The Mummy 2017 - Roma's Review

Greetings ATS,

So all of us old-time Gothic horror fans were stoked to see The Mummy, right? It's the first release in a line of remakes/reboots of all of our favorite childhood monsters in a brand new cinematic universe! Well, I read the bad reviews and decided to go into it with an open mind. All I can say is...

Wait for it to come out on redbox, netflix, or whatever means you have to watch a movie at home because it's simply not worth seeing in the theater.

With that being said, at times I did find it creepy and entertaining. Unfortunately for every good moment there was another that left you shaking your head. The impression I got was that this wasn't a movie ABOUT a mummy. It was more like a movie about a super secret group (Agents of SHIELD) that happened to have a mummy in it.

So what was wrong with it? Let's go over it:

There was barely anything original about it. It seemed to borrow from the Brendan Frazier Mummy, American Werewolf in London, Blade, Pirates of the Caribbean and Revenge of the Sith. The story was so disjointed that you wondered of it was really about the mummy herself, Tom Cruise or our super secret monster fighters.

Having a female lead (or at least she should've been lead) is cool but you got all of 5 minutes for her back story. To Cruise played his part well but the part they wrote for him sucked. Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll (with the obligatory cameo of Mr. Hyde) came off too much like Nick Fury in The Avengers as the figurehead in the background pulling all the strings. You have a bunch of great actors/actresses in under developed, poorly defined and out of place roles...and a mess of a story.

So what was right? The cinematography and special effects were top notch. At times they just teased you with her and some of those parts were down right creepy. (As a horror movie should be).

Bottom line is this movie had so much potential but failed to deliver. It's not worth seeing in the theater but at home on the couch it could be a decent couple of hours of mindless entertainment.

a reply to: RomaSempre

BORING-PREDICTABLE-LOUSY SCRIPT-MEDIOCRE SPECIAL EFFECTS-POOR ACTING-...I could go on.

First film I walked out on...in forever.

ATS...Save your money. Skip this one.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: RomaSempre

BORING-PREDICTABLE-LOUSY SCRIPT-MEDIOCRE SPECIAL EFFECTS-POOR ACTING-...I could go on.

First film I walked out on...in forever.

ATS...Save your money. Skip this one.

Most reviews back you up on that, but honestly, did you have much higher expectations when you walked in?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: RomaSempre

BORING-PREDICTABLE-LOUSY SCRIPT-MEDIOCRE SPECIAL EFFECTS-POOR ACTING-...I could go on.

First film I walked out on...in forever.

ATS...Save your money. Skip this one.

Most reviews back you up on that, but honestly, did you have much higher expectations when you walked in?

Trailer sucked me in.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: RomaSempre

BORING-PREDICTABLE-LOUSY SCRIPT-MEDIOCRE SPECIAL EFFECTS-POOR ACTING-...I could go on.

First film I walked out on...in forever.

ATS...Save your money. Skip this one.

Most reviews back you up on that, but honestly, did you have much higher expectations when you walked in?

Trailer sucked me in.

Yeah...... I think I got burned by war of the worlds and not sure I would pay to watch a film with Tom Cruise in it again. I'm not going to fault his acting as such, but it's always the same persona regardless of the part.

I'm gonna go ahead and name this worst abomination of 2017.


Even the new Transformer's will be better.

a reply to: uncommitted

I'm with you.

Anything starring Tom Cruise is a pass for me. I still haven't seen any of the mission impossibles.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I feel your pain.

a reply to: stosh64

A lot of people steer clear of him. I don't know but he's never particularly bothered. His best movie was Minority Report.

Sounds like you saw the same movie as the reviewer I saw.

He complained that they tried too hard to set up the connected universe and a movie got caught in it. He blamed the disjointed story on too many scriptwriters. He was annoyed with the female lead basically being reduced to a damsel in distress with no other purpose.

He did say the acting was good from pretty much all the parties involved, and he felt like the action sequences were entertaining.

a reply to: stosh64

Hold your tongue sir.
Top gun 2 is in pre production now

I understand that Tom Cruise actually plays Tom Cruise, but the criticism flowing his way is often unreasonable and amounts to the fact that he is not tall enough. It's not unusual for actors to do that. John Wayne played John Wayne. Charles Bronson played Charles Bronson. Nobody complained about it. And authors are even worse. Lee Child has written the same Jack Reacher book over 20 times. Of course his off-screen antics are part of his reputation, too. They are formulas that work because people would be more upset if they deviated. None of this stuff is good literature; it was never meant to be. How many of you have read "Moby Dick"? Too many words, right?

a reply to: RomaSempre

Yeah I read that this movie was horrible and really just serviced as an introduction to Universal's "Dark Universe" where they are planning to bring back their old school monsters.. They already have other films lined up and lead actors cast for the parts. Not sure how well it's going to work out for them. The two coming next are Frankenstein and the Invisible Man

Edit:
For those interested.. Depp is playing the invisble man and Javier Bardem will be playing Frankenstein's monster

Yeah it was bad...
Like really bad.
Apart from the few Easter eggs drawing lines between the universes. But for the first part of a supposed franchise it's already way to convoluted. About half way through I realized they weren't trying to come off as a B horror movie but they were genuinely trying to be creepy and scary.

I shudder to think how Top Gun 2 will fair in this climate.

a reply to: stosh64

Oblivion is one of my favorite movies. Tom cruise or not I love the aspect of the movie, and he did a good job in it.

IT was not a bad movie. Kind of like Mission Impossible meets the Mummy. Could have been better but, like I said, was not bad.

a reply to: RomaSempre

I was going to say something edgy and smart, but we're watching the "Lego Batman" movie later today.

So I don't really have any room to talk.

I will probably skip this film though, thanks!

a reply to: RomaSempre



Its getting so old. You pay a lot of money to go see a CGI crap fest with a shoddy story attached to it and some big stars to bring people in. Its a tired formula. I wish they would get some good writers in on these movies instead of seeing how far they can push the special effects. I remember a lot of older movies from the 1950s that were BETTER than the garbage they put out now because there was a riveting plot and you could follow it. The THING from another world comes to mind, and when Worlds Collide. Two fantastic movies with so-so special effects but a great storyline. Even the ORIGINAL Mummy from 1932 was pretty damn creepy and is still very watchable.

I read this review and didn't heed your warning.

Seemed like a waste of perfectly good CGI.

It's the first release in a line of remakes/reboots of all of our favorite childhood monsters in a brand new cinematic universe!

I guess someone missed the first three Brendan Fraiser Mummy movies.

I watched this last week.

It wasn't horribly bad, and it wasn't that good.