Reviewed byCyril Julien (firstname.lastname@example.org)Vote: 7/10/10
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 gotthe wrong idea. The first thing you should know is that this hasNOTHING to do with those movies and are completely unrelated. This is are-imagining of Mummy's Hand (1940) that started the Mummy series ofmovies but with a whole new agenda. This time Universal are makingthese films to link in with all their other monster movies,Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolfman etc so comparing it with any otherMummy film before it like the critics keep doing is utterly pointless.
The movie is a high entertaining fantasy horror film, its not theglossy action comedy level of the Brendan Fraser films, its darker anda lot more violent but still full of spectacle and a decent amount ofhumour that doesn't completely dominate the dramatic content as manyfilm allow these days. Only Disney's Goofy or Loony Toon's Wild ECoyote can take the level of battering Tom Cruise gets in this movieand still stay standing. The Mummy is an exotic beauty who can hit likea Mack Truck. There are elements reminiscent of An American Werewolf inLondon (1981) and Lifeforce (1985) that forge this version of the Mummyand Russell Crowe's Dr Jekyll makes his glorified entrance half waythrough to remind you this is a shared monster universe so expect moreof the same.
Quite simply you either like this sort of stuff or you don't, if youlisten to critics they'll convince you this is the worst movie evermade, it's not. It's actually really good fun and nothing more, itwon't suddenly change your life and have you buying movie merchandiselike a Star Wars film or Marvel franchise flick but it will entertainyou if you're not already going into the cinema armed with a criticalgun ready to shoot it down for daring to star Tom Cruise like theaverage Hollywood critic and their anti-Tom Cruise agenda.
Reviewed bytrublu215Vote: 3/10/10
The Mummy has had countless iterations of the character grace thescreen for the better part of the 20th Century. With the 1932 originaland the fun but lazy 1999 remake and anything in between, we prettymuch got it. It can be scary or it can be action packed as it seemsHollywood has left there to be no in between for this type of film.Unfortunately neither of those extremes apply to this one. The Mummy isa pandering and very meager attempt at cashing in on a potentialfranchise. It's sad to watch because it feels like the studio madethis. This doesn't feel organic in any way, shape or form and relies onCGI filled action sequences, Tom Cruise, and cheap scares that end upbeing unintentionally funny to progress the story. None of which comesoff the way it should.
The story is absolute crap to put it as lightly as I can. It is plottedso on-the-nose that you can't have anything left up to your imaginationexcept for some scenes of violence that may have been too much for aPG-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 itsaudience 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 heavilyplot oriented that you can't get a feel for his character and when youget the chance to, it fails, crashes and burns.
The cast is surprisingly strong on paper but director Alex Kurtzmanfails to utilize them in roles that best suit them. Tom Cruise isreally the only cast member that fits the part which, when consideringwhat genre we're talking about here, is a horrible thing. Courtney BVance, who delivered an awards caliber performance in American CrimeStory, is watered down to nothing more than a mere walk on role.Russell Crowe is so obviously doing the film for the paycheck, it feelslike 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 completelydisappointed by everyone here. Director Alex Kurtzman, who went fromdirecting a small indie to all of a sudden directing this big bombasticaction summer blockbuster, feels out of his element here and misses thebeats of a good action movie and completely neglects everything thatcould make a great horror film. The Mummy is by far one of the worstblockbusters in recent memory and stands as a major misfire forUniversal's Dark Universe and Tom Cruise.
Reviewed byCraig James Review (on Youtube)Vote: 3/10/10
"The Mummy" is the first movie in what Universal Studios wants to calltheir "Dark Universe." Yeah, that's right. Those re-shoots that 2014's"Dracula Untold" went through to tie into a Dark Universe; those don'tmatter now. That 2010 Benicio del Toro "Wolfman" movie; also doesn'tmatter.
In a world where Universes are becoming more and more of a thing,Universal seems determined not to let this monster mash-up of TheWolfman, Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde and moreslip through their fingers.
And they're also not skimping out on finding A-list talent to help sellthe whole thing. So far we've heard Johnny Depp, The Rock, and JavierBardem's names being thrown into the mix, plus Russell Crowe is alreadyhere as Dr. Jekyll.
That last one I think is really cool by the way because while so manyothers have been portrayed by the likes of Gary Oldman and JackNicholson's, Jekyll's best portrayal in the past 20+ years has beenugh .David Hasselhoff.
But now let's talk about "The Mummy", specifically that old trilogywith Brendan Fraser. There's no doubt director Stephen Sommers luckedout with that first film and there's also little doubt Universal wantsto move away from that overall cheesiness here. The question is canthey still go serious but also have fun at the same time?
And say what you will about Sommers; the guy was a C-grade filmmakerwho got a kick out of a cheap thrill but at least you could say hecommitted to it. This new Mummy is just a wrong-headed disaster.
The set-up is pretty much the same as the older Mummy film althoughhere it's a woman played by "Kingsman's" Sofia Boutella. She's Ahmanet,an Egyptian Princess who wanted power, sold out to some powerful entityfor eternal life, and paid for it by getting entombed.
Universal of course is also putting it's faith in Tom Cruise, who playsan Army Vet prone towards treasure hunting. He and several others findAhmanet's sarcophygus but while bringing it back to be examined, theplane goes down over London and a bunch of strange things happen thatthey learn can't just be coincidence.
This is Cruise just being Cruise here. He gets to run around a lotdoing his "intense face" all while an attractive woman half his age isalong with him for the sexual interplay (more on her in a moment).Yeah, there's discussion about his character growing something of aconscience as this goes on but it's pretty perfunctory.
Plus having the Mummy be a woman after Cruise's body so she could planther demon God inside of him and they can reign as King and Queen; thisseems more like it falls into being of one of Cruise's aging vanityprojects than on acting skill.
Boutella gets very little to do otherwise but try and be seductivewhile waving her hands in a threatening manner. Otherwise auto-tunedoes the rest.
The Cruise character's love interest is an archaeologist played byAnnabelle Wallis who looks like she just stepped out from a Parisfashion show into an archaeological dig. Did I believe her as anarchaeologist? 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 theirscenes together.
No character makes much impression here, including Crowe's Dr. Jekyllwho's maybe in the film for 20 minutes to explain stuff so simplistic,silly, and predictable that it hardly needs explaining at all beforethe film rushes through his particular ailment.
For some reason screenwriters David Koepp and Christopher McQuarriethink more explanation is still warranted though and in that theycouldn't be more wrong. For something trying to feel new, it'sremarkably easy to tell where all this is going.
Their biggest crime is what they do to New Girl's Jake Johnson, a funnyactor who they turn into the Dark Universe's version of Jar Jar Binksin only five minutes. He comes in and out of the film at really oddintervals, either screaming dialogue in the hope of making it funny orgiving us yet more exposition we don't really need.
Add to that first time action director Alex Kurtzman is a disaster. Theaction sequences look haphazardly thrown together, just cartoonish andunbelievable, while a spoiler I won't give away about the Tom Cruisecharacter makes them even harder to give a crap about anyway.
The fights are stiff and uninteresting, and the special effects areeither forgettable or look just as hokey as they did in the BrendanFraser movies. The plane sequence we saw in the trailer looks prettydecent 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 whatit even is. It wants to resurrect classic monsters, but isn't the leastbit scary. It wants to take it in original directions, but winds upbeing an ultra-serious, dull version of the 1999 film. It's silly butnot funny, it's a lot of commotion but no excitement, it's a Mummymovie that if the ending of this can even be believed, thinks it'ssomething totally different. This is a worse start to a Universe thanKing Arthur was.
If you liked this, check out more of Craig James Review on Youtube
Though safely entombed in a crypt deep beneath the unforgiving desert, an ancient princess, whose destiny was unjustly taken from her, is awakened in our current day bringing with her malevolence grown over millennia, and terrors that defy human comprehension.