by saying that Sofia Boutella nails the character of Princess Ahmunet, she is truly a goddess with of course an ancient course that she brought upon herself, but her character is so likable you actually end up rooting for the ultimate evil, Boutella brings a charisma to the mummy that it is hard to match.

My biggest fear going in was Russell Crowe as doctor Henry Jekyll and his other persona, Mr Edward Hyde, but the actor gives the performance of his lifetime as both characters and his seedy organization, which is truly as evil and ruthless as the "monsters" they chase. And this is how I like my "heroes", men or groups that for the common "good" are willing to become monsters themselves, it makes for an interesting plot.

Here's where things go sideways: Tom Cruise, yes I said it. Nick Morton is an amalgamation of Rick O'Connell of the Brendan Fraiser movies and Ethan Hawk from M:I. His character lacks charisma and his romance with Jenny (Annabelle Wallis) is less than believable. It borders in a cheap Fabio novel paper back, the movie would have been much better without Tom Cruise and Nick Morton.

Here's where things go bad: The special effects, last year I hammered Ghostbusters for their "Scooby-like" CGI and it pains me as I have to do the same here, the CGI was awful, seriously!

When a TV Show like Game of Thrones can have great FX there is absolutely no excuse to have a big franchise movie, the start of one had FX so incredibly awful, they looked like a freaking cartoon. That seriously killed the movie.

There are a couple of good scenes but I have to say sadly that the Dark Universe is dead, or at least it should be.

My rating is 6 out of 10, and I'm being nice.

Welcome to a new world of meh...
115 out of 196 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's a decent entertainer. What's with the bad reviews?
rupeshaki15 September 2017
I liked the movie and seriously feel that this movie doesn't deserve all the hate it is getting. The movie felt more like a start to a series of movies. It was not at all as bad as the critics and reviewers rated it to. What do you expect? An exact remake of the "The Mummy"? Come on... Go watch and enjoy a decent story, great actors and action. I seriously hope they make a sequel, I would definitely watch it.
44 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It was much better the the critic's said
greyson-5370521 September 2017
This movie takes you back to the days when you didn't have to watch sequels or prequels. Its just good fun with some of the bigger names. blowing off steam.

Russel Crowe was a great Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde! The movie does not takes its self seriously and makes it so much more watchable. Sofia Boutella does a better job then most of being the evil villain and is fun to watch. Tom Cruise is always good when he adds a bit of humor ,this is his best movie of the last 5 years. I think the only thing to have made it better ,would have been to keep in in the original time line ... but that's just me So grab a tub of popcorn and sit down for a couple hours of fun.
37 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Actors working to rule.....
rbrb8 June 2017
Disappointing. A few good visuals, but hardly any story. The plot: an ancient mummy gets a new lease of life. The actress playing the mummy is quite good but Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe are awful. They play themselves and most of the time seem half-hearted and bored,just going through the motions to get a pay check. Lucky my vote is a generous: 3/10.
128 out of 227 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Much better than the reviews. Not your usual stale monster film
gwyckoff29 June 2017
This movie is quite enjoyable. I'm not sure why it's getting so many bad reviews. The action is fast paced and the acting pretty good, plus it avoids most of the major structural pitfalls that plague the monster movie genre. There were some flaws, which I will mention later, but first the strong points:

"The Monster Always Dies". One big structural problem with monster movies is the lack of suspense. In the end, the monster is always vanquished. Any suspense revolves around the hero discovering the monster's 'fatal weakness' just in time to save the heroine. In some cases, as with the 1999 Mummy remake, the resolution is telegraphed so early and so strongly that you grow board waiting for Brendon Frasier to wade through all the special-effect laden cliff hangers to finally win the day.

This remake handles the problem in a very creative and unexpected way by first making the monster venerable almost from the start and then secondly by introducing another antagonist who turns out to be equally threatening to the hero. This builds suspense as the protagonist is threatened from multiple sides.

Ultimately all this climaxes in a completely unexpected ending that I honestly did not see coming; something really unique for a monster film. It may, in fact, be this ending that contributes to the negative reviews since strictly speaking it violates the hallowed monster flick formula most people have come to expect.

"Damsel in Distress". Another tiring issue with monster films is the obligation to service the inevitable damsel-in-distress theme. Again, Mummy 2017 takes a unique approach by making Tom Cruise and Annabelle Wallis effectively co-equals protagonists. Sometimes she saves him, sometimes he saves her, often with a good deal of humor in the role reversal.

All-in-all a movie worth seeing, but of course there were some flaws. Character development is kept to a minimum; only enough to service the plot line. This contrasts with the 1999 Mummy which excelled in wonderfully interesting characters who, unfortunately, were deployed in the service of a mundane and predictable plot. Other flaws include under use of Jake Johnston as the comic relief and a serviceable but uninspiring performance by the heroine Wallis. Had she matched the charisma brought by Cruise's performance it would have added a whole new dimension to the movie. In general, though, I liked it and am interested to see more of the 'Dark Universe'.
42 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Should have been buried with the other corpses
jonathan-747-4616215 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The only scary thing about this "horror" movie is how bad it is. It should have been buried in a tomb full of mercury and sealed up for eternity. Without Tom Cruise stumbling over it as a Lara Croft/Indiana Jones wannabe literally dropped from the sky right into the middle of the key to the riddle, the one that other poor suckers have been searching for during thousands of years. Lucky him? Hold on, it gets worse. Ole' Nick finds himself neck-deep in a quagmire, not so much of ancient artifacts and killer zombie-inducing spiders (deary me, who comes up with all this rubbish?), but of incoherent and random movie ideas, CGI-arrhoea, stupidly recycled themes, and plot holes bigger than the giant-*ss one he repels down into at the beginning of the movie. And, of course, the obligatory sequel-connecting non-ending, petering out in a sea of greed and ringing tills. It's all for the money, and you gotta wonder why Tom Cruise is immersing himself into this garbage pit of Hollow-wood waste. But then again, it's expensive to be a Scientologist, somebody's gotta pay the Dianetics bills. Too bad it happened to be me this time.
54 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Forgettable and unnecessary
bardockm-0905313 June 2017
No Brendon Fraiser, no stars. Enough with the remakes already. Remakes Remakes are not well made these days.Gohstbusters, Fantastic Four, Total Recall, shoot now they are even thinking about remaking Flatliners and Overboard. These were great movies that did not need to be remade and degraded. Please have an original thought Hollywood, is it too much to ask for? Anyway. It was a forgettable film that should be lost in the dust.
137 out of 246 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A little rough around the edges, but...
halaszgabor19908 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I can't hate this film, even if it seems like that's what's going to be trending. As a Dark Universe movie, it obviously follows the footprints of the comic book movie universes, while utilizing old Universal/Hammer horror movie elements.

I believe most of the naysayers expected a new horror movie anthology, one that brings the same fright that the old ones did we used to watch as kids. Honestly, Universal horror movies can't be that sort of frightening anymore,since we are not the same people anymore either. Universal was never about jumpscares or deep psychological horror like the current trending "horror" themes. It was about slowly creeping fear caused by fictional monsters.

In my opinion, Dark Universe films are and will be meant to be watched as action films infused with classic horror elements and characters instead of the other way around. And to me, those few elements did hit the spot.

My favorite bits horror-wise are the mummy herself immediately after resurrection: that shambling, crawling undead figure with dislocated joints and broken bones was exactly like something you wouldn't want to see heading your way in a dark London alley.

I also liked Cruise being chased by the undead Crusaders under water. The relatively slow movement all while being underwater, half-drowning, really is a nightmarish situation even if it is not meant to make you jump out of your seat (which I still find to be the cheapest sort of thrill, therefore a bad idea).

The makers deciding not to use CGI in an exhibitionist way was another one of these good bits: in many scenes, the overall darkness leaves just enough for our imagination to fill in with scary ideas instead of showing off so much, we start noticing how sterile and unfrightening CGI looks in general (I'm looking at you, Alien: Covenant).

As for being an action flick, yes, it definitely wasn't a John Wick or a Rogue One. Not terrible, not great either, and had a little problem with unnecessary action sequences. The fight between the characters of Cruise and Crowe was lacking any motivation other than showing off. Improve it in the following movies, please (which I do hope to come).

How could it be better? More detailed characters: okay, we know, the girl is cute, Tom Cruise is bringing the Tom Cruise we know from most of his movies since the 80s and Crowe is Jekyll/Hyde, but who are they as characters in this very universe? If you're building a universe, you need strong, memorable characters to build it upon, glory of the past and eye candy is simply not enough.

More inventive action scenes. Watching Dracula and the Ottoman army duke it out from the reflection of a wobbling sword in Dracula Untold was a good one. More like that, less "Tom Cruise gets the umpteenth pimp smack the very same way from an obviously stronger enemy".

Giving some power to the Good, if Evil has so much would spice things up. Jekyll's self-sustained evil is nice, but why stop there? Let's make it really interesting. What if the reanimation of the dead Crusaders backfired and they tried to fight Ahmanet due to their once holy life? They were trying to guard that gem after all, keeping their oath in their death would have been a nice addition. I understand that the franchise is more about monsters than heroes, but reducing the possibilities of what *could* happen in a still forming universe is unnecessary and even harmful.

These three points are the three missing stars from my rating (based on the axiom of this movie is meant to be an action movie). The Mummy is by no means a bad film, but whatever you may expect it to be, you will find it at least a little disappointing for one reason or the other.
83 out of 145 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Don't suspend your judgment, kill it and throw it away
ayoreinf18 June 2017
I get it, it's not a reboot of the Brendan Fraser Mummy of 1999 onward. It's an attempt to create a whole new cinematic world, or rather cinematic universe. Populated with super beings, over which none will claim rights from Universal Studios. Beings that Universal own already. It's an interesting idea with some financial wisdom behind it. It could've been a real stroke of genius if it was done with the right amount of levity. The Brendan Fraser style of humor is badly needed here, but he's not here, neither is anybody else who can take himself lightly. So instead we get a dark, pompous serious attitude debating which way is it we should use to triumph over evil altogether.

Cinematically it means tons of CGI, and every kind of monster the script writer could find in the archives of Universal St. and some from other cinematic archives too. It was a bit much when they tried it on 2004 with Van Helsing. And Hugh Jackman never repeated that mistake. So Tom Cruise is here to take his place. Truth is, we should've seen it coming. Tom Cruise must've wanted to be Superman all these years, but even he knew he wasn't physically suitable so he relented into an endless list of action heroes that were borderline super beings but not actually super. Thing is, he's not getting younger, and the idea of doing his own stunts is getting less and less practical, so Tom Cruise found the ultimate solution, he went in and made himself a god.

Yes if you do want to watch it, you need to do more than just suspend your judgment. You'll have to kill it and make sure it doesn't come back to haunt you.
57 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Mummy is a complete car crash
screenmunch7 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
So… Universal want to rival Disney and Marvel by creating a Dark Universe – a new world reboot of all the classic monster movies such as Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolfman. Good for them, it's a brilliant idea. However, they have shot themselves in the foot with this first attempt, The Mummy.

I usually like to start with the good in a review, but it is difficult to find anything good about this film. I will give the filmmakers something – the use of practical effects in the movie was great to see and I hope more films realise how much better it can make action scenes look on the big screen. Sadly, this did make the film's poor CGI stand out like a sore thumb – in particular The Mummy's undead sidekicks looked like something out of a 90's video game.

Tom Cruise plays the same role in this film as he does in every other film he's in. I'm not a Cruise fan at the best of times; I would like to say he was miscast and should not have been put in the role; having said that, I have no idea who should be in the role as it was such a poorly written character in the first place. The screenplay team (David Koepp, Christopher McQuarrie and Dylan Kussman) are not a bad set of writers; but I do sometimes think that the more writers you have, the worse the script can be. Everyone was clearly throwing ideas all over the place and then trying to tie them together in to some kind of story and it didn't work. It's almost like they were so focused on trying to begin this Dark Universe that they completely neglected the story of The Mummy. In fact, half way through the film, Russel's Crowe's dreadful attempt at playing Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde becomes the focus point of the story!

The Mummy is one of those stories that could have strong female leads. Kurtzman's version fails at this miserably. Annabelle Wallis' presence in the film is virtually non-existent and the writing made everything she did very hollow. Rachel Wise as Evie in the 1999 film was a much stronger and well-rounded character. Then we have Sofia Boutella as the Mummy girl herself, a tough independent woman, who spends the majority of the film chasing her lover (sorry...Chosen One!) Nick (Cruise) across London (yes that's right London, not Egypt!) until she can finally lock lips with him.

The Brandon Fraser version in the 90s was not perfect, but it got so much right – the action, the adventure, the humour, the story, the characters. This 2017 reboot has trashed all of that in one very dull swing. Throughout the film, all I could think to myself is "what the hell is going on!?" and that is never good.

LAST MUNCH: The Mummy is a terrible start to the Dark Universe series, a huge disappointment for 2017's film output and one of the worst big-budget movies ever. I just hope Universal learn from this mistake and try to take this monster world in a whole new direction, or I fear another car crash may come our way.
63 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Enjoyable!
hawxleader30 June 2017
Come on, as a one who haven't watched a lot of tom cruise's movies i find him executing the main role very well! It just suits the character!

I liked the movie but i think if it was not categorized as horror it would have done way better, reviews wise and box-office wise...

Objectively it was well made and was fun to watch. If this movie was out 8 years ago it would have been called a super masterpiece and would have been given a prize for the visuals.

Reviewers are too harsh of films these days.
21 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed