Tom Cruise is starring in "The Mummy" remake

[turnbolt]

As a massive Universal Monsters fan (I mean I sleep in a Frankenstein themed bedroom.) I was excited and trepidatious for this new Dark Universe. Especially with the Tom Cruise factor. I mean I liked him 20 years ago. can't remember the last time I paid to see a movie starring him. So I went with medium expectations and after a clunky staring 20 minutes or so I was pleased with the outcome. It is popcorn movie nonsense...but so are the originals. the horror was fun and well done. Russel Crowe was fantastic...can't wait for his movie...it was fun. I rarely go to the movies for that purpose. I love serious subject matter but this worked. I am sad it has gotten bad reviews. I don't get it. Most of it is generic Hollywood claptrap...but it was a good movie. Oh and Rotten Tomatoes rarely gets things right. I don't trust most critics. They usually have their own agenda. Give it a chance. It will be far more satisfiying on the big screen.

[Hector]

Well, the critics at Rotten Tomatoes have it at a very low 17%...but the audience ratings at 45% is pretty low too...audience ratings usually are always almost really high for these popcorn adventure type movies.

I myself are not going to watch it at the theater...I'll wait for the Redbox release.

Why? Because of the critics? Audiences?

No...because of the lame revelation that Cruise is a more powerful monster than her...and I didn't post a spoiler warning here, because I'm not spoiling anything...it's in all the bloody trailers, that's why.

Now...to keep my rant on this subject...the following are indeed spoilers...




***SPOILERS***

So after being spoiled by the trailer...I just had to read the rest of the story online...and yup...bloody Universal head honchos...Cruise attains Set's powers and snuff the female Mummy...great...no need for me to spend $15 at the theater now...only $2 at Redbox, that's the most Universal is getting from me. Your fault for that major awful spoiler. End rant...




End of **SPOILERS*****

[YoungOnce]

Wife and I saw it last night. Since all of the reviews have been negative, we went in with low expectations. We actually enjoyed it. I thought it had a good tone... It never felt too heavy or too light. Very accessible to all ages. I definitely don't think it deserves the low numbers at Rotten Tomatoes and the crushing reviews. But I'm finding myself more and more in conflict with reviewers these days.

[Bruce Banner]

I thought the movie was okay... I liked the overall tone, and the story (while hardly original or innovative) was entertaining enough.
I liked the fact that Dr. Jekyll was in there and the various "Easter egg" artifacts in the Prodigium's base were really fun to spot.
I'm all for a unified "Dark Universe" concept. If handled correctly it could be very cool.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^I don't even blink at it anymore. If it's done well, I just accept it and go on. That's like complaining about green/blue screen work 40 years ago.

If it appears cheaply done and doesn't live up to the current standard, then I call foul. Not to beat a dead horse but I still feel Doomsday looked terrible in last year's BvS. The current version of The Mummy Returns' Scorpion King, oddly enough.

Chris

[jacoblb]

I saw it today and got what I expected. I expect a common criticism from fans and from podcasts I'll hear will be all the CGI, which hardly affects solely the horror genre. But that's the norm of today,

[Goblin19]

I definitely prefer the classic monsters in the proper period, but it's necessary to update them. If done well, I will have no issue with them. Honestly, Frankenstein is the only one who I have a hard time placing into modern times.

[Hector]

Updating the Gillman is easy, but placing the others outside of 1880-1930 is problematic for me.

Sandy Collora already did...

[Goblin19]

Well, it is doing very well overseas so there's hope for the Dark Universe yet.

[enyawd72]

Looks like Wonder Woman is burying this mess at the box office.

Having seen it today, I can assure you it isn't a mess at all. I found it to be a solid entry into the Dark Universe and extremely entertaining. I enjoyed it just as much as Wonder Woman, but for different reasons.
Unfortunately I feel it's being unfairly judged by three different groups of people.

1. The die hard classic Universal Monster purists who reject anything that isn't Karloff, Chaney or Lugosi.
2. Fans of the Brendan Fraser series who have rejected this reboot from the start...there were even online petitions to bring him back.
3. Tom Cruise haters. There are a growing number of people who are turned off by him and his ties to Scientology and refuse to watch anything he's in.

[hedrap]

A month ago, Uni thought it was an easy win. Two weeks ago, it would neck and neck. Monday, they projected a 10M loss, 50 to 40. Then, WW had absurd Monday returns, and it became clear this weekend would be 60M to 30M....

...yet, it's going to be Cruise's biggest worldwide opening ever thanks to Asia. Because he's apparently relevant in South Korea (?) and the China market is now fully opened compared to a decade ago. In.Sane.

I now have this image of DU being all set across Asia, as a monster rally reboot of Frankenstein Conquers The World.

[thunderbolt]

Looks like Wonder Woman is burying this mess at the box office.

[PNGwynne]

Yeah, in this age of advanced facial reconstruction surgery...the whole Phantom of the Opera story would be a moot point in today's modern day, lol...

Oh, deformity is still an obstacle, but all the other trappings of the story are pure melodrama. Maybe as a reclusive media manipulator? IDK...

[PNGwynne]

Updating the Gillman is easy, but placing the others outside of 1880-1930 is problematic for me.

[Hector]

Yeah, in this age of advanced facial reconstruction surgery...the whole Phantom of the Opera story would be a moot point in today's modern day, lol...