La mummia

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.

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.

I get it, it's not a reboot of the Brendan Fraser Mummy of 1999 onward. It's an attempt to create a whole new cinematic world, or rather cinematic universe. Populated with super beings, over which none will claim rights from Universal Studios. Beings that Universal own already. It's an interesting idea with some financial wisdom behind it. It could've been a real stroke of genius if it was done with the right amount of levity. The Brendan Fraser style of humor is badly needed here, but he's not here, neither is anybody else who can take himself lightly. So instead we get a dark, pompous serious attitude debating which way is it we should use to triumph over evil altogether.

Cinematically it means tons of CGI, and every kind of monster the script writer could find in the archives of Universal St. and some from other cinematic archives too. It was a bit much when they tried it on 2004 with Van Helsing. And Hugh Jackman never repeated that mistake. So Tom Cruise is here to take his place. Truth is, we should've seen it coming. Tom Cruise must've wanted to be Superman all these years, but even he knew he wasn't physically suitable so he relented into an endless list of action heroes that were borderline super beings but not actually super. Thing is, he's not getting younger, and the idea of doing his own stunts is getting less and less practical, so Tom Cruise found the ultimate solution, he went in and made himself a god.

Yes if you do want to watch it, you need to do more than just suspend your judgment. You'll have to kill it and make sure it doesn't come back to haunt you.

"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."

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.