The Mummy (2017)

Truly Dreadful Film

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

It is probably impossible not to compare this to the most recent Mummy-series launched in 1999. But it isn't really fair. The latter was an actionadventure with a heavy dose of comedy and devil may care-charm. The former and newer, a start to the movie series Dark Universe is shifted to be just that, darker. It is more of an action... something. On imdb it is said to be adventure and my cable said horror. It is a little of both, but not really either. And that is the problem.I like the backstory and Sofia Boutella cast as the Mummy. Her Mummy is powerful and vengeful, but also devious and driven by a desire that gives the character much more depth (I like Ahmanet more than Imhotep). But unfortunately the story is not really exploring Ahmanet, nor really letting here take her place as the main antagonist. It is not her or her powers our heroes flee from or combat.Because, somewehere, to me inexplicably, the movie turns into a zombie-movie. Don't know if it is an attempt to bring originality to the mummy-series. But to copy another horror motif, that people becomes zombies, sorry mummies, if they are bitten by another mummy/zombie is not a succesful way to do it. And then throw in Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (whom our hero just must have a fight with), it is no wonder Ahmanet doesn't get any scream time (and too much of it she is just chained up). I get that Crowe's Jekyll probably is set up as some bureau director (like Avengers Nick Fury) that have some part in the Dark Universe to connect the different monstermovies. But if it is a subplot, then he shouldn't take over the part as main antagonist, let it be a peripheral character until his own movie (again, like Nick Fury).With the mixed and underdeveloped plot this becomes mainly an generic action, unfortunately augmented by Cruise. He knows how to do those action roles, but can't carry the tongue in cheek thiefsoldier he is set to play (now it is the movie itself that compares with the earlier Mummy-series). Lastly I liked Wallis, but I am not sure of her role and character. Is she the expert assistant and sidekick to Nick, or is she just an innocent bystander caught up in the events (and love interest) that Nick needs to save? She is both, and she is neither.I really hope the Dark Universe continues. I even would like see more of the Mummy, especially Ahmanet. But there must be stronger plots that doesn't try to do too much.

What did I even watch? My expectations were so low and yet I was so dissapointed. The plot made no sense at all. Simply. I was about to get offended on behalf of the entire film industry to see that it had 15 nominatipns and 3 wims until I saw it was for worst actor and worst screenplay. Fully deserved. Even some of the somewhat decent actors in this picture was absolutely butchered by the terrible manuscript. Basically just Tom Cruise being Tom Cruise so if you're into that go for it I guess...

We switched it off half way through. Thin story, too much action and amateurish acting even from Tom Cruise. If you have not seen this movie do not bother unless you are desperate. Might try it again if I am bed bound and exausted all my collection of movies.

The Universal's new "Dark Universe" is off to a pretty good start, with "The Mummy" some pretty interesting ideas and sets things up quite nicely! So wow, this thing is getting NO LOVE out there, like seriously.. 39 on metascore and 21% on Rotten Tomatoes, like what c'mon guys no! Now they are gonna just re-restart that thing... and also it was okay.. am I the only one? It seems I was.