Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Landy's Avatar
    Landy is online now Go Jets Go!
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba
    Posts
    12,651

    Default The Mummy (2017) - HDD Review

    E has reviewed The Mummy. He says this introduction into Universal's Dark universe isn't terrible, but suffers from being rushed and could have been a lot better. The disc is great, though!

    Blu-ray review here:
    http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/48078/themummy2017.html

    4K Blu-ray review here:
    http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/480...ahdbluray.html

  2. #2
    Boston007's Avatar
    Boston007 is online now Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,335

    Default

    Terrible movie, but looks and sounds awesome! LOL Seems to be common these days.

    I will check this out because I like Cruise in these roles. Was this movie better than the second Reacher movie? I honestly could barely watch that movie. I loved the first Reacher and all his MI movies.

  3. #3
    cupboy's Avatar
    cupboy is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    1,858

    Default

    Saw this at Walmart this morning. They have a special edition. Don't remember the price.

  4. #4
    NJScorpio's Avatar
    NJScorpio is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,211

    Default

    I'm a huge fan of the classic Universal Monsters, and a pretty big Tom Cruise fan, so I anticipate liking this enough. I bought a digital copy for the cost of a digital rental (about $6) which seems worth it. Doesn't seem worth buying the Blu-ray though.

  5. #5
    Boston007's Avatar
    Boston007 is online now Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,335

    Default

    Is the Best Buy exclusive a digibook?
    Can anyone confirm?

  6. #6
    Plissken99's Avatar
    Plissken99 is online now Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,302

    Default

    What an unbelievable piece of crap. I can't believe they made a movie that almost makes the old Brendan Fraser look better.

    Is it too much to ask for a horror version of The GD Mummy?! Armies of impossibly fast CGI creatures chasing the heroes, yet never catch them.. doesn't count.

    And trying to make a Marvel-ish franchise out of the universal monsters might be the worst thing they could possibly do to the properties. I hope this bombed badly.

  7. #7
    NJScorpio's Avatar
    NJScorpio is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,211

    Default

    So...I liked it. I mean, I enjoyed 'I, Frankenstein' to a degree, too. There were tons of good elements. Individual ideas, cool shots, lots of Tom making facial expressions at the camera...and the "world building" was less intrusive than I expected it to be. It was there, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't NEARLY as badly implemented as what Batman Vs Superman did.

    I'm curious to see where these characters go now, in the greater Dark Universe. How will Johnny Depp's Invisible Man be involved?

    What Marvel did well was using significantly "lesser" stars for their movies, so they all felt like less of a gamble. They tended to have bigger stars in secondary roles, like Tommy Lee Jones in Captain America or Natalie Portman in Thor.

    Sure, I would have liked a more Egypt-centric Mummy movie, but for a franchise as long running as this I don't mind something different. The genre of the movie is most definitely action, not really horror, which is a big problem. I anticipate that will be the pattern going forward, as if there isn't money to be made in actual horror.

    The overall concept could work, in the right hands. Released every Halloween (didn't Saw do that?), with known horror directors helming these things. Oh well.

  8. #8
    Freakyguy666 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Based on the mediocre review of the 4K version, it would appear that the 3D version might be the best way to go especially given atmos on all versions. Looks like another import....

  9. #9
    Boston007's Avatar
    Boston007 is online now Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,335

    Default

    Wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. E's assessment is right on the money IMO.

    I can't believe people would bash this but accept the FastFurious and Transformer movies. I'd watch Mummy ten times over those other movies. But that's me.

  10. #10
    NJScorpio's Avatar
    NJScorpio is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boston007 View Post
    I can't believe people would bash this but accept the FastFurious and Transformer movies. I'd watch Mummy ten times over those other movies. But that's me.
    It's funny you should say that. I had the thought at the end of 'The Mummy' that the first 'Fast & Furious' wasn't actually a very good movie. Not bad, but just 'Point Break' with cars. If it was released with the hype that it would start a multi-picture franchise, held to the Marvel/'Iron Man' standard, it would likely be considered a lackluster start. It wasn't until Justin Lin took over that the whole franchise actually became really good.

    So with that, this wasn't a bad start at all. As I said in a post prior, I'm interested in where the characters go after 'The Mummy', and it's universe building was not as ham fisted as BvS.

  11. #11
    Boston007's Avatar
    Boston007 is online now Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NJScorpio View Post
    It's funny you should say that. I had the thought at the end of 'The Mummy' that the first 'Fast & Furious' wasn't actually a very good movie. Not bad, but just 'Point Break' with cars. If it was released with the hype that it would start a multi-picture franchise, held to the Marvel/'Iron Man' standard, it would likely be considered a lackluster start. It wasn't until Justin Lin took over that the whole franchise actually became really good.

    So with that, this wasn't a bad start at all. As I said in a post prior, I'm interested in where the characters go after 'The Mummy', and it's universe building was not as ham fisted as BvS.
    Actually, the first Fast was the best one, IMO.

    E is right, they were trying to do too much and establish too much in this one movie for the universe.

  12. #12
    Plissken99's Avatar
    Plissken99 is online now Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boston007 View Post
    I can't believe people would bash this but accept the FastFurious and Transformer movies. I'd watch Mummy ten times over those other movies. But that's me.
    Well the Transformers movies are garbage, I gave up 20 minutes into the second movie and haven't watched any of them since. By the previews I'm missing nothing. F&F I enjoy in the way I enjoy cartoons, it was designed to be a silly loud diversion and they manage to make it fun.

    This is a launching platform for a franchise of reboots, horror movies re-envisioned in an action movie franchise, because making decent horror is hard. This movie is LAZY and trying to launch a lazy cash grabbing franchise. I laughed when the old Fraser Book of the Dead fell off the shelf, I could think was 'they're referencing a more entertaining movie', at least it knew it was bad.

    That's the other thing, it's all over the place, this movie doesn't know if it wants to be action, comedy or horror. Every time I started getting into it on a serious level, something goofy happens and I'm out of it.

    I'm amazed Russell Crowe wasn't Van Helsing, guess even they thought that'd be too on the noes.
    Last edited by Plissken99; 09-13-2017 at 10:41 AM.

  13. #13
    Boston007's Avatar
    Boston007 is online now Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Plissken99 View Post
    Well the Transformers movies are garbage, I gave up 20 minutes into the second movie and haven't watched any of them since. By the previews I'm missing nothing. F&F I enjoy in the way I enjoy cartoons, it was designed to be a silly loud diversion and they manage to make it fun.

    This is a launching platform for a franchise of reboots, horror movies re-envisioned in an action movie franchise, because making decent horror is hard. This movie is LAZY and trying to launch a lazy cash grabbing franchise. I laughed when the old Fraser Book of the Dead fell off the shelf, I could think was 'they're referencing a more entertaining movie', at least it knew it was bad.

    That's the other thing, it's all over the place, this movie doesn't know if it wants to be action, comedy or horror. Every time I started getting into it on a serious level, something goofy happens and I'm out of it.

    I'm amazed Russell Crowe wasn't Van Helsing, guess even they thought that'd be too on the noes.
    This is probably the main issue with the movie. It was entertaining enough for me to set aside those issues. Like I said, if they had concentrated less on being all over the place it would have been better. For me it was somewhat watchable.

  14. #14
    Bolo's Avatar
    Bolo is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    571

    Default

    The trailer looked pretty fun and I generally enjoy Tom Cruise as a performer, but I'm going to pass on seeing this one. Aside from it being directed by the guy who has written some of the worst blockbusters in modern history, it also appears to be guilty of most of the trends I hate about modern blockbusters. It sounds like a Marvel movie, and if you like those, then I can see how it would be passably entertaining, but not for me.

  15. #15
    NJScorpio's Avatar
    NJScorpio is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,211

    Default

    Regarding the humor, there were quite a few moments of lame Tom Cruise dialog that made me laugh. Still, one line really, REALLY hurt enjoyment for me...
    Spoiler:
    When Tom says to the Mummy, 'It's not me, it's you." First of all, that reversal of "it's not you, it's me" is more played out than "take my wife, please!". Second, that is ONLY any kind of burn when the person you are speaking to has heard the original phrasing before. Otherwise, it is literally just a statement of fact. Clearly, it is not him, it is her, that is the issue. The joke did not work at all, and it was at a very important moment, so it highlighted how terrible it was. It's like if John McClane's 'Die Hard' quote was "Don't have a cow, man!"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.1 PL1