Recensioni degli utenti

One of the biggest blockbusters to come out in the summer of 1999 was an Egypt-set action thriller starring Brendan Fraser. While the film was pretty campy and over-the-top, it worked well and resonated with audiences. Fast-forward 18 years and we have a film of the same title - 'The Mummy' - only starring Tom Cruise in the role of Nick Morton, a treasure hunting renegade who stumbles upon a 5,000-year curse.

The only problem is, this film is far inferior to the original. Whether it's Cruise's schtick not jiving with the plot, or the lackluster CGI, or the wooden script, it's hard to say. There's really nothing thrilling about 'Mummy,' as everything feels borrowed, used or broken - nothing is shiny and new. Even fresh faces like Jake Johnson and Sofia Boutella aren't enough to up the excitement factor, and vets like Russell Crowe come off as looking to be in need of a paycheck rather than delivering a performance to be happy with. The action sequences are boring, the "comic relief" is far from funny and the acting itself is nothing to marvel at.

Cruise can usually find a way to make his films at least somewhat entertaining, but he fails here. There is no chemistry between any of the characters, including Nick and his love interest, Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis), so the onus is really on Cruise to shoulder everything. In this case, it's an insurmountable task.

'The Mummy' is a half-hearted attempt to revive a franchise that started strong and has since faded, so it's likely it will be put back in a sarcophagus.

If #TheMummy is supposed to be the beginning of Universal's ambitious Dark Universe that showcases their classic monsters in one big shared cinematic crossover, then they're off to a terrible start.

There's probably only a couple of sequences that somewhat thrill, the rest are just a continuous string of one poorly written, poorly acted and poorly executed scene after another. It feels more like sitting in a dentist's waiting room as opposed to rockin' on a roller coaster ride. And Tom Cruise is just wrong for this role, a huge case of miscast. Perhaps they should just press the reboot button again.

Sofia Boutella plays an evil ancient princess imprisoned in a tomb deep beneath the unforgiving desert. When a couple of treasure hunters and an archaeologist awaken her in our present day, she returns to life to reclaim her destiny while at the same time unleashing unimaginable terrors in this new take that ushers in a new world of gods and monsters. Co-starring Tom Cruise, Annabelle Wallis, Russell Crowe and Jake Johnson, directed by Alex Kurtzman.

The concept of what the writers and director Alex Kurtzman is trying to present to us with "The Mummy" is nothing new, in fact it's quite predictable, but the biggest problem about it is that along the way from point A to point B, they fill it in with moments that just don't work. And it gets even more frustrating when they bring it up again the second, third and fourth time as if shoving it down our throats would make it better. The jokes fall flat so much so you kinda feel sorry for Jake Johnson who clearly wants to make some effort as this film's comic relief. There are also parts that are just absolutely pointless and unnecessary. The characters including Dr. Jekyll frequently draw conclusions out of their butts. I do think "The Mummy" is what happens when the story is forced to serve the visual spectacle instead of the other way around. That said, rising star Sofia Boutella is a marvelous choice, she exudes that thirst for power effortlessly in addition to being incredibly seductive.

But of course, just as expected, instead of it being a movie about Sofia Boutella's The Mummy, it becomes all about Tom Cruise, who as I said earlier is just awfully wrong for this role. I understand that the studios probably think that banking on a A-lister would translate into box office results, but fact of the matter is outside "Mission: Impossible" franchise, Cruise just doesn't fit anywhere else anymore. The character that he plays here is is a thieving treasure hunter, much like Nathan Drake from "Uncharted" games, but all you see on the screen instead is special agent Ethan Hunt desperately trying to be someone he's not. By the end of "The Mummy" you're going to have second thoughts about anticipating the next installment of this Dark Universe, and you're going to want to wish Brendan Fraser had still been around.

-- Rama's Screen --

"When this movie came out, there was an awful lot of fuss from people. I honestly don't think it's as bad. This was supposed to be a new trilogy series that Universal was making called the Dark Universe, and they were remaking all the original Universal horror movies-The Mummy, Frankenstein, The Wolfman, and Dracula. I'm honestly more disappointed because of the bad reception this got that they shut that down.

I definitely think Tom Cruise was not exactly the right pick for the leading actor in this movie, though. Not saying he wasn't terrible, but all I could think about was it feeling like a Mission Impossible movie.

The one thing about this movie I would have loved to see more of was Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; he was fantastic!

To wrap things up, personally, this is nowhere near as good as the Brendan Fraser remake, and everybody knows that, but I certainly don't think this movie deserved all the criticism it got."

"The Mummy" is the first movie in what Universal Studios wants to call their "Dark Universe." Yeah, that's right. Those re-shoots that 2014's "Dracula Untold" went through to tie into a Dark Universe; those don't matter now. That 2010 Benicio del Toro "Wolfman" movie; also doesn't matter.

In a world where Universes are becoming more and more of a thing, Universal seems determined not to let this monster mash-up of The Wolfman, Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde and more slip through their fingers.

And they're also not skimping out on finding A-list talent to help sell the whole thing. So far we've heard Johnny Depp, The Rock, and Javier Bardem's names being thrown into the mix, plus Russell Crowe is already here as Dr. Jekyll.

That last one I think is really cool by the way because while so many others have been portrayed by the likes of Gary Oldman and Jack Nicholson's, Jekyll's best portrayal in the past 20+ years has been ugh….David Hasselhoff.

But now let's talk about "The Mummy", specifically that old trilogy with Brendan Fraser. There's no doubt director Stephen Sommers lucked out with that first film and there's also little doubt Universal wants to move away from that overall cheesiness here. The question is can they still go serious but also have fun at the same time?

And say what you will about Sommers; the guy was a C-grade filmmaker who got a kick out of a cheap thrill but at least you could say he committed to it. This new Mummy is just a wrong-headed disaster.

The set-up is pretty much the same as the older Mummy film although here it's a woman played by "Kingsman's" Sofia Boutella. She's Ahmanet, an Egyptian Princess who wanted power, sold out to some powerful entity for eternal life, and paid for it by getting entombed.

Universal of course is also putting it's faith in Tom Cruise, who plays an Army Vet prone towards treasure hunting. He and several others find Ahmanet's sarcophygus but while bringing it back to be examined, the plane goes down over London and a bunch of strange things happen that they learn can't just be coincidence.

This is Cruise just being Cruise here. He gets to run around a lot doing his "intense face" all while an attractive woman half his age is along with him for the sexual interplay (more on her in a moment). Yeah, there's discussion about his character growing something of a conscience as this goes on but it's pretty perfunctory.

Plus having the Mummy be a woman after Cruise's body so she could plant her demon God inside of him and they can reign as King and Queen; this seems more like it falls into being of one of Cruise's aging vanity projects than on acting skill.

Boutella gets very little to do otherwise but try and be seductive while waving her hands in a threatening manner. Otherwise auto-tune does the rest.

The Cruise character's love interest is an archaeologist played by Annabelle Wallis who looks like she just stepped out from a Paris fashion show into an archaeological dig. Did I believe her as an archaeologist? No. Did I believe she could spell it? Sure. Either way, it doesn't matter. What does is that she and Cruise are DOA in their scenes together.

No character makes much impression here, including Crowe's Dr. Jekyll who's maybe in the film for 20 minutes to explain stuff so simplistic, silly, and predictable that it hardly needs explaining at all before the film rushes through his particular ailment.

For some reason screenwriters David Koepp and Christopher McQuarrie think more explanation is still warranted though and in that they couldn't be more wrong. For something trying to feel new, it's remarkably easy to tell where all this is going.

Their biggest crime is what they do to New Girl's Jake Johnson, a funny actor who they turn into the Dark Universe's version of Jar Jar Binks in only five minutes. He comes in and out of the film at really odd intervals, either screaming dialogue in the hope of making it funny or giving us yet more exposition we don't really need.

Add to that first time action director Alex Kurtzman is a disaster. The action sequences look haphazardly thrown together, just cartoonish and unbelievable, while a spoiler I won't give away about the Tom Cruise character makes them even harder to give a crap about anyway.

The fights are stiff and uninteresting, and the special effects are either forgettable or look just as hokey as they did in the Brendan Fraser movies. The plane sequence we saw in the trailer looks pretty decent but hey, you've already seen the most decent thing in the movie, why pay to see the rest.

Overall this is not just a bad film, but a film that has no idea what it even is. It wants to resurrect classic monsters, but isn't the least bit scary. It wants to take it in original directions, but winds up being an ultra-serious, dull version of the 1999 film. It's silly but not funny, it's a lot of commotion but no excitement, it's a Mummy movie that if the ending of this can even be believed, thinks it's something totally different. This is a worse start to a Universe than King Arthur was.

If you liked this, check out more of Craig James Review on Youtube

Based on all the bad reviews I was worried this would suck, but I have to say that while it wasn't as good/charming as the 90s mummy movie, it wasn't bad either. Cruise's character was likable, and while his arc wasn't that deep, it didn't really need to be. The mummy actress impressed me more than I expected, since I didn't really like her that much in Kingsman. People said that this spent too much time setting up the following movies, but I didn't think that was the case. There were small seeds planted, but save for the ending and lack of background for Jekyll, this felt self contained enough. Overall the movie had some fun action sequences and decent characters, and made for an enjoyable popcorn flick. I do not regret watching it.

The Mummy has had countless iterations of the character grace the screen for the better part of the 20th Century. With the 1932 original and the fun but lazy 1999 remake and anything in between, we pretty much got it. It can be scary or it can be action packed as it seems Hollywood has left there to be no in between for this type of film. Unfortunately neither of those extremes apply to this one. The Mummy is a pandering and very meager attempt at cashing in on a potential franchise. It's sad to watch because it feels like the studio made this. This doesn't feel organic in any way, shape or form and relies on CGI filled action sequences, Tom Cruise, and cheap scares that end up being unintentionally funny to progress the story. None of which comes off the way it should.

The story is absolute crap to put it as lightly as I can. It is plotted so on-the-nose that you can't have anything left up to your imagination except for some scenes of violence that may have been too much for a PG-13. Outside of that, everything is spoon fed to us as the audience. Instead of making you feel like you can keep up, the movie treats its audience like we are stupid and still expects us to continue watching. Honestly, I almost walked out at certain points, it got that bad. Especially during the scenes with Crowe's Jekyll, which are so heavily plot oriented that you can't get a feel for his character and when you get the chance to, it fails, crashes and burns.

The cast is surprisingly strong on paper but director Alex Kurtzman fails to utilize them in roles that best suit them. Tom Cruise is really the only cast member that fits the part which, when considering what genre we're talking about here, is a horrible thing. Courtney B Vance, who delivered an awards caliber performance in American Crime Story, is watered down to nothing more than a mere walk on role. Russell Crowe is so obviously doing the film for the paycheck, it feels like he isn't even acting and he is just reading queue cards.

As a fan of the cast and the 1932 original, I was left completely disappointed by everyone here. Director Alex Kurtzman, who went from directing a small indie to all of a sudden directing this big bombastic action summer blockbuster, feels out of his element here and misses the beats of a good action movie and completely neglects everything that could make a great horror film. The Mummy is by far one of the worst blockbusters in recent memory and stands as a major misfire for Universal's Dark Universe and Tom Cruise.

There's a group of people who are absolutely obsessed with the Brendan Fraser movie. They saw it when they were kids and they talk about it constantly on places like reddit. So when they're favorite meme of a movie got remade, they were outraged. You can even see them calling the Fraser film "the original" in some of the other reviews here. Obviously, that wasn't the original.

There is also a group of people who love mummy, Dracula and Frankenstein films from Universal and Hammer. I was excited to see all these great characters come to life again. The first group has never seen the Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee Hammer films or the Universal movies.

This is not a bad movie at all. And to realize that a chance to see these great, classic horror characters and stories be retold again was ruined because of the first group is disappointing.

There was literally nothing to enjoy in this movie. Cheesy, hollow writing is rarely delivered better by A-List actors.

This is the first DARK Universe film, and there's nothing dark about it. It's hokey without having classic charm.

There is this thing about Dr Jekyll that is beyond hilarious, but not to the film's benefit.

The unintentional hilarity of this film is it's greatest aspect. But will anyone say this was a great movie?? Not if they've ever seen the Brandon Fraser films. Brandon was funny, even with bad lines. Tom can't pull it off, it's just too bad and he's too.. A-list for it.

Gonna have to re-watch the 2001 Mummy to push back the memories of Dark Universe's The Mummy.

If you're gonna brand yourselves as dark, make something EVIL. Jeez.

It's never good when you have to say "It's not that bad!" but I think the Mummy is being treated to harshly by critics. It has a 15% on Rotten Tomatoes. Really? It's not a great movie, but it is fun to watch and I thought the ending was very good. It felt a bit like a B- Movie in the beginning, but I still enjoyed it.

7 out of 10

Heading out of the theater I was dissapointed to say the least....

Of course Tom Cruise killed it as an actor in this film. But the story is Boring, it doesn't have the same feel as the 1999 and 2001 one and it has a pretty dull ending. Alot of people may enjoy it and I get that but for me it was just a "Whatever" movie. If you want a good movie which entertains you I recommend staying away from this and choosing another Movie. Overall pretty poor start to Universals "Dark Universe".

I'm a fan of this "type" of movie, i.e. Indiana Jones, clean cut fun. I liked the '99 Mummy version (Brendan Fraser & Rachel Wiesz) a lot, but this movie is not in the same vein. It is not meant to be campy, but it still light hearted.

I like the stories arch, and how it was told. Though Sofia Boutella, Ahmanet, was actually quite good in her role.

Maybe people we expecting a remake of the '99 version, or maybe people didn't expect this from Cruise. Whatever the reason, count me as someone who wasn't disappointed.

This movie is quite enjoyable. I'm not sure why it's getting so many bad reviews. The action is fast paced and the acting pretty good, plus it avoids most of the major structural pitfalls that plague the monster movie genre. There were some flaws, which I will mention later, but first the strong points:

"The Monster Always Dies". One big structural problem with monster movies is the lack of suspense. In the end, the monster is always vanquished. Any suspense revolves around the hero discovering the monster's 'fatal weakness' just in time to save the heroine. In some cases, as with the 1999 Mummy remake, the resolution is telegraphed so early and so strongly that you grow board waiting for Brendon Frasier to wade through all the special-effect laden cliff hangers to finally win the day.

This remake handles the problem in a very creative and unexpected way by first making the monster venerable almost from the start and then secondly by introducing another antagonist who turns out to be equally threatening to the hero. This builds suspense as the protagonist is threatened from multiple sides.

Ultimately all this climaxes in a completely unexpected ending that I honestly did not see coming; something really unique for a monster film. It may, in fact, be this ending that contributes to the negative reviews since strictly speaking it violates the hallowed monster flick formula most people have come to expect.

"Damsel in Distress". Another tiring issue with monster films is the obligation to service the inevitable damsel-in-distress theme. Again, Mummy 2017 takes a unique approach by making Tom Cruise and Annabelle Wallis effectively co-equals protagonists. Sometimes she saves him, sometimes he saves her, often with a good deal of humor in the role reversal.

All-in-all a movie worth seeing, but of course there were some flaws. Character development is kept to a minimum; only enough to service the plot line. This contrasts with the 1999 Mummy which excelled in wonderfully interesting characters who, unfortunately, were deployed in the service of a mundane and predictable plot. Other flaws include under use of Jake Johnston as the comic relief and a serviceable but uninspiring performance by the heroine Wallis. Had she matched the charisma brought by Cruise's performance it would have added a whole new dimension to the movie. In general, though, I liked it and am interested to see more of the 'Dark Universe'.

Disappointing. A few good visuals, but hardly any story. The plot: an ancient mummy gets a new lease of life. The actress playing the mummy is quite good but Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe are awful. They play themselves and most of the time seem half-hearted and bored,just going through the motions to get a pay check. Lucky my vote is a generous: 3/10.

This is a good start for the rebooting of the Universal Dark Universe, if you're expecting a remake of the 1990's Mummy films then you've got the wrong idea. The first thing you should know is that this has NOTHING to do with those movies and are completely unrelated. This is a re-imagining of Mummy's Hand (1940) that started the Mummy series of movies but with a whole new agenda. This time Universal are making these films to link in with all their other monster movies, Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolfman etc so comparing it with any other Mummy film before it like the critics keep doing is utterly pointless.

The movie is a high entertaining fantasy horror film, its not the glossy action comedy level of the Brendan Fraser films, its darker and a lot more violent but still full of spectacle and a decent amount of humour that doesn't completely dominate the dramatic content as many film allow these days. Only Disney's Goofy or Loony Toon's Wild E Coyote can take the level of battering Tom Cruise gets in this movie and still stay standing. The Mummy is an exotic beauty who can hit like a Mack Truck. There are elements reminiscent of An American Werewolf in London (1981) and Lifeforce (1985) that forge this version of the Mummy and Russell Crowe's Dr Jekyll makes his glorified entrance half way through to remind you this is a shared monster universe so expect more of the same.

Quite simply you either like this sort of stuff or you don't, if you listen to critics they'll convince you this is the worst movie ever made, it's not. It's actually really good fun and nothing more, it won't suddenly change your life and have you buying movie merchandise like a Star Wars film or Marvel franchise flick but it will entertain you if you're not already going into the cinema armed with a critical gun ready to shoot it down for daring to star Tom Cruise like the average Hollywood critic and their anti-Tom Cruise agenda.

Disappointed...no real story line, predictable events, and choice of a particular character line was lame... Lots of holes in the story... Story jumped all over without real connections to plot... Characters lacked depth... Would have liked to have seen more actual references to Ancient Egypt that would have made the story line more believable. Not a movie I would see again...

I liked the movie and seriously feel that this movie doesn't deserve all the hate it is getting. The movie felt more like a start to a series of movies. It was not at all as bad as the critics and reviewers rated it to. What do you expect? An exact remake of the "The Mummy"? Come on... Go watch and enjoy a decent story, great actors and action. I seriously hope they make a sequel, I would definitely watch it.

This movie is a classic case of design-by-committee ruining a production. What makes it special is... you get the feeling that everyone understood this. They didn't even try to make a serious product. This movie makes choices that are so bafflingly silly there's no way the people signing off on them didn't know. They didn't care, and this lack of seriousness opens up the space for some decently fun moments. This is a bad movie of the enjoyable kind.

The Mummy was enjoyable and delivers as advertised. Aside from some forced humor I have no complaints of this movie. I found Russel Crowe's Dr. Jekyll particularly enjoyable in this film. It left me looking forward to the revamped Universal monster films. The story paced well with high powered effects and action and just enough horror to live to it's title.

This is no real CGI extravaganza with bombastic effects, and it has no final battle. But at the same time it's not a dark somber thriller on the verge of horror, and also it's not really an action-adventure with funny quips. It's also not a low-mid budget monster hunting action-thriller.

This movie is a rushed Frankenstein monster, you can clearly see that. It starts with an action-adventure vibe with jokes and snarky characters, then it suddenly turns into a pg-13 horror-thriller and then to a monster horror then into a disaster movie and then into some kind of dark drama but then comes back into the same beginning with jokes and quips. I can easily imagine producers telling the writers "Just make it happen, the charts say people want this, this and this! Don't worry about it, they will eat it up."

The problem with this movie (goes for all similar ones) is that it is supposed to be the first movie in a Cinematic Universe. But! They do things in a way much different from Marvel. They want to create what Marvel created, but Marvel made movies which could stand on their own. You could basically start to watch Iron-Man 2 and you wouldn't really feel like you do not understand it at all. Or even Iron-Man 3 (which is after Avengers!).

But going into this movie, you are force fed that this is a cinematic universe. You are introduced to so many characters which are obviously supposed to have bigger story arcs in later movies, and in all of that cinematic universe introduction, there is some random Mummy plot thrown into the mix, so that something could hold all of these loose ends together. There are just too many unanswered questions, and too many seemingly random characters. It feels like you are already watching some later movie, maybe the 5th one in this whole cinematic universe, and this one just happens to have a mummy in it.

Caution: Do not turn this film in to a drinking game where you take a shot every time you miss Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. You'll be dead in twenty minutes. I give this film three points for technical competence and for Sofia Boutella as an awesome female mummy.

I don't know what people were looking for to rate this so low. It has a good story, especially related to other stories of its ilk. The problem is that they sink too much cash in something like this, without thinking of the consequences. There is clearly supposed to be a sequel, but we all know that this is based upon good box office, and well, that is somewhat weird as fr as how they now deem that a success. I guess 50 million in profit world wide is chump change to these people. One thing is clear as always. If your going to do another in the same genre, you better get more than 15 years over the deal, so its new in people's minds. Anyone with any commons sense at all would know this. And to spend 327 million on it, is beyond insanity. Unfortunately, audiences that liked it will be deprived of one by such short sightedness. As well as the critics weird dislike of Cruise. Personal dislike of an actor in real life, regardless of how uncouth it is, or in speculation of motivations in production, has NOTHING to do with a movie. To me, the story is everything, and its a good one, with effects that merely emphasize it, which is always my criteria in whether a movie is good or not. Sofia Boutella is riveting in this role, especially in the way her unconventional beauty is emphasized by her extreme talent. Its her and Eva Green, who are at the forefront of this type of great young actress of the future. There is no prejudice here. I rate it as I see it, and not with any preconceived notions. Its worth the watch.

No Brendon Fraiser, no stars. Enough with the remakes already. Remakes Remakes are not well made these days.Gohstbusters, Fantastic Four, Total Recall, shoot now they are even thinking about remaking Flatliners and Overboard. These were great movies that did not need to be remade and degraded. Please have an original thought Hollywood, is it too much to ask for? Anyway. It was a forgettable film that should be lost in the dust.

This is an enjoyable summer action film, Tom Cruise isn't as bad as the reviews say, the mummy has a larger role than most reviewers say - It seems like a lot of people have gone in with a set of expectations about what this film would be in terms of the DC universe, or story line, or as a reboot. Going in with no expectations except for those of the terrible reviews, we were all pleasantly surprised. Our first comment to one another when the lights went up was, "Why all the bad reviews, that was a fun ride?" There are so many movies that are worse, and get better reviews, because they don't have TC in them.

But then, Oblivion got terrible reviews, Edge of Tomorrow did poorly when they were released - and in retrospect, those movies hold up just fine and have found their audiences. Don't forget that Bladerunner got terrible reviews when it first came out (not that I'm comparing The Mummy to Bladerunner, just saying critics don't always get it right.)

Hey, I think Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher was an awful idea, too, but that doesn't mean he can't have a good niche as the unlikeable hero who is going to get redeemed somehow, whether he likes it or not. People think Tom Cruise has worn out his welcome, they don't' like his religion, whatever - I get it. He still makes reliable action films and isn't afraid to play a guy who is a very reluctant hero, if he's even a hero at all. I, for one, would watch the next installment of The Mummy.