The Mummy (1959)

Well here’s another American classic from AMC, the british version of The Mummy. Chris Lee plays the mummy and Pete Cushing plays the British archaeologist who gets bit on the ass by the mummy’s curse. I mean I don’t mean the mummy bites him on the ass or anything, that never happens. But after Pete, Pete Sr. and Uncle Joe unearth the princess Ananka in Egypt (best line: “There’s something evil in there Uncle Joe, I felt it. Oh well, let’s get it open.”) this angry Egyptian follows their British asses home and starts reading scrolls at em. Next thing of course the mummy’s come back from the dead and the Egyptian is commanding him to kill the party of three who fucked with the princess’s tomb.

This isn’t that good of a setup though, really. I mean you got one stiff, stumbling mummy, three potential victims, two of them old, one of them bedridden, the young one with a gimpy leg, and you know the mummy’s never gonna get Pete anyway. So I mean how much can possibly happen here? This is so little to work with that they have to spend about 10-15 minutes in the middle with Pete narrating a little educational film about ancient Egyptian burial rituals.

The MummyI’m not saying the movie is terrible, and I can’t blame this Hammer studio for wanting to do a mummy movie to seem like a classic. But watching this made me realize something. The Universal mummy movie isn’t all that hot either. Boris Karloff looks like gangbusters in his mummy makeup at the beginning, but then he’s just an Egyptian priest for the rest of the movie and it’s pretty good but it’s dull compared to Dracula, Frankenstein or Invisible Man. So I don’t want to sound racist but I think mummies in general are a big load of shit.

I mean think about vampires. They got the basic mummy characteristics: back from the dead, live in a tomb, don’t mind getting shot. BUT, they can think for themselves, walk at a reasonable speed, talk, wear capes, turn into bats, suck blood, hypnotize people. I mean WHAT the fuck is a mummy thinking, all he can do is lumber around and strangle people. It’s like the difference between Flash and Superman. Superman can do everything Flash can do plus fly, shoot beams out of his eyes, time travel, all kinds of shit. Just ask Kalspirit.

Plus vampires got the whole romance deal, the attraction to blood, the deadly but sexy thing. They kill to live, to stay young. And Frankensteins have the playing god, creating life theme and the whole misunderstood innocent brute kills by accident deal. But this Chris Lee mummy? He just does what he’s told and all he’s told is to get revenge for these three going in some lady’s tomb. I mean it’s like “Hey you kids, get offa my lawn!” That’s not classic horror, sorry bud.

This mummy is nothing but a remote control zombie. But he’s some kind of rich boy priss of a zombie, lives in a big palace crypt with gold and treasures and servants and what not. American zombies are the real deal, they just live in a little hole in the ground, they work their asses off to bring home the brains and although they may be mindless zombies they at least don’t have some dumbass in a fez telling them what’s what. They stumble wherever the fuck they wanna stumble as long as there’s not some torch or something there scaring them.

That said, Hammer’s The Mummy does get a little more interesting late in the game when you start realizing what an imperialist prick this archaeologist Pete is. He hears the Egyptian is living nearby and you know what this fucker says? “But what’s an Egyptian doing here?” Can you believe that? Like, “There goes the neighborhood.” Next thing you know he’s gonna be telling us oh no, no, I don’t have nothing against Egyptians, in fact I have three Egyptian friends.

Well Pete goes to this Egyptian’s place to “welcome him to the neighborhood.” They get to talking shop and the Egyptian mentions the idea that maybe stealing corpses from graves and putting them on display in museums is a tiny bit of desecration. You know, in a way, if you think about it. But Pete not only disagrees but starts talking shit about ancient Egyptian religion, saying that you have to be an imbecile to believe in it. Even though he’s seen the mummy with his own damn eyes!

I mean this Pete is just unbelievable. This is the same white supremist attitude that asshole Count Dracula had when he bit Mamuwalde and cursed him with the name Blacula. So even though the mummy isn’t a monster you can relate to like a vampire or a frankenstein, you start siding with the Egyptian just cause this British Pete is such a dick.

I really think mummies are all style and no substance. The Egyptian rituals and bandages and what not are real cool, but they’re just gussying up a monster with no soul. So I mean if you’re THAT into scrolls and sarcophagi then go ahead and watch this, but REALLY people, I think we can do better than a fucking mummy.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 1st, 2002 at 8:00 pm and is filed under Horror, Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

68 Responses to “The Mummy (1959)”

  1. I have a lot of love for Tom Cruise. Always have. Always will. But yesterday was the first time that I’ve EVER exited one of his films. I made it to the 60 minute mark of THE MUMMY, hoping it would at least show a sliver of creativity or personality, then I got the fuck out of there. And maybe it was the cinema’s fault, but I could not see what the fuck was going on in some of the night-time and underground action scenes. Black blurs whooshing across the screen. And I have excellent eyesight. I would have had just as much clarity if I’d watched it with a potato sack over my head.

    Totally generic in every way – characters, Cruise/Cardboard-Cut-Out-Female bickering/flirting/bickering/flirting. Crowe expositioning dialogue like he could care less. Mostly bloodless, totally sexless.

    I should have given my ten bucks over to a second round of JOHN WICK 2. Sorry, Tom.

  2. Yeah I always champion The Cruiser with positivity everytime Vern reviews one of his joints but I can’t get jiggy with this MUMMY: IMPOSSIBLE bullshit. Oh you say that one of the biggest hacks in the game (Alex Kurtzman) didn’t just write it but also decides to make it his directorial debut?….pass!

    I’ll just rewatch this one or the Karloff one instead. I already got my mummy adventure thriller fix with the Vosloo one 18 years back. Bring back the horror or just don’t bother is what I say.

  3. It’s ok because I think he makes up for it with American Made which looks like vintage 80s Tom Cruise.

  4. zero-mentality

    June 8th, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    After this PYRAMIDDLING new Mummy gets totally PHAROASTED at the box office I expect to see much handwringing over Universal’s inability to get their “Dark Universe” (a phrase I can’t even type out without feeling embarrassed) bullshit in motion, but the truth is that they already have an example of how to do something appealing and profitable with their classic horror IPs, i.e. Coppola’s Dracula joint. They got a great director, gave him a ton of money, let him make something totally audacious and singular that wasn’t a cash-in or nostalgia bait, and for all it’s problems the flick was popular and cleaned up financially. Turns out people like to see shit that is cool and interesting, sometimes, when given the chance. Too bad Universal seems to have interpreted the “Marvel Model” as “hire tasteless, visionless journeymen to make the most milquetoast product possible and people won’t notice the smell of planned obsolescence”. Looks like that’s a wrap on the stillborn gritty reboot of the Sommersverse. No one will want to take you with them into the next life, you should be fucking buried, etc.

    Anyways DAWN OF THE MUMMY and TIME WALKER are on YouTube and Code Red is putting out Paul Naschy’s VENGANZA DE LA MOMIA in a couple of months so nobody need starve for quality Mummy-based entertainment.

  5. Actually Alex Kurtzman did NOT give his directorial debut here, but this is his first big tentpole special effect extravaganza. His first movie was a talky drama with a 10-ish million budget, so by current Hollywood regulations, he is totally qualified for that job.

    I hope if Universal decides to rejigger their “Dark Universe” again after the very likely commercial failure of this, they exploit another trend that is currently doing very well at the box office right now: The “micro”budget horror movie. Seriously, just hire some promising newcomers or established pros and let them make the classic monsters scary again! You can still do DRACULA MEETS THE CRATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON AT A GANG BANG WITH THE INVISIBLE MAN later on.

  6. Wait… you mean turning the classic Universal Monsters into action heroes may not have been the best course of action? Even if this new one tanks, it seems Universal is dead-set on making at least one more of these things before giving up again. Presumably they’d go back to the drawing board again to see how to mine these apparently non-valuable IPs.

  7. I keep saying this: Just because people are aware of something doesn’t mean they want to spend money on it. I’ve heard of Kleenex but I wouldn’t see a movie about it. That’s how most people feel about these characters they mostly know from Pez dispensers.

  8. Crushinator Jones

    June 9th, 2017 at 9:07 am

    I’m sad. I liked the idea of a sort of Cleopatra mummy and I always enjoy Tom Cruise’s intensity. Ah well.

  9. I mostly just wanted to see my spirit animal Nick Miller give the “How badass is this mummy?” speech.

  10. Harry Knowles loved the new Mummy which makes me ponder how much money he as paid by Universal.

  11. Does anybody remember what movie review people were discussing The Void? Finally saw it, wanna talk about it.

  12. Me, too. I can’t find it either.

    SPOILER: I didn’t like it.

  13. Mr. M, I liked it a lot because it ended up not doing anything I thought it was going to do so it surprised me. I’m sure it’s still better than The Mummy.

  14. Did it do anything? I thought it was pretty much just ugly green shots of hallways with an annoying buzzing sound in the background.

    That’s not fair. But yeah, it didn’t grab me at all. Too dull, too monotonous, and too joyless for what, in the end, was just a latex-and-Karo geek show. Good monster effects, but the context they were placed in robbed them of all fun, excitement, or interest. It was like a Full Moon movie at half speed.

    I think I’m just not into the current wave of horror stylistics. It’s just a constant plate of dread with no peaks or valleys. Maybe I’ll like the next phase better.

  15. *plateau, not plate

  16. Haven’t seen THE VOID yet but I’m just about done with indie-horror as well. Haven’t liked any of the ones everyone’s been raving about (THE FOLLOWING, THE VVITCH, BADADOOK, A GIRL GOES HOME ALONE) and recently I watched a one that everyone was recommending to me THE MONSTER. It was already on my radar because the places I lurk were talking it up. I was not a fan unfortunately. Watching it I was reminded of Mr. M’s comment in the EVIL DEAD reamake comments where he asked why must all modern horror bum us out before the horror happens? His comment just now describes THE MONSTER perfectly: “It’s just a constant plate of dread with no peaks or valleys. Maybe I’ll like the next phase better.” I went back and wanted to see what everyone was raving about and it brought up another of my modern pet-peeves: practical effects hipster. All anyone talked about with it was how everything was done practically by ADI Workshop. Well whoopdy-fucking-doo. Guess what guys? If they left ADI’s (superior) practical effects in THE THING, THE PREQUEL TO THE THING, the movie would still have sucked. Also, the title character is barely in the movie. The entire fucking thing is about how this little girl hates her shitty trashy mother. It’s mostly told in flashbacks. Mr. S recently did a review of one of these indie-horrors on his site and he pondered if this wave of indie-horror isn’t being made by filmmakers who don’t care for the genre (or at best just have a passing enjoyment of it) and actually want to make awful character dramas no one would ever want to see but they add the bare minimum of horror elements so they can get funding (PLEASE NOTE: I’m paraphrasing Mr. S and he was WAY nicer than how I just put it!).

    Side tangent on practical effects hipsters: I listened to a podcast yesterday where they spent about a half an hour bitching about the CGI in ALIEN COVENANT. Cause y’know, COVENANT would have been better if it had practical effects not if it had a better story to tell…

    Sorry for all the above, just had to vent…

  17. Now you’re gonna think I’m crazy, because I actually liked THE MONSTER. And here’s why: If you’re going to treat your movie like a drama, PUT SOME FUCKING DRAMA IN IT. THE MONSTER had good acting and writing, and that made me give a shit about how the relationship between the mother and daughter developed. I felt that the serious drama approach was fitting to the material, so the lack of emphasis on horror thrills was not a detriment to the film, because the monster itself was not the engine that drove it. I’d say the same thing about THE BABADOOK, the only other of the bunch you mentioned that I liked. (I haven’t seen THE GIRL WHO GOES HOME ON THE TRAIN WITH ALL THE GIFTS and, based on my track record, I doubt I will.) But you take a movie like IT FOLLOWS or THE VOID where there’s no emotional connection to anybody and the whole draw of the premise is the horror action, yet you style the film like an indie drama anyway and remove any and all overt entertainment value, well, what the hell are we doing here? You’re not letting me enjoy myself on a reptile brain level, and you’re not giving me anything for my intellect to chew on or my heart to latch onto, so what’s the benefit?

    Also, if I see one more fucking horror movie that starts with a couple just getting over the loss of a child, I’m turning in my badge and gun. Did we need to know what personal trauma was haunting Laurie Strode to not want to see her get stabbed by Michael Myers? No. She seemed like a nice person, and I’m a human being so I’m gonna be on the nice person’s side against the insane murderer. It’s the fucking GRAVITY thing all over again: We as a species are apparently so detached from our fellow man that getting trapped in outer space apparently isn’t enough to inspire empathy, so let’s throw in a dead daughter to tug at the heartstrings.

    I feel like the last generation of horror directors (Eli Roth and the like) loved horror a little too much, while the current one doesn’t seem to like it at all. There’s gotta be something in the middle. Lets call it the Craven/Romero Zone: I like horror because of the storytelling opportunities it affords me, but I don’t like it so much that I’m fetishizing its trappings.

  18. Chaps, THE VOID was discussed near the bottom of this thread:

  19. Thank you Karlos.

    The only indie horror I’m sick of (the Void not withstanding since I did like it) all of these stupid “love letter” horror films. Fuck off.

  20. I really wish we could find the middle ground between “soulless pastiche” and “joyless dirge.” GET OUT really did it for me. It was about something serious, but it was light on its feet. It was self-aware, but played its story straight. It was funny in the way life is funny, not the way an SNL skit is funny. It had tension and dread, but also gave you room to breathe. It looked and sounded great, but didn’t overdose on atmospheric effects. And it had an actual fucking score!

    I feel like so many horror movies these days try to focus on being scary, building tension, creating spooky atmosphere, etc., that they forget to do the stuff that normal movies do, like have energy, pace, character dynamics, humor, personality, etc. When it’s nonstop monochrome cinematography, eerie light and shadow effects, and ominous drones and no base level normality, there’s really nowhere for the film to go.

  21. Sternsheim, I actually understand Harry Knowles’ reaction to many movies and I don’t believe he constantly gets paid by studios for liking the weirdest crap. (How rich would he be by now? And isn’t AICN too irrelevant these days, to actually try to influence their opinion?) I’m not saying I agree with all he says (and definitely not how he says it), but as a guy, who unironically LOVES several “Worst Films Ever” of the week (See: Summer Flings) and finds lots of good or at least enjoyable shit in movies that have no reason to exist, I know where he is coming from.

  22. Yeah, historically, I’ve been a Cruise apologist. I tend not to like or even really know the stuff he’s most iconic for (don’t think I’ve ever watched TOP GUN straight through, and I don’t really care for the MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE films), but I think he is underappreciated as an actor. He’s extremely versatile and always shows up. I loved him in MAGNOLIA, thought his performance in VANILLA SKY was fantastic and underappreciated, I’m a big fan of EYES WIDE SHUT, and I think JACK REACHER (PART 1, yet to see PART 2) was just about a perfect little mash-up of the intinerant ex-military loner badass film meets 90s-style suspense/procedural thriller.

    What I don’t like about the recent trajectory of Cruise’s career is that he seems to have gone all-in as an action hero, which if you look back to what he was doing in the 80s and 90s, that really was not the dominant motif in his work. Sometimes the action hero stuff works, like with REACHER, but for me, more often than not it’s just Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise in films that feel pretty insubstantial and cypher-like characters I just don’t feel any connection to or give a damn about. For instance, Ethan Hunt’s defining characteristic is that he is a complete non-entity. All we know about him is that he is an intense, often-smiley, very resourceful workaholic, but it’s not clear why he is still devoted to the IMF or its mission, and he has no obvious backstory, inner life, or higher-level motives other than an equally indomitable and under-explained sense of patriotism. He’s utterly bland and vacuous. I’ve said all that before, probably in the REACHER 1 thread.

    Point being that I think he is overqualified and artificially limited in a lot of this shit, and although I’m still going to get around to seeing REACHER 2, I got the vibe that it was slipping more into that formulaic, serviceable ‘Not Another Tom Cruise Action Movie’ territory. Cruise is always going to bring that off-kilter, golden boy who is super-intense, tightly wound, but has that glint in his eye suggesting he’s just a little bit of a control freak and weirdo once you get past the veneer. That natural Cruise energy works beautifully and adds depth to a range of different roles, including all the aforementioned films of his that I do vibe with. This MUMMY shit (and also M:I, for my money) is just cynical “franchise porn” and a waste of both his and my time.

  23. Agree almost word for word Skani on your Cruise appraisal. Love it when he goes outside his comfort zone of Controlled-Image-Movie-Star and gives us a Lestat, a TJ Mackey or a super-freak like Les Grossman.

    When he’s just fulfilling franchise obligations, he reminds me of that person who is always looking for your validation and approval by over-compensating. They usually wind up just being annoying and you wonder why they are so insecure, when you already believe they have so much going for them.

  24. Saw it, more like THE CRUMMY amirite? Tom Cruise sure was THE DUMMY for saying yes to this one! Just kidding I actually thought it was okay.

    Anyways, I didn’t hate it. From Twitter it sounds like Vern liked it much more than me. I can’t say it’s a good movie but I’m puzzled as to why this one is being held up as the worst-thing-ever when much MUCH worse movies come out the old Hollywood factory. I mean I can definitely see why someone wouldn’t like it, or even hate it, but with a new TRANSFORMERS on the horizon, I find it odd that cinephiles are teaming up on THE MUMMY ’17. That said, for all the sins committed by MuMmY ’99 (I don’t have the hate one for it like many do but I definitely don’t have the love for it my generation seems to have for it) it at least had a consistent tone and, I felt, likable characters.

    Agree with Skani mostly, I like the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE pictures minus 3 though, Cruise is a much more interesting and a much better actor than many give him credit for. Maybe if we could stop talking about his weirdo religion/cult, his height, and him running (?) we could discuss his worth as an actor.
    -that said I haven’t seen him so miscast since LEGEND in 1985

    In conclusion, the Boris Karloff one is still my favorite followed by the Peter Cushing/Christopher Lee one.

  25. I can get behind this silly and preposterous idea of this “Dark Universe” monster-nonsense. But the trailers for this MUMMY one has made it look like a fucking awful movie. Perhaps people are just jumping on the hate train because of the traielrs, while not actually have seen it.

  26. I am not gonna pay money to go see it, as I think I´ll most likely will hate it. But that doesn´t mean it will be total dogshit. I just can´t see how it can be any good from what the studio is trying to sell through those trailers.

  27. Mike & Jay’s review is just hilarious.

    Half in the Bag Episode 128: The Mummy

    OMG Mike and Jay actually saw the Tom Cruise Mummy movie!

  28. Yeah, I saw that. It was pretty funny. If nothing else, at least some entertainment can be had even though it is at the expense of the movie.

  29. Has Tom Cruise and/or Alex Kurtzman been interviewed since the movie became available for review? If so, what did they say about the critical reception? I feel like I’ve heard “We didn’t make it for the critics, we made it for the fans” many times now (BvS, Suicide Squad, Iron Fist), but what’s the excuse when the flop is not based on a comic book?

  30. I love Half in The Bag so much, best episode they’ve done in a while.

  31. I’d like to hear that interview, JTS. If they said they “made it for the fans”, my question would have to be “what fans?” My grandfather? He’s dead. And he wouldn’t allow himself to be resurrected for this piece of shit.

    Everything about this new Mummy is so fucking dumb on so many levels.

  32. I love those old Universal monster movies, so I am a fan. But there is definetly not a huge demand for those properties out there, which is a shame and which is why some of these asinine decisions behind a Dark Universe is a misguided attempt in trying to bring in a new generation of fans even though there is nothing left in what made people like the old ones to begin with.

  33. I’m personally not against the idea of an extended Monstersquadiverse, nor the idea of Tom Cruise running around in it and fighting Invisible Mans and Creature from the Black Lagoons on the wings of airplanes and shit. But people don’t like presumption. A woman meets a guy at a bar, he’s already talking about what they’re gonna have for breakfast before they even exchange first names, she’s gonna roll her eyes and walk away. She meets another guy, he takes it slow, gives her a chance to get to know him, see his finer qualities, well, maybe there’s a future there. But who knows? We’re still gonna have to see how this first date plays out, and the one after that, and the one after that, and then holy shit, looks like we’re in a committed relationship, how did that happen? It’s just fate, I guess. These instant just-add-water universes don’t take because studios are planning the wedding before finding out if them and the audiences even have any chemistry together.

  34. Inside ‘The Mummy’s’ Troubles: Tom Cruise Had Excessive Control (EXCLUSIVE)

    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…

  35. Personally speaking, I honestly could not get any kind of grip on it from the trailers, where it just looked like a load of scenes randomly playing one after the other, and maybe I wasn’t the only one.

    Also, as Vern and others have said, the presumption that this will kick start a universe seems to have rubbed people up the wrong way, too.

    Also part 2, no-one gives a flying fuck about the old Universal monsters anymore. Evern revamped with extreeeeeeme make-overs. They’ve all been supersceded now. Sad but true.

  36. The movie definitely come off as Cruise high-jacked it, or it was re-catered for him. I actually think there is some good horror elements that could lead to a solid horror movie. They have cool Mummy with a cool backstory and even some fun monster and horror sequences. That then take a backseat to more traditional action elements. Even then I think the action portion could have worked if they played up the whole Cruise being cursed angel. I actually thought they were gonna go for a 3X3 EYES thing with Cruise being immortal and constantly dying. Alas it was not to be.

  37. The article was quick to throw Cruise under the bus using not only vague “mysterious sources” to collaborate and form a narrative to blame him as a singular cause. But also the lack of “star power” these days as a way for Cruise to reinsert himself. he has no reason, as far as I can tell, to do so. He has a strong international following in terrtories where “star power” still matters even though Vaiety has deemed “star power” a thing of the past. I don´t buy it. You can´t shift all the blame on Tom. I find this really pathetic as it all goes back to a poorly planned business decision. Universal hired Tom Cruise to come onboard to take control of this project that was dead on arrival on its inception.

    I have not seen the film, but I would bet a lot of money on what there is in the film that is redeemable is due to Tom Cruise and certainly not on Universals part.

  38. Yeah to fully buy that Cruise came in and ruined the movie forever requires one to believe that F***ing Alex Kurtzman was going to knock this out of the park (to be fair, maybe he could’ve, there are a few scenes that unless revealed later to be second unit re-shoots or something show some horror chops). Plus they snagged a legit movie star for the thing instead of one of these boring off-an-assembly-line generically handsome Australians who keep starring in movies that flop, good chance they didn’t need Cruise to decide to start tailoring the movie to him.

  39. On a slightly different topic (Because I really don’t care whose fault it might be, that a movie, that seemed dead on arrival, bombed hard): For a while now I read the whole “The age of the movie star is over” narrative in several articles all over the web. But I keep wondering, has there ever been a time where audiences went to see a movie, just because it had a certain name on the poster, regardless of the quality or even genre of it? And if so, when was that? I can’t believe like there ever was a time when all bombs that Hollywood produced starred some no-names, while every successful movie today only makes money because of brand recognition. Has there ever been a time when, let’s say Cary Grant or Eddie Murphy could’ve starred in something like 7 POUNDS or BAYWATCH and it would’ve been a guaranteed money maker? It’s obvious that a movie has a better chance of success when it has a recognizable face or name on the poster, but in the end, I can’t imagine that at some time period the movie itself was completely unimportant for the most part of the audience.

  40. I mean, isn’t the problem here kinda in the concept?

    Studio: We’re reinventing the classic Universal Monsters!

    Everyman: Huh. Cool, I guess, I mean, there have been about 400,000 reinventions of them already since they’re in the public domain, hell, we have a new FRANKENSTEIN or DRACULA reinvention about every two years or so, but whatever, I like classic horror icons. Always glad for an ambitious new horror film.

    Studio: …as huge expensive action movie franchises!

    Everyman: [confused silence]

  41. The real star system was part of the old studio system that collapsed at the beginning of the sixties. Before then, movies were relly built around actors. Look at THE BIG SLEEP. Shot in 1944, but as HAVE AND HAVE NOT was a hit with Bogart and Lauren Bacall they shot more scenes for THE BIG SLEEP to capitalize on the success of that movie.

    THE BIG SLEEP I think relied in its advertising, I could be wrong, on the actors. I seem to recall having seen trailers in which the main atraction of the picture would have been the actors.

    The star power has not gone away, no matter what Variety says. But it used to be a much more seductive way to lure an audience in now. Nowadays franchises in tjemselves are more important than actors.

  42. If it’s true that The Cruiser took over and set in motion the conceit that:


    his character is actually The Mummy going forward and this was his origin story.

    Then credit where it’s due. That’s a ballsy stunt that probably should’ve been saved for a better movie but ballsy nonetheless.

  43. Tom Cruise is the Mummy?

  44. I´ll buy that for a dollar. In fact that was what I hoped for. I she gonna be wrapped in bandages from now on? That´s hilarious!

  45. I didn’t watch it and likely never will but 4 different peeps who did watch it told me that is where the movie ends up yeah. With a bandaged, mounstrous Cruise housing an evil Egyptian spirit.

  46. That makes sense, Cruise as en embodement of eternal youth is now trapped being an decrepid old fart?

  47. If ROGEN & FRANCO MEET THE MUMMY ever happens I hope Cruise has a dance number set to Walk Like An Egyptian.

  48. I can concur what Broddie’s friend speak SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIILERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRforamovienoonebutmeandvernbotheredtosee: Yes at the end Tom Cruise becomes a Mummy. In that he wears bandages on his fists and when he and his resurrected dead buddy ride in the desert it creates a giant awful CGI (in a nod to the Brendon Fraiser movies the CG in this one is really bad) dust storm. According to the climax his powers are also to get up from being bitch-slapped and draining peoples lifeforce when kissing them (like in the vampire in LIFEFORCE) and also can resurrect people.

  49. I would like to say it was not my intention to stretch out the html code. Knew I should of did my usual SPOILER and dots. Sorry about that and if the powers that be wish to edit it please do so!

  50. So what is the ultimate point of these movies?

  51. There is no point.. But this bandage revelation made shit seem hilarious

  52. As cynical as it may sound: to make money.

    I mean if they wanted this to have a greater purpose otherwise I assume they’d approach these as a new way to embody the spirit and tone of the 20s – 40s output and not Stephen Sommers’ vision of Universal Monsters (be it VAN HELSING or THE MUMMY) which is what it really seems like.

    I get that Universal wants another franchise to complete fully recrystallizing their once recently floundering studio (something to complement the FAST & FURIOUSes and JURASSIC joints). Especially since BOURNE isn’t so hot for them anymore but what is hurting them is that EVERYBODY knows that this wasn’t the correct approach. If ANY potential shared universe would’ve benefited most from starting off with stand alone horror showcases it was this one.

  53. Well Broddie beat me to the money punchline. To give a more artistically sound answer: there is none. I didn’t hate the movie but before going in and after leaving I told my brother, who did not go because even though he is unemployed told me I couldn’t pay him to go see it with me, I don’t know what are they building up to? With MARVEL, they build up to AVENGER movies. With DC, they’ll build up to JUSTICE LEAGUE movies. What the hell is the Dark Universe building up to? I thought maybe THE MUMMY would at least hint at SOMEthing but it doesn’t. We get cheesy narration over Mummy-Cruise during the final scene about how he can be a power ally but an ally against what? TARANTULA? LEECH WOMAN? INNER SANCTUM mysteries? The Gorilla from MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE? MOLE PEOPLE? GIANT MANTIS? An army of Black Lagoon Creatures? I think this Dark Universe is/was worse thought out than the DCEU.

  54. Fuck all this. I wont pay for any of this. Fuck it. Fuck it all.VAN HELSING at least kept the gothic horror roots. It may be a piece of shit. But it is MY piece of shit, The one that we all nurture inside that everyone else hates.

  55. Thanks Geoffrey, that’s kind of what I was being at with my question. What is the end game?

  56. geoffreyjar – I think what in this case it’s leading up to are crossover fight movies like WOLFMAN VS DRACULA or MUMMY VS FRANKENSTEIN or whatever, kinda like how WB’s “MonsterVerse” is leading up to KONG KONG VS GODZILLA.

  57. I got my wish, and Kurtzman was asked about the critical reception to the movie. He didn’t say they made it “for fans, not critics” but he came remarkably close.

  58. 'The Mummy' Director Alex Kurtzman Says "We Made A Film For Audiences And Not Critics"

    "The Mummy" is one of the worst reviewed blockbusters of the summer, but according to the director, audiences are digging it and that's all that matters.

  59. Yeah well apparently audiences didn’t care for it either. So he still failed at what he was trying to accomplish.

  60. Geoffrey, how do you know Vern saw it? I saw it and have stuff to say, but I’ll wait to do so in his review. Unless he said he’s not doing one.

  61. Maggie, if Vern’s Summer Fling series keeps going into 21st century films, THE MUMMY is sure to be this years “movie that no one gives a fuck about.”

  62. Maggie: Mentioned it on Twitter on June 9:

    “I’m puzzled by the venom toward THE MUMMY. Could it be more a reaction to the “Dark Universe” presumptuousness than the movie itself?”
    “Full disclosure: I consider the Sommers one straight up garbage & liked that this was a similar idea but w/ better monsters, action & humor.”
    “One review excerpt on Rotten Tomatoes even invokes “zombie crusader frogmen” as a reason NOT to like it.”
    “(Before you get too excited, they’re frogmen in that they are swimming underwater. They don’t have frog faces.)”
    “I’m not making an “it’s not supposed to be Shakespeare” argument, by the way. It’s not one of the great summer movies, but I did enjoy it.”

    Yeah I think it’d be funny if he saves a review to round this whole (very-good) Summer Flings series to a close.

  63. I really like The Mummy and I don’t think it’s garbage in the least. Man i have no consistency in what I like lol

  64. I liked the first 2 mummy movies with Rachel Weisz, which I know is not a popular opinion around here.

  65. Maggie I remember enjoying them both at the cinema. The first one unexpectedly so and the 2nd because of all of the chaotic and uneccessary excess compared to the original and the unintenional comedy. One of the heartiest laughs I’ve ever had in my life was when the CGI Scorpion King showed up. I just never really revisited them because I didn’t find them memorable enough to ever want to see again.

  66. I like the first two Brendan Fraser MUMMIES a lot as a kid, but I haven’t seen them in forever.

    However rewatching them soon is on my to-do list.

  67. I liked the first two Brendan Fraser movies when I first saw them, and then when I rewatched them a few years later. But then I thought the third one was absolute garbage, so I’m afraid to revisit the first two again in case my tastes have just changed in the years since.

    I haven’t seen The Mummy (2017), because I’m not going to pay money to see a film directed by Alex Kurtzman. I already know I would hate it. If it got a bunch of surprisingly good reviews I might have reconsidered, but since it was poorly received by both critics and audiences (though less poorly received by audiences overseas, for some reason), I’m not going to bother.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>