The new Mummy might actually be a good movie ...

Man this movie is getting killed.... You might want to change the thread title...


The Mummy reboot slammed as 'worst Tom Cruise movie ever' by critics

Critical Mass: Universal’s first Dark Universe flick is dead on arrival

JOEY NOLFI@JOEYNOLFI

POSTED ON JUNE 7, 2017 AT 1:46PM EDT



Universal’s first foray into the depths of its Dark Universe probably would have benefitted from a brighter guiding light.

After spending over three decades dazzling audiences across large-scale action-adventures on the big screen, Tom Cruise’s latest genre spectacle, The Mummy, is set to unravel in theaters this Friday. Movie critics, however, got a peek under wraps this week, as movie reviews for the blockbuster project debuted online Wednesday morning. The consensus? According to a vast majority of them, perhaps thisromp should’ve remained buried.

EW’s Chis Nashawaty says “the story feels as stitched together as Frankenstein’s monster: a little bit of An American Werewolf in London here, a little Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade there, some Jekyll and Hyde as frosting,” adding that, while Cruise is the film’s “secret weapon,” the project ultimately “feels derivative and unnecessary and like it was written by committee (which a quick scan of its lengthy script credits confirms).”


The Mummy stars Cruise as Nick Morton, a globetrotting explorer who accidentally unleashes an unspeakable, ancient Egyptian evil into the world in the form of Sofia Boutella’s Princess Ahmanet, a four-pupiled, reawakened royal wreaking havoc on earth during her multi-millennia quest to find a mate.


Cruise boards the franchise at the top of what Universal hopes to mold into a successful worldwide cinematic universe, with subsequent entries planned to feature the Invisible Man (Johnny Depp) and Frankenstein’s Monster (Javier Bardem). It was previously brought to life by the studio throughout the 1930s and 1950s, with actors from Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney, Jr. lending their acting talents to the series; it was later popularized for contemporary audiences by the likes of Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and more in a three-film revival released between 1999 and 2008.

While the current Mummy release charts familiar territory for its A-list star, IndieWire‘s David Ehrlich calls the film “the worst Tom Cruise movie ever.”

“It stands out like a flat note on a grand piano. It’s not that Cruise hasn’t had misfires before (and between Rock of Ages, Oblivion, and [Jack Reacher], they’re happening at a faster rate), but The Mummy is the first of his films that doesn’t feel like a Tom Cruise movie,” he continues. “It’s not that it’s bad, it’s that it never could have been good. It’s an irredeemable disaster from start to finish, an adventure that entertains only via glimpses of the adventure it should have been. It’s the kind of movie that Tom Cruise became a household name by avoiding at all costs.”


Similarly, Variety‘s Owen Gleiberman criticizes director Alex Kurtzman’s treatment of the material, which he indicates played better as “empty-calorie creature-feature” fare in the previous Fraser flicks.

“It will grab ideas, motifs, and effects from almost any genre and jam them together, palming off its grab-bag quality as ‘originality.’ Scene for scene, The Mummy has been competently staged by director Alex Kurtzman, who has one previous feature to his credit (the minor 2012 Chris Pine heart-tugger People Like Us) and has never made a special-effects film before,” Gleiberman writes. “Yet competence isn’t the same thing as style or vision. The Mummy is a literal-minded, bumptious monster mash of a movie. It keeps throwing things at you, and the more you learn about the ersatz intricacy of its ‘universe,’ the less compelling it becomes.”

Whereas other critics have championed Cruise as the sole bright spot in the production, The Hollywood Reporter‘s John DeFore actually calls Cruise “weirdly out of place” as he plays a character who’s “a stiff” in a “limp, thrill-free debut” for the Dark Universe.

The Verge‘s Tasha Robinson, despite writing a more positive review than her peers, perhaps best sums up the critical consensus, explaining: “The Mummy is a relatively functional creature-feature movie, packed with oversized action sequences. But it reminds viewers at every turning point that it isn’t a story so much as a prologue, a brand-deposit setup meant to whet their appetites for more Dark Universe. The approach may pay off in the long run, but in the short term, it feels like sitting down for a movie, and getting a feature-length trailer instead.”




The Mummy opens in theaters this Friday, June 9. Read on to find out what these and more critics are saying about the film.

Chris Nashawaty (EW)
“He may not be totally comfortable selling some of the film’s jokier moments, but at 54, he’s a seasoned pro at selling narrative silliness with a straight face, a clenched jaw, and an inhuman sense of commitment. I’m not sure that this aimless, lukewarm take on The Mummy is how the studio dreamed that its Dark Universe would begin. But it’s just good enough to keep you curious about what comes next.”

David Ehrlich (IndieWire)
The Mummy, much like the enduringly delightful 1999 version, tries to juggle a number of different tones, often alternating between action, horror, and comedy within the span of a single scene. That would be a difficult feat for a dexterous master like Bong Joon Ho, but for Alex Kurtzman — whose only previous directing credit is for a limp 2012 Chris Pine weepy called People Like Us — the challenge is clearly beyond his talents. The laughs are few and far between, as neither Johnson nor Cruise has ever been forced to parrot such weak banter, and the jump scares are haphazardly peppered into random scenes, as though that might be enough to indicate a sense of impending doom. It’s even worse when Kurtzman tries to meld those two modes into one, this tonally scattershot movie paying a half-assed homage to An American Werewolf in London before abandoning the idea in favor of generic genre sludge.”

Owen Gleiberman (Variety)
“It’s here that you begin to divine the film’s basic strategy: It will grab ideas, motifs, and effects from almost any genre and jam them together, palming off its grab-bag quality as ‘originality.’ Scene for scene, The Mummy has been competently staged by director Alex Kurtzman, who has one previous feature to his credit (the minor 2012 Chris Pine heart-tugger People Like Us) and has never made a special-effects film before. He knows how to visualize a spectacular plane crash, or how to play up the Dagger of Set — a mystical weapon of death that needs a giant ruby to complete it — so that it doesn’t seem as chintzy as something out of a National Treasure movie (which is basically what it is). Yet competence isn’t the same thing as style or vision. The Mummy is a literal-minded, bumptious monster mash of a movie. It keeps throwing things at you, and the more you learn about the ersatz intricacy of its ‘universe,’ the less compelling it becomes.”

John DeFore (The Hollywood Reporter)
“It’s no surprise that the action to come has vastly more in common with the CGI bombast of the Brendan Fraser-starring Mummy films than the quiet, slow-creeping horror of the version Karl Freund directed in 1932. What is surprising is that this film’s action makes one slightly nostalgic for the 1999 incarnation, or at least prompts one to ask if it wasn’t maybe more fun than we gave it credit for. So much of the action takes place in monotonous half-light; so little of it displays even the ambition to show audiences something new — unless we count the Mummy’s eyes, which have two irises each, for no apparent reason other than somebody thought that would look cool on a movie poster. The most involving scene by far shows Morton swimming through underwater crypts, trying to save Halsey from Ahmanet before he either drowns or is destroyed by the zombie warriors swimming behind him. But that sequence lasts just a minute or two, and is immediately followed by a Morton/Mummy standoff in which Cruise fails, rather spectacularly, to wring a laugh out of a kiss-off line one hopes neither Koepp, nor McQuarrie, nor Kussman would admit to having written. It’s the kickoff of a climax that requires more heroic self-sacrifice from Morton than we have any reason to believe he’s capable of. Unless, that is, we have a financial interest in the sequel set up by Jekyll’s longer-than-necessary final voiceover.”

Tasha Robinson (The Verge)
“The Mummy is a relatively functional creature-feature movie, packed with oversized action sequences. But it reminds viewers at every turning point that it isn’t a story so much as a prologue, a brand-deposit setup meant to whet their appetites for more Dark Universe. The approach may pay off in the long run, but in the short term, it feels like sitting down for a movie, and getting a feature-length trailer instead.”

Stephen Witty (New York Daily News)
“This Mummy just has Tom Cruise doing a Tom Cruise impression (don’t walk when you can run, don’t fall when you can tumble). And silly plot gimmicks that feels stolen from an “Avengers” script, from a magic rock everyone wants to an open ending that basically says ‘Stay tuned!’ Don’t. Sofia Boutella — the Algerian dancer who brought some mystery to Kingsman and Star Trek Beyond — is certainly eye-catching as the ancient enchantress. And for the geekiest fanboys, searching the scenes for in-jokes, the movie offers lots of trivial gifts. But The Mummy movie itself? This is one present you don’t want to unwrap.”

Chris Hunneysett (The Daily Mirror)
“This big budget action adventure lumbers into cinemas and begs to be put out of its torment. Long before it ended, so did I. Though the world is threatened when an ancient terror is unleashed, a directorial dead hand can’t muster a sense of fun, danger, mystery or suspense… This stumbling mess is intended to be a franchise starter for Universal Studio’s Dark Universe. It’s a series of connected films rebooting classic movie monsters such as the Wolfman… Next year we’ll have a new version of The Bride of Frankenstein and Johnny Depp has been announced as the Invisible Man. After this dull horror show, that’s a truly terrifying prospect.”

Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian)
“The Cruisemeister himself is left high and dry by plot lurches which leave him doing his boggle-eyed WTF expression. In one scene he is nude so we can see what undeniably great shape he’s in. The flabby, shapeless film itself doesn’t have his muscle-tone… In the end, having encouraged us to cheer for Tom Cruise as an all-around hero, the film tries to have it both ways and confer upon him some of the sepulchral glamour of evil, and he almost has something Lestat-ish or vampiric about him. Yet the film really won’t make up its mind. It’s a ragbag of action scenes which needed to be bandaged more tightly.”


http://ew.com/movies/2017/06/07/tom-cruise-the-mummy-movie-reviews/

well damn...looks I might have been a tad off.
 
I do find it hilarious that Universial fucked up rebooting a franchise that they already successfully rebooted back in the 90s. Why not follow the same formula? It's the same question I ask D.C. with Justice league.... why fuck up your own blueprint.

^^^^

boom

Why wouldn't you ADD Cruise to Brandon Frasier and the Rock?
 
Peace,

I was going to disagree

but then I looked it up, and I haven't liked shit by him since I Am Legend

Focus was ok though

You're right. Forgot about Focus. I actually liked that joint. Still, he's been striking out for awhile now. He used to be the most bankable star in Hollywood.
 
looks like Argentina with help from China - came through

SATURDAY AM UPDATE: Now unwrapped in 63 offshore markets, Universal’s The Mummy has grossed $56.8M at the international box office through Friday. That puts the Tom Cruise monster movie on track for an estimated $139M overseas this weekend, and $169.3M worldwide. Both of those would be Cruise’s biggest openings ever.

Clearing his best international and global bows with The Mummy may seem improbable given the critical bashing the film has taken domestically. But here, Cruise’s global star power is combined with growth in key and emerging markets and the fact that the initial rollout of this pic includes China. His previous top international and global openings were with Steven Spielberg’s 2005 thriller War Of The Worlds ($102.5M/$167.4M).

Breaking down the numbers so far for this Dark Universe starter, it has opened at No. 1 in 52 markets. China is in the lead with a $19M start on Friday, also setting an opening day record for a Cruise vehicle. Unofficial numbers out of the Middle Kingdom have it at about $37M with today included, setting it up for a $51.5M bow there. If that holds, it puts the opening in the company of titles like Kung Fu Panda 3, San Andreas and Star Wars: The Force Awakens.


Korea is expected to follow at $17M after setting a Cruise record earlier this week. Russia will land as the 3rd offshore market for The Mummy with a projected $7.2M through Sunday. Mexico will come in next at $5.4M and India and Taiwan will round out the Top 5 at $4.6M, per studio estimates. Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Malaysia, Indonesia, Poland and Turkey are among the markets where Cruise had his best opening day ever.

As is typical of action pics, The Mummy is over-indexing in some of the smaller Asian markets — and is off to a very good start in China. Cruise did not visit the Middle Kingdom in advance of The Mummy, but did travel to Australia, Taiwan, Spain, France and Mexico City in support. He also did a London-set appearance on The Late Late Show With James Corden last week. The film is currently running at No. 1 in the UK where it’s on track for about $4.4M, while Germany is softer at No. 2. France and Japan are notably still on deck.

We’ll have a full update tomorrow.

PREVIOUS, FRIDAY 11:08 AM PT: International box office numbers are beginning to roll in on Universal’s The Mummy with the Tom Cruise-starring pic at $20.5M through Thursday in 37 markets. Directed by Alex Kurtzman, the monster movie — which is facing an uphill battle with critics — has also opened in China today. The bow there is estimated at $18.7M (RMB 127.4M) which is not included in the number above. In the Middle Kingdom, this is the the biggest opening day for a Cruise vehicle.

The launch in China sets the movie up for a roughly $50M weekend there, despite the fact that local reviews site Douban has it at a 4.8 out of 10. Still, international will be where this Dark Universe starter does its best business. Domestically, it’s suffering from poor critical reaction — although its Thursday previews bested recent Cruise comps outside the Mission: Impossible series.

The Mummy, which launches Uni’s new monster franchise, unwrapped with a fantastic start in Korea this past Tuesday (a holiday) and is now at about $11M there.

Other notable bows include Russia on Thursday with $1.6M and 62% market share for the biggest Cruise opening day ever. Brazil yesterday was also Cruise’s best bow with $526K.

Projections ahead of offshore openings this weekend had the (reported net production cost) $125M-$130M, film at a range of $125M-$135M. It will ultimately likely fall within the $130-$140M range, but is not expected to have great legs. Whether that has an impact on Uni’s monsterverse reboot remains to be seen. Contrary to other franchises, the UDU pics are taking a varied tack at genres. The next pic up is the Bill Condon-directed Bride Of Frankenstein, set for release on February 14, 2019.
 
1.). Wonder Woman (WB), 4,165 theaters / $15.8M Fri. (-59%)/3-day cume: $52.8M (-49%)/Total:$200.6M/ Wk 2

2.). The Mummy (Uni), 4.035 theaters / $12M Fri. (includes $2.66M) /3-day cume: $30.5M/Wk 1

3.). Captain Underpants (DWA/20TH), 3,529 theaters (+95)/ $3.5M Fri. (-56%) /3-day cume: $12.6M (-47%)/Total: $44.1M/Wk 2

4.). Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (DIS), 3,679 theaters (-597) / $2.97 M Fri. (-53%)/3-day cume: $10.4M(-53%)/Total:$135.5M/ Wk 3

5.). It Comes at Night (A24), 2,533 theaters / $2.4M Fri. (includes $700 previews) /3-day cume: $6.2M/Total: Wk 1

6.). Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (DIS), 2,911 theaters (-596) / $1.68M Fri. (-37%)/3-day cume: $6.05M (-39%)/Total:$366.2m/ Wk 6

While we’ve pointed out recently how Rotten Tomatoes has been denting popcorn pics’ ticket sales, The Mummy is detested by both critics (now down to 18% Rotten) and audiences alike with a B- CinemaScore and 70% total positive score from Screen Engine/ComScore’s PostTrak. By the way, that latter number is lower than the 76% earned by Paramount’s Baywatch.

Though men at 54% were the majority at The Mummy to females’ 46%, per PostTrak, they loathed it more than the ladies, 64% to 77%. On CinemaScore, 30% over 50 gave Mummy a C+, while 68% over 25 gave it a B-. By comparison, Cruise’s Oblivion, also from Uni, earned a B- CinemaScore, opened to $37M and fell short of $100M with a final $89.1M stateside.

Mummy’s weekend is the lowest domestic opening in the Universal Mummy series when compared to the Brendon Fraser trilogy and even lower than the Dwayne Johnson spinoff The Scorpion King ($36M). So much for a reboot. Even with Cruise hitting his best global opening with $169.5M here, there’s question whether Mummy will leg out abroad and break even given the competition. Industry estimates (not Universal’s) have Mummy‘s combined P&A and production costs ranging between $335M-$370M.

Some like to point out that Mummy’s failure stems from being an antiquated property paired with an antiquated star, but if you remember, it wasn’t that long ago that both audiences (A-) and critics (93% certified fresh) were having a blast at another aging Cruise franchise, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, which opened to $55.5M and held the top spot for two weeks in a row, becoming the second-highest title in the M:I series with $195M domestic. In addition, per CinemaScore, 40% bought tickets because of Cruise, a sizable number.

There are myriad reasons why Mummy isn’t connecting stateside, but as critics and moviegoers concur – it’s just a really bad, messy movie which can’t decide which direction to take, coupled with a complex mythology around a female mummy’s soul trapped in Cruise’s body.

The Mummy should also serve as a warning sign to other major studios: Here’s another example of what can go severely wrong when there’s so much emphasis put on a movie to launch a franchise, in this case Universal’s monster Dark Universe. Warner Bros. nearly ran into this problem with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them back in October when they ambitiously announced a month before release that the Harry Potter spinoff series would span five titles. Fantastic Beasts put up the lowest opening of any Potter universe title ($74.4M) but wound up being profitable at the end of the day.

When Marvel was adapting Iron Man, Captain America and Thor to the big screen, a franchise organically took place and eventually yielded The Avengers. That’s the approach Universal should have taken with Dark Universe: just let it happen naturally. Now Dark Universe is off to a cockeyed start. Uni swears that one title isn’t integral to the next, nor should Mummy serve as an indicator for the quality of Bill Condon’s Bride of Frankenstein and other titles.

But Mummy arguably blemishes a new brand that Universal is seeking to establish, and the last thing the studio needs is for that Dark Universe logo to scare off audiences. Mummy‘s fate stateside just puts more stress on Bride of Frankenstein to deliver.

The Mummy should also serve as a warning sign to other major studios: Here’s another example of what can go severely wrong when there’s so much emphasis put on a movie to launch a franchise, in this case Universal’s monster Dark Universe. Warner Bros. nearly ran into this problem with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them back in October when they ambitiously announced a month before release that the Harry Potter spinoff series would span five titles. Fantastic Beasts put up the lowest opening of any Potter universe title ($74.4M) but wound up being profitable at the end of the day.

When Marvel was adapting Iron Man, Captain America and Thor to the big screen, a franchise organically took place and eventually yielded The Avengers. That’s the approach Universal should have taken with Dark Universe: just let it happen naturally. Now Dark Universe is off to a cockeyed start. Uni swears that one title isn’t integral to the next, nor should Mummy serve as an indicator for the quality of Bill Condon’s Bride of Frankenstein and other titles.

But Mummy arguably blemishes a new brand that Universal is seeking to establish, and the last thing the studio needs is for that Dark Universe logo to scare off audiences. Mummy‘s fate stateside just puts more stress on Bride of Frankenstein to deliver.
 
Well it was just okay to me, not as bad as critics have been saying but could have been better, 2 and a half stars (** 1/2) from me. Ole girl Sofia had a nice ass.:p:D
 
The movie was horrible to me.

I actually fell asleep during action scenes TWICE.

I have never done that at a movie before.

Very poorly written. Nothing at all felt like it mattered except the plane sequence.

The talking was just "blah blah blah..."

1.5 stars for the sexy mummy woman and Tom's intensity.

Wait for BGOL release...
 
The movie was horrible to me.

I actually fell asleep during action scenes TWICE.

I have never done that at a movie before.

Very poorly written. Nothing at all felt like it mattered except the plane sequence.

The talking was just "blah blah blah..."

1.5 stars for the sexy mummy woman and Tom's intensity.

Wait for BGOL release...

Lmao @ Toms cruise intensity lol
 
I lost all respect for Harry and that site years ago. I think it was when the first Wolverine came out. He pissed off and crying about how the studio refused to allow him to attend a free press screening or something like that. The way rant read it was like he was going to shit on the movie as some sort of revenge because he felt the studios shitted on him. If it was Wolverine, then he would have been correct in shitting on the movie anyways. But the rant came off as if to say, even if Wolverine had been as well received as the last movie, Logan, he was going to hate on it off of general principle. Fuck him and his website.

I think he be doing that shit on purpose..he pretty much ignores those who be calling him on his BS ,like his reviews for The Mummy as well as Ghostbusters 2016,BvS Dawn Of Justice,and Ghost In The Shell w/ ScarJo( :rolleyes: him saying"So The Major is whitewashed...deal with it" )
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4593944/Wonder-Woman-buries-The-Mummy-box-office.html








wire-751969-1497206732-368_634x308.jpg


wire-751971-1497206737-340_634x456.jpg
 
Peace,



They sold it on the 'I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar' aspect. Catered to women and girls who wanted to root for a female hero. Which is cool. But I'm reading reviews like, "The best superhero movie since the Dark Knight" and I'm like, "What the fuck?? Didn't Deadpool come out last year?"
ummmmmmmmm winter soldier..didn't see wonderwoman yet but i can bet it's not better than winter soldier
 
I'm watching this bullshit in Kodi right now and it's already stupid. Cruise goes down in a transport AC that fireballs but no damage to him. Just wakes up in the morgue and it's business as usual. The doctor has no superficial wounds from her egress in the same disintegrating AC. Nobody is freaked the fuck out that he got off the slab?:hmm: The mummy is real so why not try to run and scream in horror for help? No, they go consult Russell "I am the narrator" Crowe. Why? What the fuck can he do?:confused: Man gtfoh with this bullshit:angry: saved me $15 , thx Kodi
 
is it better than Deadpool or Civil War?

I haven't seen dead pool. I don't think it was better than civil war or winter soldier, but it was a good movie. It's in BGOL cinema if you haven't seen it yet.
 
I haven't seen dead pool. I don't think it was better than civil war or winter soldier, but it was a good movie. It's in BGOL cinema if you haven't seen it yet.
thanks - but what are you waiting for to watch Deadpool?
 
Inside ‘The Mummy’s’ Troubles: Tom Cruise Had Excessive Control
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/the-mummy-meltdown-tom-cruise-1202465742/

There were few signs that a major blockbuster was about to premiere when “The Mummy” rolled into Manhattan last week. The marquee of the AMC Loews Lincoln Square Theatres had gone blank. The carpet was totally covered with black plastic. Security only let guests past barricades after quizzing them about what they were there to see, and everybody had to walk through two imposing metal detectors.

Inside the theater, Tom Cruise was jubilant, as he stood in front of the crowd. “Hey y’all,” said the 54-year-old actor. He introduced Alex Kurtzman, the film’s director, as well as the cast members, who stood quietly as Cruise delivered a 10-minute improvised speech. “Movies aren’t made by single people,” he said. “It’s a team effort.”

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.


As Hollywood is playing the blame game on what went wrong on “The Mummy,” which had a measly domestic opening of just $32 million, many fingers are pointing to Cruise. In the same way that he commanded the stage at the film’s premiere, leaving his cast standing awkwardly by his side, several sources close to the production say that Cruise exerted nearly complete creative oversight on “The Mummy,” essentially wearing all the hats and dictating even the smallest decisions on the set. On stage, Cruise admitted his own perfectionist tendencies. “I don’t just make a movie. I give it everything I have and I expect it from everyone also.”

Universal, according to sources familiar with the matter, contractually guaranteed Cruise control of most aspects of the project, from script approval to post-production decisions. He also had a great deal of input on the film’s marketing and release strategy, these sources said, advocating for a June debut in a prime summer period.

With terrible reviews, “The Mummy,” which insiders say cost as much as $190 million to make and more than $100 million more to market and release worldwide, may struggle to make its money back. The film is performing much stronger overseas, where it was Cruise’s biggest international rollout with a $142 million opening weekend. It’s not clear if the movie will break even, and it’s cast a shadow on the studio’s plans for a Dark Universe franchise that’s supposed to feature A-list stars like Johnny Depp (as “The Invisible Man”) and Angelina Jolie (in negotiations for “The Bride of Frankenstein”).

A representative for Cruise didn’t respond to a request for comment. In a statement, Universal refuted that Cruise had a negative influence on the production.

“Tom approaches every project with a level of commitment and dedication that is unmatched by most working in our business today,” the statement read. “He has been a true partner and creative collaborator, and his goal with any project he works on is to provide audiences with a truly cinematic moviegoing experience.”

Cruise’s controlling behavior comes as Hollywood’s star system is in tatters. In the 1990s and early aughts, studios shelled out big money for the likes of Mel Gibson, Julia Roberts, and Harrison Ford, confident that their names above the title could guarantee ticket sales. In exchange they were offered big perks, hefty salaries, and a sizable share of the profits. Along with the money came the power to veto key decisions. But as comic book movies and special effects-heavy productions took over, top actors found themselves in less demand and with less influence. Cruise has navigated the new landscape better than some–the “Mission: Impossible” franchise still makes money but other efforts such as “Oblivion” have disappointed. Going forward, he may have difficulty exerting the same kind of sway over other films.

It may be the last hurrah for big movie stars, but on the set of “The Mummy,” Cruise acted like the top gun he once was, calling all the shots. Kurtzman had been in the running to direct the project before Cruise signed on, but the actor gave his blessing for the filmmaker to slide behind the camera. They’d established a comfort level when Kurtzman worked as the screenwriter of “Mission: Impossible III.”

In the wake of “The Mummy’s” failure, the decision to tap such an untested director on a sprawling action-adventure seems to have been foolhardy. Kurtzman wouldn’t necessarily rank high on a studio’s wish list for a project this big, given that he’s a producer and writer who only helmed one small feature that debuted to mixed reviews (2012’s Chris Pine drama “People Like Us”). As Kurtzman struggled to adjust to scope of the project, it felt more like Cruise was the real director, often dictating the major action sequences and micro-managing the production, according to sources.

There were other ways that “The Mummy” was transformed from a scary summer popcorn movie into a standard-issue Tom Cruise vehicle. The actor personally commissioned two other writers along with McQuarrie to crank out a new script. Two of the film’s three credited screenwriters, McQuarrie and Dylan Kussman, an actor-writer who played small roles in “The Mummy” and “Jack Reacher,” were close allies of Cruise’s. The script envisioned Nick Morton as an earnest Tom Cruise archetype, who is laughably described as a “young man” at one point.


His writers beefed up his part. In the original script, Morton and the Mummy (played by Sofia Boutella) had nearly equal screen time. The writers also added a twist that saw Cruise’s character become possessed, to give him more of a dramatic arc. Even though Universal executives weren’t thrilled about the story — which feels disjointed and includes Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll — they went along with Cruise’s vision.

And the crew fell in line too, behind Cruise as the boss. “This is very much a film of two halves: before Tom and after Tom,” said Frank Walsh, the supervising art director, at a London screening of “The Mummy” this week. “I have heard the stories about how he drives everything and pushes and pushes, but it was amazing to work with him. The guy is a great filmmaker and knows his craft. He will walk onto a set and tell the director what to do, say ‘that’s not the right lens,’ ask about the sets, and as long as you don’t fluff what you’re saying to him … he’s easy to work for.”

Once the film was done, Cruise brought in his longtime editor Andrew Mondshein to piece together the final picture. (The film’s credits also list Gina and Paul Hirsch as editors.) He spent time in the editing suite overseeing the cutting, which everybody agreed wasn’t working. On the lot, there were differences of opinions about whether Cruise’s directions were improving a picture that had been troubled from its inception or whether they were turning a horror film into a Cruise infomercial. Some believed that Cruise had no choice but to assert himself. Given Kurtzman’s inexperience directing tentpoles, Cruise, who has carried heavily choreographed action movies all his life, had to try to rally the troops or risk having the production fall behind schedule.

Universal knew that if it wanted “The Mummy” to compete against the likes of “Wonder Woman” and “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” it needed every ounce of Cruise’s waning star power. As the studio scrambled to deal with weak tracking, it released a portrait in late May of Cruise with other actors from the Dark Universe franchise, including Depp and Javier Bardem (who will play Frankenstein). Yet the studio couldn’t even assemble all the actors in the room at the same time, and the image had to be Photoshopped. The Internet reaction to the last-ditch marketing effort was tepid at best. It was another reminder that the big names that once ruled Hollywood are inspiring a lot less love from audiences.

The reviews may have been brutal, but at the premiere Cruise seemed pleased, complimenting everyone involved and portraying the finished film as a team effort. “Jake! Jake!” he shouted at one of his co-stars Jake Johnson. “It was awesome working with you, Jake!”
 
Shit was weak. Wonder Woman was weak too.

I fell asleep in the mummy tho, Wonder Woman kept my attention but still was pretty weak.

I don't know why I keep doing this to myself.

I was gonna watch the 2pac movie tonight too but I didn't want to pile on the disappointment if it turned out bad so I'll save it for tomorrow.

It's just time for me to stop buying into this Hollywood machine. The cheap thrills aren't worth it.
 
Shit was weak. Wonder Woman was weak too.

I fell asleep in the mummy tho, Wonder Woman kept my attention but still was pretty weak.

I don't know why I keep doing this to myself.

I was gonna watch the 2pac movie tonight too but I didn't want to pile on the disappointment if it turned out bad so I'll save it for tomorrow.

It's just time for me to stop buying into this Hollywood machine. The cheap thrills aren't worth it.

I'ono da last time I seent a mind-blowing movie. Shit be so underwhelming. :smh:
 
Back
Top