Universal monsters of old come together again - WATCH OUT! 1 1

[nearmint]

You know what, my expectations were so lowered by the reviews that I was pleasantly surprised.  Not a bad Saturday afternoon popcorn flick. 

I'm reading that the domestic take was dismal, but the international take makes The Mummy Tom Cruise's best opening weekend ever.

[ComicConnoisseur]

5 minutes ago, nearmint said:

 Mummy Tom Cruise's best opening weekend

That really is the best news about this. I really do want more Universal Monster movies, especially Creature from the Black Lagoon. I have been waiting for that one for years.

Edited June 12, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[philsbackpack]

Went to see it this week...had a free voucher from buying the old Mummy Blu-Ray set at Best Buy.

I enjoyed it for what it was...summer popcorn flick.

Great...no

Entertaining...yes

I'm more in line with the USA Today review than most of what's been written on Rotten Tomatoes.

Positives: Endeavored to be more in line with a horror theme than what we saw with some of the Frasier films, set-up the larger universe integrating it into the main story without senselessly plugging it in, didn't seem as forced to me as other critics have mentioned.  Better than decent performance from Cruise and Crowe.  I thought Crowe was especially fun and entertaining.  Nice blend of CGI and practical effects (didn't overly rely on CGI).  Good back story for 'The Mummy' and the curse, providing motive for the plot.  Well paced movie.

Drawbacks: -script had its issues, was uneven to put it kindly, and failed the actors in certain areas.  'Romantic interest' aspect of the story felt at times lacking, forced, & at the same time created unnecessarily exaggerated motives in key scenes.  I can't say more here without spoilers.

Overall, I'm a sucker for monster movies, so I still enjoyed it and I'm excited to see where Russell Crowe's character takes this in the future.

Edited June 15, 2017 by philsbackpack

[ComicConnoisseur]

1 hour ago, philsbackpack said:

I'm more in line with the USA Today review than most of what's been written on Rotten Tomatoes.

I think what happened was it came right out after Wonder Woman. If they had waited to bring it out around Halloween the Rotten Tomatoes meter probably wouldn't have been so low.

btw Tom Cruise wanted the early June date, as the studios wanted it to come out in the fall.

They say Cruise took total control of the Mummy.

Inside ‘The Mummy’s’ Troubles: Tom Cruise Had Excessive Control 

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/the-mummy-meltdown-tom-cruise-1202465742/

But in the case of “The Mummy,” one person–Cruise–had an excessive amount of control, according to several people interviewed. The reboot of “The Mummy” was supposed to be the start of a mega-franchise for Universal Pictures. But instead, it’s become a textbook case of a movie star run amok.

Edited June 15, 2017 by ComicConnoisseur

[ComicConnoisseur]

With this Mummy failure maybe it is time to start thinking these Universal Monsters don`'t fit in with modern audiences just like time has passed by Lone Ranger,The Shadow,King Arthur,Tarzan and Green Hornet.

All the recent reboots have not connected with modern audiences such as Van Helsing,Wolfman(2010) and Dracula Untold, maybe the modern audiences just don't find them scary enough anymore after being introduced to Freddy Krueger, Jason and the Halloween movies.

Well, I always got this 

[Bosco685]

7 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

With this Mummy failure maybe it is time to start thinking these Universal Monsters don`'t fit in with modern audiences just like time has passed by Lone Ranger,The Shadow,King Arthur,Tarzan and Green Hornet.

I think these monsters would fit in totally okay WITH the right -script in place. The Mummy had a poorly crafted story, yet had all the other elements available. Blaming it on Tom Cruise once again doesn't seem like the root cause. I truly felt like he tried to make it work. Even with the ending...

Spoiler

I think they were trying to show he took on the curse of The Mummy by sacrificing himself to save his love interest. So the later stories - to keep the franchise going - was hunting him down.

 

[Bosco685]

One benefit to this Mummy movie is it made me pull out the Brendan Fraser version. Forgot how good that movie was. Then it led to buying The Mummy Returns on blu-ray. I knew this last one wasn't as good as the first one. But it involved most of the original cast. And it had that fight scene between Nefertiri and Anck Su Namun.

Having to fight for the pleasure of the Pharaoh.  Sister against sister.

[kagenish]

the big question on everybody minds should they have kept this scene in the movie maybe it could have helped it.

Spoiler

 

 

 

[NewEnglandGothic]

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 2:12 PM, ComicConnoisseur said:

With this Mummy failure maybe it is time to start thinking these Universal Monsters don`'t fit in with modern audiences just like time has passed by Lone Ranger,The Shadow,King Arthur,Tarzan and Green Hornet.

All the recent reboots have not connected with modern audiences such as Van Helsing,Wolfman(2010) and Dracula Untold, maybe the modern audiences just don't find them scary enough anymore after being introduced to Freddy Krueger, Jason and the Halloween movies.

Well, I always got this 

Don't forget 1975's Doctor Who: Pyramids of Mars!

Although I enjoyed 1999's "The Mummy," these episodes packs enough cliffhanger-thrills, mummies and laughs to rival the original Universal Mummy movie.

Definitely, one for the home video library!

#sutekhmustlive

[Bosco685]

Box Office: Why $400 Million Wasn't Enough For Tom Cruise's 'The Mummy'

Quote

Tom Cruise’s The Mummy should be crossing $400 million at the global box office today or tomorrow. The poorly-reviewed (and poorly-received) horror/action hybrid was a domestic dud, earning just $79.8m in North America from a $31.7m debut weekend. That’s less than the $80m domestic gross of Jack Reacher back in 2012. But it did better overseas thanks to Cruise’s star power and earned $320m overseas, including $91.7m in China and $27m in South Korea. So, the Alex Kurtzman-directed release, intended to kick off Universal’s Dark Universe franchise, has made 3.2x its $125m budget. So, it’s a hit right? Well, not quite.

 

It’s no longer enough for a film of this nature to make money or be even enough to be perceived as profitable. It has to inspire interest in already pre-planned (if not pre-dated) sequels and/or spin-offs. Because The Mummy wasn’t very good (and I’m the guy who defends Oblivion), moviegoers are not necessarily chomping at the bit for Bill Condon’s The Bride of Frankenstein or whatever follows that one in the so-called Dark Universe.

 

Now, it is entirely possible that a halfway decent The Bride of Frankenstein, which will star Javier Bardem and (allegedly) someone along the lines of Angelina Jolie in the title role, will be a hit in-and-of-itself. But if it breaks out over Valentine’s Day weekend in 2019 and justifies itself, it will be despite The Mummy, not because of it. The good news is that, if Hollywood continues to double-down on this whole expanded universe thing (I again argue that audiences don’t care), then there will be greater incentive to make sure that the movies are “good” as opposed to merely containing elements that would theoretically incur global box office glory.

 

But as The Mummy cruises to $400 million worldwide, we should note that in this era of cinematic universes, quality matters at least as much as box office.

Where they blew off Dracula Untold as a franchise launch due to the heavy overseas dependence, The Mummy is in the same boat (20.1% domestic revenue, 79.9% international revenue).

[ComicConnoisseur]

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Now, it is entirely possible that a halfway decent The Bride of Frankenstein, which will star Javier Bardem and (allegedly) someone along the lines of Angelina Jolie in the title role, will be a hit in-and-of-itself.

They need to go with someone younger. They are going with stars from the past who are on the decline agewise like Depp,Cruise and Russell Crowe. 

They would have been perfect 10 years ago,but the modern mainstream audience is fickle and considers Jolie, Depp,Cruise and Russell Crowe all long in tooth now.

They need to go get more no-name up and coming actors/actresses and not established actors who are doing these movies for a good paycheck. The audence can see this.

Other than The Bride of Frankenstein things are not looking good for this universe and I am not going to expect much going forward with it.

 

 

[reddwarf666222]

3 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

They need to go with someone younger. They are going with stars from the past who are on the decline agewise like Depp,Cruise and Russell Crowe. 

They would have been perfect 10 years ago,but the modern mainstream audience is fickle and considers Jolie, Depp,Cruise and Russell Crowe all long in tooth now.

They need to go get more no-name up and coming actors/actresses and not established actors who are doing these movies for a good paycheck. The audence can see this.

Other than The Bride of Frankenstein things are not looking good for this universe and I am not going to expect much going forward with it.

 

 

Problem is we don't have the next generation of stars like we did 15 years back that says we are going to this film just because of this star. 

[NewEnglandGothic]

21 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

They need to go with someone younger. They are going with stars from the past who are on the decline agewise like Depp,Cruise and Russell Crowe. 

They would have been perfect 10 years ago,but the modern mainstream audience is fickle and considers Jolie, Depp,Cruise and Russell Crowe all long in tooth now.

They need to go get more no-name up and coming actors/actresses and not established actors who are doing these movies for a good paycheck. The audence can see this.

Other than The Bride of Frankenstein things are not looking good for this universe and I am not going to expect much going forward with it.

Totally agree with this.

I personally won't see The Bride with Angelina Jolie in the titular role myself. I have to admit, every movie I saw her in, I kept seeing Jolie the actor not a character.

Although, it's going to be argued Tom Cruise's marquee name saved the international grosses.

I think these movies were ran into the ground by the late 40's anyway, before they went into parody. Universal strived in horror in the 60's with Psycho and the 70's with Jaws, while they ignored these kinds of films. Why did dig them all up now, thinking they are all going to work like 1999's The Mummy or 1992's Dracula (Sony.)

Hate to say it, but these films don't have to be the biggest budget films. I know Whale wanted to top the original with a bigger budget "She's Alive!: The Making of the Bride of Frankenstein." Despite their faded brands, people have a general idea what they should expect when they choose to see one. Definitely bring in unknowns, so we see them as the characters, not actors out to pay the mortgage payment.

Who was Elsa Lanchester back then, other than a stage actress and the wife in the sham wedding of Charles Laughton. Valerie Hobson, a total newbie (had a crush on her since Meet Me Tonight.) Colin Clive was on his unfortunate way out. That just left Karloff who is under make-up anyway. Hire a skillful no-name actor who can do make-up, ala Ron Perlman (ironically a millionaire, if not billionaire through Revlon.)

[reddwarf666222]

20 minutes ago, NewEnglandGothic said:

Totally agree with this.

I personally won't see The Bride with Angelina Jolie in the titular role myself. I have to admit, every movie I saw her in, I kept seeing Jolie the actor not a character.

Although, it's going to be argued Tom Cruise's marquee name saved the international grosses.

I think these movies were ran into the ground by the late 40's anyway, before they went into parody. Universal strived in horror in the 60's with Psycho and the 70's with Jaws, while they ignored these kinds of films. Why did dig them all up now, thinking they are all going to work like 1999's The Mummy or 1992's Dracula (Sony.)

Hate to say it, but these films don't have to be the biggest budget films. I know Whale wanted to top the original with a bigger budget "She's Alive!: The Making of the Bride of Frankenstein." Despite their faded brands, people have a general idea what they should expect when they choose to see one. Definitely bring in unknowns, so we see them as the characters, not actors out to pay the mortgage payment.

Who was Elsa Lanchester back then, other than a stage actress and the wife in the sham wedding of Charles Laughton. Valerie Hobson, a total newbie (had a crush on her since Meet Me Tonight.) Colin Clive was on his unfortunate way out. That just left Karloff who is under make-up anyway. Hire a skillful no-name actor who can do make-up, ala Ron Perlman (ironically a millionaire, if not billionaire through Revlon.)

Totally different time period than now. The actors back then were studio actors signed to contracts, studios owned the the theaters, and actors had limited shelf life.

If a studio is going to spend a lot of money then they want a name actor to play the part with appeal. Problem is most actresses now have a 3 to 5 year shelf life to where they can be on top after that they become indie and television actresses.

As far as casting the bride I would go with a comedian. I would probably cast Kate McKinnen

[NewEnglandGothic]

16 minutes ago, reddwarf666222 said:

As far as casting the bride I would go with a comedian. I would probably cast Kate McKinnen

You had me until Kate.  Granted, I love her on SNL and Ghostbusters.

I'm thinking Rooney Mara (check out her work in 'Carol') or Felicity Jones.

12-15 years ago, the perfect choice would have been Essie Davis.

[NewEnglandGothic]

If Tatiana Maslany is unemployed now, she would also be a perfect choice.

[reddwarf666222]

5 minutes ago, NewEnglandGothic said:

You had me until Kate.  Granted, I love her on SNL and Ghostbusters.

I'm thinking Rooney Mara (check out her work in 'Carol') or Felicity Jones.

12-15 years ago, the perfect choice would have been Essie Davis.

It's a comedic role which is why I say Kate. Unfortunately Rooney's shelf life has expired as a leading star.

[NewEnglandGothic]

4 minutes ago, reddwarf666222 said:

It's a comedic role which is why I say Kate. Unfortunately Rooney's shelf life has expired as a leading star.

When I'm watching movies, I'm looking for the ones that would fit best in roles, not stars.

But, I do agree with you that Hollywood has this mentality still in order to "sell" a movie to the broadest audience possible.

I've come to terms with that now, but I'm not buying the swampland they keep selling us over and over again.

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

2 hours ago, reddwarf666222 said:

Problem is most actresses now have a 3 to 5 year shelf life to where they can be on top after that they become indie and television actresses.

I wonder if they go the Miley Cyrus,Katy Perry or Lady Ga Ga route?

Young,established superstars in their prime?

[reddwarf666222]

15 minutes ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I wonder if they go the Miley Cyrus,Katy Perry or Lady Ga Ga route?

Young,established superstars in their prime?

I can go with Lady GaGa