# The Mummy (2017)



## Cli-Fi (Dec 6, 2016)

Looks cheesy:






Does not bode well for the start of the Monster Franchise.


----------



## Nick B (Dec 6, 2016)

I think it looks okay, and Cruise geneqgaly makes good films.


----------



## Boneman (Dec 6, 2016)

Female Mummy - that fits! Does look good.


----------



## Nick B (Dec 6, 2016)

Quellist said:


> Cruise geneqgaly .



This is why I don't use my tablets on screen keyboard for writing...


----------



## Frost Giant (Dec 6, 2016)

Meh. They should've merged the story with the Sully movie and had Tom Hanks instead of Tom Cruise. Sully Sullenberger lands the crippled plane on the Nile River, but he still has to combat the evil undead _and_ the NTSB!


----------



## SilentRoamer (Dec 6, 2016)

Film looks absolutely pants. They really should just wrap this one up....


----------



## ratsy (Dec 6, 2016)

I'll be honest. I want to see this!


----------



## TWErvin2 (Dec 6, 2016)

Looks okay, like it might have potential.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 6, 2016)

Im not a fan of reboots , but this one intrigues me  Why?  Tom Cruises's character surviving  that horrific plane crash and waking up in the body bag in the morgue.  What is the nature of the character _he_ is playing in this film? I think this is going to be a very good film.


----------



## Nick B (Dec 7, 2016)

I don't see this as a reboot really, it seems to be totaly different class of film to Brendan Frasers (camped up atrocity) of a film. To be fair The Mummy was ok, but it couldnt decide if it wanted to be Indiana Jones, or a teen horror flick. The follow ups were awful.


----------



## clovis-man (Dec 12, 2016)

Could be interesting. We've come a long way since Karloff.


----------



## BAYLOR (Dec 25, 2016)

clovis-man said:


> Could be interesting. We've come a long way since Karloff.



His Mummy film is classic stuff. Ive seen it many times, It never gets old.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Dec 25, 2016)

Quellist said:


> I don't see this as a reboot really, it seems to be totaly different class of film to Brendan Frasers (camped up atrocity) of a film. To be fair The Mummy was ok, but it couldnt decide if it wanted to be Indiana Jones, or a teen horror flick. The follow ups were awful.


I agree with part of what you say (not about the Fraser movies, of which I thought #1 and #2 were very entertaining); that is, this is a different class of film. It appears that this is the start of an entirely new "line" of mummy stories, that is likely to be much less campy, much more of a horror film, and that combined with action/adventure in the familiar Tom Cruise mode. I suspect I'll like it.
(It continues to intrigue me how often Cruise does films from the SF genre; and now it appears he may be entering the Fantasy arena...I guess I always like seeing filmmakers who not only seem to have an appreciation for SF and F, but who make strong attempts at doing it...Will Smith is another such, imho).


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Dec 25, 2016)

clovis-man said:


> Could be interesting. We've come a long way since Karloff.


It was indeed a classic. But classics get old, and Karloff's film got "old" to me...


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 25, 2016)

Sorry but as soon as I see a film with Tom Cruise in it is immediately marked down for me. Occasionally a particularly good film manages to rise above his appalling acting; this doesn't look like being one of those.


----------



## clovis-man (Dec 25, 2016)

2DaveWixon said:


> It was indeed a classic. But classics get old, and Karloff's film got "old" to me...


 I thought the fear he instilled without benefit of excessive makeup or cloth wrappings was quite impressive. Everything subsequent has been increasingly loaded with gimmicks.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Dec 25, 2016)

Vertigo said:


> Sorry but as soon as I see a film with Tom Cruise in it is immediately marked down for me. Occasionally a particularly good film manages to rise above his appalling acting; this doesn't look like being one of those.


I don't think you need to apologize for having a low opinion about Tom Cruise's acting. It's not your fault.
Er -- is it? Is there something you haven't told us?

I don't watch his movies for the acting. Mostly, I think, I watch for the fights -- his characters always take an incredible amount of punishment, which would ordinarily turn me off due to the unreality aspect of it. But still and all, they're usually good fights. His Mission: Impossible films are good that way, for instance...and that scene in one of them, where he was hanging by a failing suction cup off the side of the Burj al-Khalifah (the tall skyscraper in Dubai), was way scary...
(Interestingly, though, I found his character, and his acting, much better in his second "Jack Reacher" film...)


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Dec 25, 2016)

clovis-man said:


> I thought the fear he instilled without benefit of excessive makeup or cloth wrappings was quite impressive. Everything subsequent has been increasingly loaded with gimmicks.


True.
The first horror films did that. But human nature gets jaded with the things it's seen, and needs more, and more, and more again -- to create the level of excitement/fear that it got before...it's kind of like an addiction, I think...


----------



## Starbeast (Dec 26, 2016)

I don't have high hopes for this one. The trailer looked too typical.


----------



## 2DaveWixon (Dec 26, 2016)

Starbeast said:


> I don't have high hopes for this one. The trailer looked too typical.


You may well be right. But I will likely give it a couple hours of my time -- knowing that sometimes me initial reactions to things can be wrong...


----------

