CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The Mummy (the one with Tom Cruise)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Mummy (the one with Tom Cruise) - Page 27

post #1301 of 1373

I'll be disappointed if we don't get to see Condon's BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.  As somebody who absolutely loves the Universal Monsters, I don't want to see them forever on ice because THE MUMMY didn't kick things off the right way.

post #1302 of 1373

Wait, are you telling me that something Alex Kurtzman was involved with went to shit realy fast?

Im shocked.

post #1303 of 1373

Dangit...  Looking at this thread since The Mummy is on sale right now for $9.99 digitally and my curiosity is likely going to get me to pull that trigger.  Also...  I'm probably going to revisit Van Helsing too.  Ha ha ha!

post #1304 of 1373
I tried revisiting Van Helsing a while back. I ditched out about 30 minutes in.
post #1305 of 1373

Snap. Some people here were talking about how fun Van Helsing is, so I decided to give it another chance. Barely made it an hour in.

post #1306 of 1373
Van Helsing is fun to turn off.
post #1307 of 1373

For those who can find joy in it, good on them. For me, Van Helsing is essentially the textbook example of what's wrong with tentpole filmmaking.

post #1308 of 1373
I can usually enjoy schlock, but woof.
post #1309 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

I can usually enjoy schlock, but woof.

 

didn't know val helsing came out so long ago

 

post #1310 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

I can usually enjoy schlock, but woof.

 

Not even Kate Beckinsale's Transylvanian accent helps! 

post #1311 of 1373
Woof is right. Richard Roxburgh's Dracula is physically painful to watch. Just an awful, awful performance.

The vampire brides were nice eye candy, though.
post #1312 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by HP Pufncraft View Post

Woof is right. Richard Roxburgh's Dracula is physically painful to watch. Just an awful, awful performance.

The vampire brides were nice eye candy, though.

Roxburgh married one, so he probably got the best deal out of everyone involved in Van Helsing
post #1313 of 1373

I always felt Jackman's enormous pimp hat was where the movie started it's downfall.

post #1314 of 1373
Every single thing about Van Helsing is basically the equivalent of those signs they post over nuclear waste dumps to warn illiterate postapocalyptic cavemen away.
post #1315 of 1373

I like how his first name was changed from Abraham like the book to Gabriel cause Gabriel's a more manly name.

 

It's like changing Bruce Banner's name to David Banner cause Bruce sounded too "gay" in the 70s.

 

Anyway, a better Van Helsing and a Keanu with a terrible accent and dye job. Two men who should never be acting in the same room together.

 

 

post #1316 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post

I can usually enjoy schlock, but woof.


Too bad, so sad!

post #1317 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Class 782 View Post


Too bad, so sad!

van-helsing-bride.jpg

Would hug.
post #1318 of 1373

 

Would still.

post #1319 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post
 

I like how his first name was changed from Abraham like the book to Gabriel cause Gabriel's a more manly name.

 

It's like changing Bruce Banner's name to David Banner cause Bruce sounded too "gay" in the 70s.

 

Anyway, a better Van Helsing and a Keanu with a terrible accent and dye job. Two men who should never be acting in the same room together.

 

 

 

I dont know, I would watch a post John Wick Keanu as a vampire hunter.

post #1320 of 1373

I appreciate Van Helsing trying to recreate the Saturday morning fun action movies of my youth but it just doesn't work. And I was one of those that got caught up in the Mummy for 9.99 a few weeks ago. Honestly, I was alright at first but as it went along, I just didn't care. I had to watch the end twice. I kinda regret that.  

post #1321 of 1373

Well, I did snag The Mummy, and it really wasn't all THAT bad.  I'm sort of like Jonathan Parker - the more it went on the more it seemed to slip away.  Almost like the idea of it kicking off a connected universe maybe was'nt the best idea?  I don't know.  It wasn't terrible though.  And I find Tom Cruise always fun to watch, and fun here to see him so flawed.

 

Happy to see the book of the dead from the earlier Mummy flicks show.  I really liked those Sommers flicks and I enjoyed this one enough that I'll probably give it another watch at some point just for the hell of it.  Tom Cruise overpowers most everything else in the movie, especially the title character, and that might be the biggest "problem" it has.  In the Sommers ensembles, it's easier to say everyone was mostly on equal footing, and I mean that in the best way possible.

 

Speaking of Sommers...  I have Van Helsing at the ready as well.  Curious to revisit.  They can't all be winners.  I enjoyed it on some level at the time, but not the way I wanted to enjoy a Stephen Sommers flick.  Some sort of connective tissue was missing.  Maybe part of the fun is watching it with a raised eyebrow, wondering how it came to be.

post #1322 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post

I like how his first name was changed from Abraham like the book to Gabriel cause Gabriel's a more manly name.

It's like changing Bruce Banner's name to David Banner cause Bruce sounded too "gay" in the 70s.

Imagine thinking that Abraham wasn't a butch name.

post #1323 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post


Imagine thinking that Abraham wasn't a butch name.

You know, according to the Bible and othe religious texts, Abraham circumcised himself.

Crazy? Yes. Badass? Also Yes.

God told him to do so, and back then God didnt fuck around.

post #1324 of 1373

Apparently Bride Of Frankenstein has been officially "delayed".... which most people are speculating effectively means "cancelled". 

 

Which means the Dark Universe might now be dead.  At least we'll always have Penny Dreadful

post #1325 of 1373

Penny Dreadful is all i need.

post #1326 of 1373

Eva4ever

post #1327 of 1373

Penny Dreadful is well intentioned but uneven, to say the least. The show never matches the freaky heights of the seance in the second episode of S1. 

 

Even so, yeah, the "Dark Universe" is dead. As mediocre or safe as most (all?) of the MCU films tend to be, it's still fascinating to watch every other studio try and fail to replicate what Marvel's done well and successfully.

post #1328 of 1373

Haven't seen this Mummy, never will.

 

But it is nice to know that while Marvel dominates and DC flails from movie to movie, Legendary's MonsterVerse is just quietly doing its own thing, not rushing into things by giving Mothra's twin fairies a gritty R-rated take or something. 

post #1329 of 1373
Yeah, we’ll see about that. The tag at the end of Skull Island was a pretty broad statement of intent.
post #1330 of 1373

I mean, whatever happens after 2020 happens (ideally a Pacific Rim crossover). But consider that they'll only plan and release four movies over a six-year period, as opposed to DC jumping in headfirst in an attempt to catch up with Marvel. 

post #1331 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

Yeah, we’ll see about that. The tag at the end of Skull Island was a pretty broad statement of intent.

 

I just worry they are cramming too many Kaiju (Mothra, Rodan) in the next Godzilla.

post #1332 of 1373
Weren't there three Kaiju in the first one?

Yeah, that movie had way too much going on... Crammed.
post #1333 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
 

 

I just worry they are cramming too many Kaiju (Mothra, Rodan) in the next Godzilla.

 

Does anyone in America really care about Rodan? Wouldn't surprise me if he is quickly killed by King Ghidorah. 

post #1334 of 1373
You take back what you fucking said about Rodan!

Nah, just kiddin'. I fully expect Rodan to be a casualty, and I wouldn't be surprised if Mothra bites the dust as well - with or without being avenged by its hatchlings. It's just a practical consideration. Godzilla can hop into the sea and disappear until it's time for Godzilla versus Kong, but giant flying monsters are too high profile. Rodan would be a non-stop disaster that would have to be hunted down once King Ghidorah is dispensed with.
post #1335 of 1373

And the game is out!

 

 

Reviews range from solid to really, really good. 

Not surprising, considering Wayforward is great at retro style games, and a metroidvania is right up their alley.

post #1336 of 1373

God, I feel so sorry for them. When the deal was signed, they probably imagined that they had exclusive rights to the next big movie franchise.

 

And then

 

the 

 

movie

 

 

ca

    me

 

 

o

u

 

t

post #1337 of 1373

I watched about 40 mins of this last night. I was really enjoying Cruise and Jake Johnson as scumbag treasure hunters with Courtney B. Vance as the angry chief, but then the other stuff happened and I got bored, so I went to sleep. Maybe I'll finish it tonight!

post #1338 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryoken View Post

And the game is out!




Reviews range from solid to really, really good. 
Not surprising, considering Wayforward is great at retro style games, and a metroidvania is right up their alley.

That looks wild.

Sold.
post #1339 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

God, I feel so sorry for them. When the deal was signed, they probably imagined that they had exclusive rights to the next big movie franchise.

 

And then

 

the 

 

movie

 

 

ca

    me

 

 

o

u

 

t

They clearly didnt give a shit about the movie, since it seems the game has its own story and has nothing to do with the film, except for the setting and the Mummy itself.

post #1340 of 1373

I dunno. It seems natural that if you tie your next game to a movie, you want that movie to be a success to aid in the selling of your game. No matter how good this game might be, it's going to lose sales now because of those people who dismiss it by association. 

post #1341 of 1373
There is that - on the other hand, WayForward is (I believe) a small-ish developer and is probably more likely to benefit from the free marketing just by having any attention at all drawn to their product from anybody outside the Shantae fan community.
post #1342 of 1373
Just started watching this.

We all bring our own perspective to films and so unfortunately what might otherwise have worked as the screwball ratatat opening of the scenes in Iraq has been slightly spoiled by the thought process initiated by the description of Cruise and his pal as "long range reconnaissance". Now, as far as I am aware, although my knowledge is secondhand and potentially out of date, long range, or covert, reconaissance in the British army is one of the key remits of the Special Air Service. I don't know the operational organisation of the US army but I'm guessing the role is discharged by a similarly elite unit. Which means, from a personal semantic standpoint, Cruise and his pal are special forces. Yet they're playing their roles as juvenile, larcenous, goofballs. That isn't working for me and it's handicapping Cruise's character.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say, characterising Cruise as a hardened elite soldier would have made the film more interesting. Young Vincent in Iraq filmed like the prologue from the Exorcist? That might have led places.

Otherwise, seems like a perfectly decent pulpy flick. The abrupt tonal shifts are kind of charming.

Except I don't understand why the Egyptians would have rigged a counterweight for the sarcophagus.

Alternatively, the film could have started with a mysterious plane crash and the scene with the air crash investigators and the resurrection of the Mummy. In the days of Hammer it would have done.

This really is coming over as two films: one, a decent tame horror; the other Tom Cruise's American Mummy in London and the H'Omen Counties. Also, it's increasingly difficult to parse a Tom Cruise movie without relating it to Scientology. Tom struggles to be a Good Man once he sees the face of True Evil and ultimately seeks redemption through adventure, but through it all he knows the Church of Prodigium (which is fore-knowledge, science or surplus and plenty depending on your preferred translation) has his back.
Edited by jhp1608 - 11/3/17 at 5:19pm
post #1343 of 1373
post #1344 of 1373

The prospect of turning the reins over to Jason Blum to produce smaller, horror-driven movies based on the Classic Monsters is exactly the sort of move I've been hoping for.  Fingers crossed that comes to pass.

post #1345 of 1373

The general idea of the "dark universe" is fine, but Universal wanting to simply ape the MCU formula - especially with the idea of turning the monsters into an Avengers-style "team" - is terrible.

post #1346 of 1373

Well, at least we've still got Legendary's MonsterVerse. 

 

No one can replicate Marvel's formula, just give it up fellas. DC claims a couple of months ago their movies will be less connected post-Justice League, but now we're hearing Black Adam will be introduced in Suicide Squad 2. Learn a damn lesson! 

post #1347 of 1373

Slight tangent - has anybody else ever read RETURN OF THE WOLF MAN?  It was published in the late 1990s.


It's a direct sequel to ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, mostly set in the present day, but its basic plot could actually function as a decent blueprint for launching a new continuity/reboot of the Universal Monsters in a way that brings all the characters to the modern era, takes them in new directions more suitable for current genre tastes, and yet still offers the sort of classic Universal flavor that I think fans of those movies really don't believe Universal has been able to nail so far (with the exception of 2010's THE WOLFMAN, which I defend as an admirable attempt).

post #1348 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

No one can replicate Marvel's formula, just give it up fellas. DC claims a couple of months ago their movies will be less connected post-Justice League, but now we're hearing Black Adam will be introduced in Suicide Squad 2. Learn a damn lesson! 

 

I think replicating the formula is a mistake - but so is rushing into things and having no plan. The key is adopting the lessons learned in both broad strokes and strategically. A huge key is giving us films that in the beginning stand alone, with any connective content being secondary or tertiary to the main story. Studios, predictably, want Avengers money and thus rush to the team up or emphasize the shared world aspects without bothering to create compelling characters or standalone stories.

post #1349 of 1373
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

The general idea of the "dark universe" is fine, but Universal wanting to simply ape the MCU formula - especially with the idea of turning the monsters into an Avengers-style "team" - is terrible.
The real hell of it is that Universal already did a spate of monster-mash films that understood (if not necessarily succeeded at) the correct approach for this kind of thing: have the "tragic monster" figures like the Wolf Man and Frankenstein's monster being manipulated by the straight-up villains like Dracula for their own ends, maybe throw in an independent actor (the Gill Man?) to mix things up, have some human characters get caught up in the fracas, and end with the exploited monsters turning on their masters, as is proper. How fucking hard is that to figure out?

(Then again, the modern version of that is, um, Van Helsing, so success is not necessarily guaranteed. But it's still a shitton more appropriate than a freaking Avengers teamup.)
post #1350 of 1373
Exactly. Those first MCU movies only paid minor lip service to each other with a comment here or a related prop there and an appearance by another character in a post credit scene.

It makes me laugh now because when I watched this movie the Universal logo turns into this "DAAAAARRRKKKKK UNNNNNNIVERRRRSEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" logo and it is absolutely hilarious.

I could just imagine families at the movies going ".............................huh?".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › The Mummy (the one with Tom Cruise)