Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 09:17:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length

The Mummy (2017)

Started by Noodle Lizard, December 05, 2016, 07:57:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

greenman

Yeah I think the MI films do have a bit more of an age limit on them than Bond does even if the franchise looks like its becoming a bit more stable than for the first three films. Really these days I would say whilst star power still counts for something its really when its liked to a franchise that it becomes a big draw, Oblivion didn't do that well for Cruise, Ghost in the Shell didn't do very well for Johansson.

In terms of the previous Mummy series honestly I have very little goodwill even to the original, to me its just a classic example of the kind of awful bland CGI drek that action blockbusters had become by the late 90's and why stuff like the Matrix and Lord of the Rings was so welcome.

mothman

It's interesting to see different people's opinions of the MI films. I still think DePalma's 1 is quite good, though I saw the end on TV the other day and it's not aged that well. Woo's 2 had maybe held up a bit better desite on;y bneing 4 years younger. Abrams' 3 I don't like at all, I think I just dont like his directing style, it turns me off somehow. 4 I thought was a bit of a return to form, though I'm not that pleased with what they did with Ethan Hunt's marriage. I haven't seen 5 yet so I don't know if there's any further explanation. But... they decide to fake her death, because... reasons... and she now lives a new life with no apparent sanctioned contact with her husband. Who would ever agree to that? Judging by how pleased they were to (unofficially) see each other at the end of MI:GP, there's still love there, but how could a relationship possibly be able to survive under those conditions? Americans have some funny ideas about relationships, I think sometimes...

phantom_power

I would say that MI1 has aged pretty well as a twisty, convoluted exercise in classic De Palma-isms.

Part 2 has aged incredibly badly and is so 90s it may as well have a scene where Cruise and Dougray Scott swap Pogs.

Parts 3 to 5 are roughly on a par with 3 being the best and the other two having slightly diminishing returns. PSH is definitely the best villain of the franchise, and I like the structural fucking around of that one. It still has the best stunts and set-pieces of any of that type of film. The skyscraper stuff in Ghost Protocol is astonishing and nerve-jangling

The Universal Horror films were the first films I ever really fell in love with and I have fond memories of watching them on video with my dad when I was about 8-9. We're going to go and see at least the first few reboots together for old time's sake, so I do hope they're not majorly rubbish.

How do you turn it into a cinematic universe though? Are they all going to get a solo film before we have a team-up film of Frankenstein, Wolfman, the Mummy etc? That sounds like B-movie material and not the stuff that huge blockbuster franchises are made of. Although I suppose you could argue it's no more silly a premise than Suicide Squad, which was successful.

Or maybe the idea is that only a core group of human monster-hunters will appear in each film. Possibly with Russel Crowe's Dr. Jekyll as the 'Professor X' of the team.

greenman

Quote from: phantom_power on May 23, 2017, 05:02:07 PM
I would say that MI1 has aged pretty well as a twisty, convoluted exercise in classic De Palma-isms.

Part 2 has aged incredibly badly and is so 90s it may as well have a scene where Cruise and Dougray Scott swap Pogs.

Parts 3 to 5 are roughly on a par with 3 being the best and the other two having slightly diminishing returns. PSH is definitely the best villain of the franchise, and I like the structural fucking around of that one. It still has the best stunts and set-pieces of any of that type of film. The skyscraper stuff in Ghost Protocol is astonishing and nerve-jangling

The first one I think is mostly very good, has a few rather "90's" moments but mostly an fun spy film.

Not seen the second in year and years, I'd imagine it would not age that well though, Face Off without Cage and Travolta providing camp fun.

The third haven't seen in awhile either although I remember liking Hoffman's performance in it alot, perhaps its Abramness wouldn't feel so fresh now?

The fourth was probably the best made since the first although it did seem to loose a bit of character the previous ones did in favour of a style I'd assume has been carried forward to the 5th film, not seen it yet.

mothman

In the end, I don't know why I don't like 3. It has all the elements I'd like, bjut the sum of the parts os somehow off for me. I feel much the same way about the first two reboot Star Trek films, so my working hypothesis is that it's Abrams himself's work I don't like. But I've never seriously put a lot of effort into diagnosing the problem, given it would involve rewatching three films I don't like watching!

I think some parts of 1 ARE dated, especially the Channel Tunnel sequence (ironically, I saw the film a couiple of weeks before the first time I went through the Tunnel myself) and on the train. It looks horrible in parts, frankly.

My biggest problem with 2 has always been Cruise's stupid hairstyle. Sadly the semi-long look seems to be the rule rather than the exception in the franchise as a whole.

up_the_hampipe

Quote from: Mr Brightside on May 22, 2017, 10:22:07 AM
I couldn't care less that he's a Scientologist. Is Scientology any weirder than Christianity or Islam? No. It's all bollocks.

Yes, it is weirder and worse. He deserves to be criticised for supporting an organisation where people are held captive and abused, mainly at the hands of Cruise's bestie. But as long as they treat him like God and pick women for him to fuck, he'll turn a blind eye to all the horrors. Also he's an overrated actor and a lunatic.

Mr Brightside

Quote from: up_the_hampipe on May 24, 2017, 10:35:12 PM
Yes, it is weirder and worse. He deserves to be criticised for supporting an organisation where people are held captive and abused, mainly at the hands of Cruise's bestie. But as long as they treat him like God and pick women for him to fuck, he'll turn a blind eye to all the horrors. Also he's an overrated actor and a lunatic.

Yeah, coz nobody is abused in the world of Christianity and Islam.

up_the_hampipe

Quote from: Mr Brightside on May 24, 2017, 10:38:46 PM
Yeah, coz nobody is abused in the world of Christianity and Islam.

I didn't say that. Christians and Muslims have abused people. Scientology itself abuses people and strips them of many simple rights. It's all part of their day-to-day operation.

Basically, it's a much broader thing to be a Christian or a Muslim. If you're a Scientologist, especially at the level of Tom Cruise, you are heavily involved in that specific organisation and with people who actively encourage these things to go on.

phantom_power

We don't know how sheltered he is from the bad stuff though. I imagine hos scientology experience is very different to others, and that the higher-ups spend a lot of time convincing him that all that other stuff is just lies

up_the_hampipe

Quote from: phantom_power on May 24, 2017, 11:25:34 PM
We don't know how sheltered he is from the bad stuff though. I imagine hos scientology experience is very different to others, and that the higher-ups spend a lot of time convincing him that all that other stuff is just lies

I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the likes of Leah Remini who were so blinded or weren't important enough to see the evils going on. But there are stories about Tom Cruise, especially since he's so close with the leader David Miscavige, that suggest he basically allows poor treatment of others in the church because of the benefits that come with being the poster boy.

mothman

There are also suggestions that after years of auditing and living his whole life through the Church, they know way too much about him to make it possible to leave if he wanted to.

Mr Brightside

They watch this forum, guys. Sorry, mothman and up_the_hampipe, but you should expect squirrel busters any time now.

phantom_power

Quote from: up_the_hampipe on May 24, 2017, 11:46:06 PM
I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the likes of Leah Remini who were so blinded or weren't important enough to see the evils going on. But there are stories about Tom Cruise, especially since he's so close with the leader David Miscavige, that suggest he basically allows poor treatment of others in the church because of the benefits that come with being the poster boy.

That doesn't really jibe with seemingly everyone who works with him saying he is a really nice guy though

Phil_A

Isn't the COS supposedly on a huge decline, with membership numbers falling year on year? It seems like you barely hear about them these days, probably because there are any number of other things to worry about.

Anyway, this film just looks like a big mess. I could easy see it flopping even with the Cruise factor.

mothman

Yes, if they really have nothing better to do with their time...

Custard

Does anyone consider Cruise a great actor, though? I think people just like his charisma and he undeniably has a screen presence

I mainly like him because he chooses his projects well, and clearly makes a massive effort to make them as good as possible. He's like the complete opposite of modern day Johnny Depp, or Bruce Willis. The Cruiser will never phone it in. NEVER!2

up_the_hampipe

Quote from: phantom_power on May 25, 2017, 08:46:58 AM
That doesn't really jibe with seemingly everyone who works with him saying he is a really nice guy though

That's coming from people who have hung out with him on a movie set or gone to dinner. Stories from people who were in Scientology show him in a much different light, including the aforementioned Leah Remini who writes about him in her book. After all, the "religion" teaches you to behave a certain way publicly, almost like you're constantly trying to sell Scientology to them.

Mr Brightside

Quote from: up_the_hampipe on May 25, 2017, 03:52:43 PM
That's coming from people who have hung out with him on a movie set or gone to dinner. Stories from people who were in Scientology show him in a much different light, including the aforementioned Leah Remini who writes about him in her book. After all, the "religion" teaches you to behave a certain way publicly, almost like you're constantly trying to sell Scientology to them.

So you're not gonna see The Mummy, then?

up_the_hampipe

Quote from: Mr Brightside on May 25, 2017, 04:33:25 PM
So you're not gonna see The Mummy, then?

Oh I'll be first in line mate.

mothman

Apparently the London premiere was cancelled out of respect for the attack in Manchester. Part of me thinks that's a lovely gesture. Another more cynical part wonders if Cruise bottled coming to the UK with further attacks possible...

Bingo Fury

Quote from: mothman on May 23, 2017, 10:59:20 PM
My biggest problem with 2 has always been Cruise's stupid hairstyle. Sadly the semi-long look seems to be the rule rather than the exception in the franchise as a whole.

Cruise's hair is fucking fantastic in M:I2. I've been known to put that DVD on simply to marvel at his hair.

Mr Brightside

Quote from: Bingo Fury on May 30, 2017, 01:26:44 AM
Cruise's hair is fucking fantastic in M:I2. I've been known to put that DVD on simply to marvel at his hair.

Nah. I'd say his best M:I hair is in M:I3.

greenman

Quote from: Shameless Custard on May 25, 2017, 12:57:13 PM
Does anyone consider Cruise a great actor, though? I think people just like his charisma and he undeniably has a screen presence

I mainly like him because he chooses his projects well, and clearly makes a massive effort to make them as good as possible. He's like the complete opposite of modern day Johnny Depp, or Bruce Willis. The Cruiser will never phone it in. NEVER!2

When playing crazy he can be pretty good as in Collateral. I'd agree he stands out as one of the few stars of his era who hasn't become lazy signing up for any old crap although again I think his presence does tend to have a blandening effect. I would have called it "Spielbergisation" but I'm actually wondering if stuff like Minority Report and War of the Worlds copping out rather was partly down to Cruise? there does seem to be a definite pattern with stuff like Oblivion taking the same route.

mothman

The War of the Worlds has its cop-out ending hard-coded in, however you then adapt it. "But then the aliens all caught a cold and died, the end." I don't think you can blame that on Cruise. As for Minority Report... I gather there's a school of thought that says everything that happens after he's Halo'ed is just a fantasy he lives in as pary of his VR prison. You'd've thought they'd've made that more of a obvious possibility. But then the same "it's all a dream" twist is openly referenced at the end of, say, Total Recall and nobody complains about that. And if you do go down the actually-a-dream route, you run the risk of being labelled a Brazil knock-off. You can't win, really...

greenman

Quote from: mothman on May 31, 2017, 06:56:06 PM
The War of the Worlds has its cop-out ending hard-coded in, however you then adapt it. "But then the aliens all caught a cold and died, the end." I don't think you can blame that on Cruise. As for Minority Report... I gather there's a school of thought that says everything that happens after he's Halo'ed is just a fantasy he lives in as pary of his VR prison. You'd've thought they'd've made that more of a obvious possibility. But then the same "it's all a dream" twist is openly referenced at the end of, say, Total Recall and nobody complains about that. And if you do go down the actually-a-dream route, you run the risk of being labelled a Brazil knock-off. You can't win, really...

I don't think its the Aliens dying off that's the real copout though, they could easily say have gone with the tripod that had Cruise and his daughter caged dying itself but we had to get him blowing it up(rather than just being pulled out), telling the soliders how to kill another one then the son and extended family all being fine.

I'v heard the theory but I think Minority Report very clearly looks to treat its finale as real and not a fantasy and honestly even before that it just devolves into more of a "who done it".

Avril Lavigne

Quote from: Bad Ambassador on May 22, 2017, 09:28:30 AM
The Universal monsters are Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the Invisible Man and the Wolf Man. Horror movies from the 30s, basically.

And The Creature From The Black Lagoon, let's not forget.  I hope this whole 'cinematic universe' idea falls apart before they get to bringing him in, because the Black Lagoon remake has been in development hell since 1982 and I can't think of a worse end result from all those stalled productions than for it to be turned into a generic CG-heavy action-adventure that will be forgotten a month after release.

Custard

Sorry to wank on your cornflakes, but rumour is that The Creature From The Black Lagoon is next, after Russell Crowe as ***SPOILERZ*** Jekyll and Hyde


Avril Lavigne

Quote from: Shameless Custard on May 31, 2017, 10:19:01 PM
Sorry to wank on your cornflakes, but rumour is that The Creature From The Black Lagoon is next, after Russell Crowe as ***SPOILERZ*** Jekyll and Hyde

The thing is, after years & years of hearing every Black Lagoon reboot announced before a long period of silence followed by a quiet admission that the project was taken out back and shot, I've now been in the 'I'll believe it when I see it' camp for quite some time & I don't feel much different about this.  The fact that Universal already abandoned one attempt at the shared monster universe after Dracula Untold flopped makes it sound even less certain that they'll ever get around to old Gill.