@meres1 said:

I went to see The Mummy on opening day and I wasn't excited. I love the Brendan Fraser incarnation and the trailers for this Dark Universe didn't instil confidence. So maybe my expectations were so low that I enjoyed it. It's your average blockbuster, no better or worse than half the Marvel movies, all the DCEU (arguably *better * than all of them) and sure, it isn't perfect but it definitely isn't as bad as Dracula Untold, itself packing a RT score to 23%, strangely higher than The Mummy's absurdly low 17%. It's better than any of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and even they more than double its score. Have people forgotten how to have fun at the movies?

I agree! It was really a fun movie, and I enjoyed it! Maybe it is just timing and people are comparing it to Wonder Woman? I dunno, I loved it!

@meres1 said:

I went to see The Mummy on opening day and I wasn't excited. I love the Brendan Fraser incarnation and the trailers for this Dark Universe didn't instil confidence. So maybe my expectations were so low that I enjoyed it. It's your average blockbuster, no better or worse than half the Marvel movies, all the DCEU (arguably *better * than all of them) and sure, it isn't perfect but it definitely isn't as bad as Dracula Untold, itself packing a RT score to 23%, strangely higher than The Mummy's absurdly low 17%. It's better than any of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and even they more than double its score. Have people forgotten how to have fun at the movies?

People are too uptight. It seem many reviewers and even magazines form their opinions before they watch the movies. It is nonsense. Sure, one may like or dislike a direction a story takes, or disapprove of the craft done, but for Christ sake evaluate it on its own merits and don't compare it to something it is not. Naturally "The Mummy (2017)" is no "The Mummy (1932)" and nor is it "The Mummy (1999). It is its own thing. And that is great. We already have enough mundane remakes out there. It is a fun action filled ride, an interesting mix of zombies, mummies, conspiracies and even Mr Hyde and it opens for Tom cruise to be the Mummy in future installments - what is not to like??

And in truth, the rest of the world seem to like ti. Made like 300 million in its first week worldwide. Not too shabby by any standards

@meres1 said:

I went to see The Mummy on opening day and I wasn't excited. I love the Brendan Fraser incarnation and the trailers for this Dark Universe didn't instil confidence. So maybe my expectations were so low that I enjoyed it. It's your average blockbuster, no better or worse than half the Marvel movies, all the DCEU (arguably *better * than all of them) and sure, it isn't perfect but it definitely isn't as bad as Dracula Untold, itself packing a RT score to 23%, strangely higher than The Mummy's absurdly low 17%. It's better than any of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels and even they more than double its score. Have people forgotten how to have fun at the movies?

Having fun at the movies usually involves the movie being fun. This was another franchise for Tom Cruise to basically run around and scream in various ways. Don't get me wrong, I like him every now and then - he's a good actor when he wants to be but all of his films are starting to look the same. That being said, this version of The Mummy is no way comparable to any of the previous iterations or the 90's/00's trilogy.

I thought it would have been great to get Crusie and Russell Crowe on film together but maybe that should be left to a Mission Impossible sequel or something.

@simian_ninja said:

Having fun at the movies usually involves the movie being fun. This was another franchise for Tom Cruise to basically run around and scream in various ways. Don't get me wrong, I like him every now and then - he's a good actor when he wants to be but all of his films are starting to look the same. That being said, this version of The Mummy is no way comparable to any of the previous iterations or the 90's/00's trilogy.

I thought it would have been great to get Crusie and Russell Crowe on film together but maybe that should be left to a Mission Impossible sequel or something.

I suppose fun is indeed subjective. I for one enjoyed this newest iteration considerably more than Fraser's 3rd film, as well as the 2nd and 4th Transformers, all of which hold similar scores on RT. It doesn't hold a candle to the 1999 film, which I consider to be one of the better adventure films around, but me, I had fun. Tom Cruise was far from a highlight and was indeed exactly the same as he usually is (American Made looks pretty great though). I like Crowe, Boutella, thought the ending was pretty solid, enjoyed the monster version of Shield. Far from perfect but about as enjoyable as, say, the first Transformers.

Well I've just seen the movie myself and I actually thought it was good. I am actually get so sick and tied of all these movie haters now, I agree with the OP that it's like people have forgotten how to have fun with movies, it's like everyone has turned into the Nostalgia Critic, people like him are scum as they are putting their standards too high. The films rating here is really unfair.

Agree, while not exceptional or anything, it was quite enjoyable.

Why All The Hate? Well for starters it's bad. The humor is forced and doesn't work. Zero chemistry between Cruise and Not Elsa Pataky. Shoehorns in the Jekyll/Hyde stuff which feels rushed and tacked on. Ahmanent's plan makes no sense. The "dead best friend is a ghost" bit was silly. The whole tone of the movie is all over the place. One moment we see a baby get murdered and the next it's slapstick. Oh, and way too much unnecessary CGI.

I just... I didn't care about any of these people. Cruise's character is a prick. Not Elsa Pataky is just a pretty face. Crowe was doing a really bad Dr. Strangelove impression. And Ahmanent was just an ambitious murderer.

Compare this to the 1999 movie which had a good balance of action adventure and comedy, also it had very relatable characters: Fraser was the brave brute, Weisz was the loveable nerd, and Vosloo's mummy was doing it for love not because he was evil. Also that movie's score was really robust and Indiana Jones-inspired while this movie's score was blah.

Not the worst thing I've seen but for sure a missed opportunity to do something different.

@Damienracer said:

@cswood said:

Why All The Hate? Well for starters it's bad. The humor is forced and doesn't work. Zero chemistry between Cruise and Not Elsa Pataky. Shoehorns in the Jekyll/Hyde stuff which feels rushed and tacked on. Ahmanent's plan makes no sense. The "dead best friend is a ghost" bit was silly. The whole tone of the movie is all over the place. One moment we see a baby get murdered and the next it's slapstick. Oh, and way too much unnecessary CGI.

I just... I didn't care about any of these people. Cruise's character is a prick. Not Elsa Pataky is just a pretty face. Crowe was doing a really bad Dr. Strangelove impression. And Ahmanent was just an ambitious murderer.

Compare this to the 1999 movie which had a good balance of action adventure and comedy, also it had very relatable characters: Fraser was the brave brute, Weisz was the loveable nerd, and Vosloo's mummy was doing it for love not because he was evil. Also that movie's score was really robust and Indiana Jones-inspired while this movie's score was blah.

Not the worst thing I've seen but for sure a missed opportunity to do something different.

Elsa Pataky wasn't in this movie.

Not Elsa Pataky was.

@Damienracer said:

@HAL 9010' said:

@Damienracer said:

@cswood said:

Why All The Hate? Well for starters it's bad. The humor is forced and doesn't work. Zero chemistry between Cruise and Not Elsa Pataky. Shoehorns in the Jekyll/Hyde stuff which feels rushed and tacked on. Ahmanent's plan makes no sense. The "dead best friend is a ghost" bit was silly. The whole tone of the movie is all over the place. One moment we see a baby get murdered and the next it's slapstick. Oh, and way too much unnecessary CGI.

I just... I didn't care about any of these people. Cruise's character is a prick. Not Elsa Pataky is just a pretty face. Crowe was doing a really bad Dr. Strangelove impression. And Ahmanent was just an ambitious murderer.

Compare this to the 1999 movie which had a good balance of action adventure and comedy, also it had very relatable characters: Fraser was the brave brute, Weisz was the loveable nerd, and Vosloo's mummy was doing it for love not because he was evil. Also that movie's score was really robust and Indiana Jones-inspired while this movie's score was blah.

Not the worst thing I've seen but for sure a missed opportunity to do something different.

Elsa Pataky wasn't in this movie.

Not Elsa Pataky was.

Think before replying to me, Elsa Pataky wasn't in this movie IMDB still exists ffs look up the cast lists.

hmmmm a misunderstood joke, this is.

I will assist: CSWOOD write "Not Elsa Patak" in his post above - meaning the actress was NOT Elsa Patak, meaning he thinks that they look alike.... and then I build upon this joke in my reply to your misunderstanding of his joke, by stating that an actress who is NOT Elsa Patak is in the movie.... which of course is indeed very true, it is Annabelle Wallis and NOT Elsa Patak.... in fact, most movies does not have Elsa Patak in it.

I agree, always good to think (and read) before replying ;) (sorry, could not help myself)

@HAL 9010' said:

@Damienracer said:

@cswood said:

Why All The Hate? Well for starters it's bad. The humor is forced and doesn't work. Zero chemistry between Cruise and Not Elsa Pataky. Shoehorns in the Jekyll/Hyde stuff which feels rushed and tacked on. Ahmanent's plan makes no sense. The "dead best friend is a ghost" bit was silly. The whole tone of the movie is all over the place. One moment we see a baby get murdered and the next it's slapstick. Oh, and way too much unnecessary CGI.

I just... I didn't care about any of these people. Cruise's character is a prick. Not Elsa Pataky is just a pretty face. Crowe was doing a really bad Dr. Strangelove impression. And Ahmanent was just an ambitious murderer.

Compare this to the 1999 movie which had a good balance of action adventure and comedy, also it had very relatable characters: Fraser was the brave brute, Weisz was the loveable nerd, and Vosloo's mummy was doing it for love not because he was evil. Also that movie's score was really robust and Indiana Jones-inspired while this movie's score was blah.

Not the worst thing I've seen but for sure a missed opportunity to do something different.

Elsa Pataky wasn't in this movie.

Not Elsa Pataky was.

lol thanks HAL. Everyone says you're an evil AI run amok but you're alright with me

@cswood said:

@HAL 9010' said:

@Damienracer said:

@cswood said:

Why All The Hate? Well for starters it's bad. The humor is forced and doesn't work. Zero chemistry between Cruise and Not Elsa Pataky. Shoehorns in the Jekyll/Hyde stuff which feels rushed and tacked on. Ahmanent's plan makes no sense. The "dead best friend is a ghost" bit was silly. The whole tone of the movie is all over the place. One moment we see a baby get murdered and the next it's slapstick. Oh, and way too much unnecessary CGI.

I just... I didn't care about any of these people. Cruise's character is a prick. Not Elsa Pataky is just a pretty face. Crowe was doing a really bad Dr. Strangelove impression. And Ahmanent was just an ambitious murderer.

Compare this to the 1999 movie which had a good balance of action adventure and comedy, also it had very relatable characters: Fraser was the brave brute, Weisz was the loveable nerd, and Vosloo's mummy was doing it for love not because he was evil. Also that movie's score was really robust and Indiana Jones-inspired while this movie's score was blah.

Not the worst thing I've seen but for sure a missed opportunity to do something different.

Elsa Pataky wasn't in this movie.

Not Elsa Pataky was.

lol thanks HAL. Everyone says you're an evil AI run amok but you're alright with me

Let me put it this way, Mr. SCWOOD. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

I think that Tom Cruise has a lot of haters. I didn't think the movie wasn't as bad as the rating suggests.

@rarebreed said:

I think that Tom Cruise has a lot of haters. I didn't think the movie wasn't as bad as the rating suggests.

I wouldn't go that far, I think the last Mission Impossible film still made a lot of money. He does have detractors due to his involvement with Scientology but I wouldn't say that he has haters. I think the majority of people are hoping that one day he'll 'snap' out of his spell so to speak.

@meres1 said:

@Damienracer said: I actually might watch it, I heard there's a reference to the Brendan Fraser mummy movies and that they're canon in this dark universe which was the clincher for me.

There is indeed a reference. Haven't heard anything about them being in the same universe but Fraser's was set in the 30's so I wouldn't be surprised.

There's a nod to the Frazier flick. There's nothing to say they couldn't co-exist in the same universe, but I doubt it was meant to be a confirmation of canonicity.

@Damienracer said:

I would've been more invested in the mummy and the dark universe if it was for sure a continuation of the Brendan Fraser movies instead of some Tom Cruise defacto mission impossible sequel.

Maybe, but I was surprised how much I enjoyed this one....