criterionforum.org

Universal is trying to get a Marvel-esque reboot going with its classic monster properties, with the first being the Mummy with Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe

Which everyone will assume is a remake of the Brendan Fraser movie.

The first? Dracula Untold was supposed to launch this series, so is Universal pretending that movie didn't happen?

Professor Wagstaff wrote:The first? Dracula Untold was supposed to launch this series, so is Universal pretending that movie didn't happen?

There was also The Wolfman (2010), which was plagued with production problems.

Very weird trailer compiling footage from Universal's classic monster movies, edited in the style of contemporary movie trailers, done to mark the "official announcement" of--*deep sigh*--Universal's new interconnected "Dark Universe," reviving their cinematic properties and combining them, Avengers-style.

Why are people still treating this as an announcement when it's been a known thing for like half a decade at this point (and how have people lost faith in the authorial integrity of Tom Cruise, the only movie star who continues to matter)?

Ribs wrote:Why are people still treating this as an announcement when it's been a known thing for like half a decade at this point (and how have people lost faith in the authorial integrity of Tom Cruise, the only movie star who continues to matter)?

Because the studio is treating it like an announcement, giving the series an official name and confirming casting rumors for upcoming films.

domino harvey wrote:Bride of Frankenstein will be next, with Bill Condon directing

Makes sense, since he directed a film about the making of the film with Gods and Monsters!

I am concerned with this 'Dark Universe' announcement that we are missing the biggest question of all: do we have any modern day comedy duo who match the calibre of Abbott and Costello, who all of the monsters eventually end up meeting?

P.S. And if you say Adam Sandler and Kevin James, I'll throw up (my hands in despair)

P.P.S. Oh gosh, its going to be Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy isn't it?

At its organizing principle, Dark Universe films are connected by a mysterious multi-national organization known as Prodigium. Led by the enigmatic and brilliant Dr. Henry Jekyll, Prodigium’s mission is to track, study and—when necessary—destroy evil embodied in the form of monsters in our world. Working outside the aegis of any government, and with practices concealed by millennia of secrecy, Prodigium protects the public from knowledge of the evil that exists just beyond the thin membrane of civilized society…and will go to any length to contain it. For more visit: http://www.WelcometoProdigium.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

God this sounds pretentious.

colinr0380 wrote:

domino harvey wrote:Bride of Frankenstein will be next, with Bill Condon directing

Makes sense, since he directed a film about the making of the film with Gods and Monsters!

I am concerned with this 'Dark Universe' announcement that we are missing the biggest question of all: do we have any modern day comedy duo who match the calibre of Abbott and Costello, who all of the monsters eventually end up meeting?

P.S. And if you say Adam Sandler and Kevin James, I'll throw up (my hands in despair)

P.P.S. Oh gosh, its going to be Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy isn't it?

It'd be Rogen and Franco, obviously.

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:

At its organizing principle, Dark Universe films are connected by a mysterious multi-national organization known as Prodigium. Led by the enigmatic and brilliant Dr. Henry Jekyll, Prodigium’s mission is to track, study and—when necessary—destroy evil embodied in the form of monsters in our world. Working outside the aegis of any government, and with practices concealed by millennia of secrecy, Prodigium protects the public from knowledge of the evil that exists just beyond the thin membrane of civilized society…and will go to any length to contain it. For more visit: http://www.WelcometoProdigium.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

God this sounds pretentious.

Shame Walerian Borowczyk isn't around to update the Jekyll side of things.

The trailer for The Mummy accomplished the rare feat of making me not only miss the Brendan Fraser film, but also want to angrily defend it.

It seems that this Dark Universe may be DOA. The Mummy is getting horrible reviews (currently 22% approval over at RT).

I'm seeing it in a couple hours, but I gotta imagine Universal is looking at The Mummy and asking themselves why they didn't go the minimalist route, especially in the wake of Split and Get Out making way more at the US box office for them than The Mummy is likely to.

In my book, all The Mummy needed to be was a trapped excavation team that unleashed a curse on themselves and start getting picked off one by one. Once you threaten the world it becomes too much.

The Mummy (2017)

The most memorable qualities of the 30s-40s monster films are the combination of actor performances, tragedy, and - in particular - a permeance of dread. This film, on the other hand, alternates between overwrought world building, goofy "comic" relief, and bland action set pieces; of special note is the character of Chris, who might be the lamest sidekick I've seen in a tentpole movie in years. (I don't really blame Jake Johnson, who was given truly subpar material to work with). An executive driven picture in the least satisfying sense. 3/10

The most curious thing about the movie is what made Tom Cruise say, "Another Mummy movie? Sure, I'm in!" I know he's become more franchise-focused through the years but this seems like a desperate move on his part.

The trailer made it look really tired...they even reused the thing from the previous mummy franchise where little particals of sand/whatever be become a giant scary face. This does feel more like something I would expect to star a Vin Diesel not a Tom Cruise....but I suppose even he's gotta eat.

My son gets all excited when he sees an ad for some action/adventure/monster movie and begs us to take him to see it. 9 times out of 10 we'll gently let him down because it will probably be too much for him or he's just too young. Amusingly he has zero interest in this one. He's seen the Fraser film and likes that one (I think it's fun as well) and after seeing the trailer he asked me if it was another "Mummy" movie and I said "sort of" and explained it was a new one, not related to the one he liked. His response was a puzzled look. My wife and daughter are going to see it this weekend and she was afraid it might upset him if he felt left out. He really didn't give a shit when she told him and said he didn't want to see it. When she asked why he said "it looks bad." Even he knows.

In comparison to the Karloff film the Fraser one obviously follows the Indiana Jones template more and was truly a summer movie of the time but I always liked that it actually does follow the story of the original (to an extent) and it is fun. Re-watching it with my kids recently I probably liked it more than I did when it originally came out. I dismissed that one initially (I was a snobby college student so of course I thought a remake/reboot was the worst possible idea ever). Based on trailers this one really felt off, especially with that first teaser trailer: apparently it's about a mummy but the whole trailer focused on a plane crash sequence?

Brian C wrote:The most curious thing about the movie is what made Tom Cruise say, "Another Mummy movie? Sure, I'm in!" I know he's become more franchise-focused through the years but this seems like a desperate move on his part.

I'm only basing this off of trailers and bad word-or-mouth but this doesn't make sense for him. I get the Mission Impossible and Jack Reacher films but this one is odd.

As an other critic wrote, it's interesting because it really looks like a movie Cruise avoided at all costs so far. I really don't understand what appeal he saw in it, qualitatively speaking.

cdnchris wrote:In comparison to the Karloff film the Fraser one obviously follows the Indiana Jones template more and was truly a summer movie of the time but I always liked that it actually does follow the story of the original (to an extent) and it is fun. Re-watching it with my kids recently I probably liked it more than I did when it originally came out.

I have some quite positive memories of The Mummy and Return of the Mummy and will probably rewatch them this week end, but I admit I'm a bit worried of being let down now (especially by the sequel).

I remember hating the sequel (never saw the third one). But all I recall now is one sequence in a museum that felt similar to a scene in the Karloff one, but I could be wrong on that. I haven't seen it since it was in theaters.

The first I actually enjoyed quite a bit more on viewing it recently with my kids. The effects haven't aged well but it's a fun film.

I actually prefer the 1959 Hammer film, though I do enjoy the original 1932 film; the original is just a bit too similar to Dracula. The 1999 film has some fun adventurism, but when it's corny it is extremely so, which isn't to my tastes. However, I last saw it about 15 years ago, so maybe I should give it another chance.

Funnily, I've never seen any of the sequels to any version.

Seems like the Kharis mummy films from the 40's, Universal's first 'reboot' as it were, have been totally forgotten. I've seen no mention of them, here or elsewhere, tho' plenty of other mummy films seem to be coming up. This is understandable--they're predictable b-movies and got pretty dire as they went along (tho' the first one is kind of fun). But they're probably way more fun than this new one, and at least they served as the inspiration for Hammer's The Mummy, which I agree with captveg is easily the best of this shallow pool of mummy-on-the-loose films. The Universal films never managed to make its shambling revenant scary or even imposing (it's sooooo slow that the only way the movies can have it catch anyone is for them to conveniently freeze in terror and wait for it to catch up), but hand it to Christopher Lee and director Terence Fisher for making the Hammer version an imposing, credible threat. Really good film.

I don't think much of Hammer's other mummy films, or the Sommers' films (don't get the sudden nostalgia for them), or that straight-to-video one Russell Mulcahey did in the 90's where the mummy was a bunch of swirling bandages for some reason. I wasn't keen to see this new one, and the reviews and word-of-mouth have only strengthened that. I'll stick with the Karloff and the first Hammer.

Mr Sausage wrote:Seems like the Kharis mummy films from the 40's, Universal's first 'reboot' as it were, have been totally forgotten. I've seen no mention of them, here or elsewhere...

Perhaps they haven't generated much internet chatter, but all four of the Kharis mummy films are part of Universal's recent "The Mummy - Complete Legacy Collection" Blu-ray set.