That was totally me when I read Russel Crowe's character's description in this movie on Wikipedia, and yet, I'm STILL perplexed that when I share and revel at how God Damn STUPID this is, my dad and sister literally keep telling me that I'm being to judgmental, and that, in some way, bringing a fictional character into this franchise could work for the movie...........
Is it wrong I would have much rather watched a Russell Crowe Jekyll and Hyde movie just to see him flip flop from his usual acting to over the top hammiest scene chewing?
Tadicuslegion78 I think that is what Russel Crowe is like IRL. Maybe they should just have a reality TV show: "Russell's been drinking again, he's gonna turn into a monster!"
at least with something llike apeman or hulk, they have a cgstun man to do all the work. with jekyll and hyde they are the same person acting like a completly diferent person. does russel crown can really do that, or they are gonna replace him with a cgi ballsack like in the league of extraordinary gentlements?
You know what they SHOULD have done? An entire movie about how that woman became the mummy to begin with, and ended with a stinger of her tomb being discovered thousands years later. Or at least half and half of those and done as, you know, a HORROR film.
That sounds amazing actually. Why the heck do people like you who don't work in the business have more amazing ideas than so many people in Hollywood?!
+KentuckyWallChicken- Because people with actual creativity are usually fired the instant they put forward an idea that would actually make an interesting story, instead of a bland cash grab. That is the way of current Hollywood, bland mediocrity to turn a profit. Genuine creativity is to much of a financial risk in their eyes to be allowed within 100 miles of Hollywood.
For what its worth, the Fraser movie at least seemed to have some understanding of Ancient Egypt and Egyptian mythology. The Cruise movie seemed like it maybe looked briefly at Wikipedia at the most.
Considering they called Set, who, if I'm remembering correctly, is SUPPOSED to be the god of Chaos, the God of the Dead instead of Anubis... I think there was no coming back from that the second it happened
+Connor Jones oh here's how badly they fucked that up. A LOT OF FILMS assume Anubis is god of the dead (and evil....for some reason) but he's actually more the god of magic and embalming, OSIRIS, Set's Brother, is the god of the dead. Set is the god of the desert and the dangers it holds, and of storms. The God of Evil itself was the reviled, demonic snake Apep, a 12 metere long golden snake with a head of flint who attempted to eat the sun every night. He was so evil NOBODY worshipped him, and only made statues of him to be destroyed as part of a ritual warding him, and any intact imagry of him always featured a god nearby so he didn't fuck shit up. AND NONE OF THE GODS LOOKED LIKE WHATEVER THAT BLACK ZOMBIE THING WAS.
I think the "Dark Universe" should have focused more on the Monsters themselves. Not the people fighting the monsters. Nobody remembers the couple in the Dracula, everyone remembers Dracula and the reason why there are so many incarnations of the Universal Monsters is because they're so interesting. I really liked the idea they were going with the Mummy, but then they made her evil and it just went downhill from there. If they wanted to create an interesting, unique cinematic universe, why not make the Mummy a good character and make Jekyll and his monster hunters the bad guys. Make the monsters more human!
Totally agreed. They failed miserably with this. All they did was rip off an already existing movie and slightly updated it while shoving in a bunch of future movie ideas instead of focusing on development and environment.
+GTunit7 "[...]should have focused more on the Monsters themselves. Not the people fighting the monsters. Nobody remembers the couple in [...], everyone remembers [...] and the reason why there are so many incarnations of [...] Monsters is because they're so interesting." Wait, I think I heard that before, are we talking Dark Universe or King Kong vs. Godzilla Universe (Godzila 2014 to be precise) now?
The problem with a Universal horror franchise is: everybody remembers the monsters, so you will make the monsters heroes? Adversaries? Turn it around and make their opponents the heros? But then why keep monster names as titles and why use this monster based franchise as model at all? This isn't as easy as doing a Marvel superhero universe is it?
@@Targisvear It really is though, but this film was a giant clusterfuck that didn't know what to do. Setting up a franchise is as easy as writing a novel series. They chose a great premise by using a female Mummy, but other than that, the screenwriter didn't know how to go forward or portray their story, so it got mutilated.
@@Targisvear To be fair, it's not the first time a shared universe was attempted with the Universal monsters. Even the original films had occasional recurring character and actors, and they did have crossover films, so it was a kinda sorta shared universe.
Two other comments pointed how a monster movie universe can work, and it can but has to be thought out well given that a villain focused franchise is rare and has to be well thoughtout, and it clearly wasn't for this attempt. Iron Man ended and it was clear that the protagonist was now a superhero, but The Mummy ended and... the mummy lady was dead and Tom Cruise was the new possessed mummy spirit? Or some other monster... or he became mummy helsing? I don't know.
One thing that irked me about this movie was how the movie described Set as the God of death. Set was the God of Violence, Disorder and the Desert he wasn't the God of Death. At least Brendan Fraser got some of the mythology right, heck in special edition of the DVD there was a section that gave foot notes on the gods of Egypt.
Yeah, sort of. He was the god of the underworld. You could call him the god of death or the head of a pantheon that took care of that role. There were several gods and spiritual entities that served under him, like Anubis.
@@JenamDrag0n Um....wow, ok. Thanks for calling me out on that. I remember vaguely posting this, but I'm trying to remember where the disconnect was. Yeah, Osiris is clearly who I was talking about, not Set. I feel like I must have missed naming Osiris though. Old post, but best to keep the data clear. Yes, Osiris is who I was talking about, Set was disorder and such,.
The saddest part is that this mummy herself was really cool, it had a great design, they cast a perfect actress for the role and she was a female mummy which is exiting and new. But not only did they make everything around her shitty they also killed her at the end. THEY KILLED THE MAIN MONSTER IN THE FIRST MOVIE. Honestly this mummy deserved to be next to dracula, the were wolf, the black lagon creature, and any other, this character had a lot of potential and they just throw it away. So sad.
Every studio today wants to have a cinematic universe, it has become the most powerful force in cinema and they all wield it like a kid who's found his Dad's gun. The problem with Universal's discovery is that it didn't require any discipline to attain it, they didn't earn the knowledge for themselves so they don't take any impressibility for it. They stood on the shoulders of geniuses (i.e: Marvel) to accomplish something as fast as they could, and before they even knew what they had, they patented it, packaged it, slapped in on a plastic box and now... THEY WANNA SELL IT, THEY WANNA SELL IT!
Ironically Universal was the first to do a cinematic Universe was back during monster movie days. They even talk about it in the nostalgia critic review
For starters trying to build a universe by dispersing the attention of a movie to all the spin off and sides of it is a huge mistake. You can only reference the rest of the Universe once there is actual ground work to reference that the audience understands. They needed to focus more on story telling and cinematography. The mummies in the older movies were motivated by the loss of someone they loved and trying to bring them back from the dead. This movies mummy uses a dark ritual to kill a child which could have easily been done without summoning Set.
These cinematic universes always forget one thing, make a good movie first and then throw in the connective tissue. Iron man can be enjoyed by itself, avengers arguably can be seen by itself, Thor ragnorok can be seen by itself. My point is act like the other movies don't matter and this is the only ant-man movie or this is the only doc strange movie and keep the world building on the fringe. I mean I've seen every MCU movue, but it didn't start that way. At first I had only seen Iron-man and Iron man 3,then I rewatched everything. I didn't need to watch the avengers to enjoy Iron man 3 It certainly made it better, but I wasn't forced to miss out on plot points because I missed something. Secondly, D.C. doesn't need to reinvent the wheel superman doesn't need to be gritty, and please don't try to deconstruct something if you don't do deconstruction well.
+darkmyro It seems enough to make an slightly above average movie first. So far the Godzilla/King Kong Universe is doing fine, and that one had a start that was neither particularly great nor particularly awful. (and that one is about monsters as well, so it can be compared to the Dark Universe)
"They were movies first and universe movies second." Yes, and that is naming the core problem most universe attempts fail to realise. Making a introduction to "the greater universe movie" and a "good movie" at the same time is harder than just doing one of them. They would fare better by just upgrading some random good movie with a greater universe than by trying the establishing movie route.
Too true. The only DC movie that was legitimately good was Wonder Woman because it was a good movie. It didn’t rely on a cameo from Batman or Aquaman, or build up more of the Justice League. It kept the story simple and stuck with it.
Dr Jekyll should not have appeared in this movie until the end. Advice to all film studios starting shared universes: stop using your first few films to set up future events.
Agreed. Sure, have a tie in of some kind. Have a cutscene at the end, or a reference to a character you *might* use in the future to show this world could be bigger. Heck, go the Captain America route and have a major plot item in the movie recur later. Just don't start building the next movie or telling it before the first is done. Same with the second. In DC BvS was the introduction of 2 characters, *and* the reference to more, *and* the death of a major character, *and* the hook for Justice League. Pick one. MoS wasn't strong enough to support all that. Feels similarly here.
Tbf, they already set up a sequel for Iron Man in the first Iron Man by putting in Coulson, I think. The second film definitely put more of an emphasis on a franchise being created when Captain America was announced around that same time as its release. And after Thor's release and we see the mcguffin, the Tesseract, it was off to the races for multiple stages of films and the Marvel franchise taking over. Jekyll and Hyde is a very well-known character, so you could get away with using him at the end. The biggest issue is that they didn't make a solid first film, they gave Cruise too much freedom, and they killed off a potential gold mine by getting rid of the female mummy, because Botella is a definite untapped gold mine of an actress.
Even I could've made a better movie to start up the Dark Universe. Here's an idea. The son of Abraham Van Hellsing starts an organization to find the most dangerous creatures in the world with help from 2 scientists. Victor Frankenstein, and Dr. Jekyll. They end up discovering the coffin of Dracula, and they end up unleashing him. So it's up too the 3 men to capture him and get him locked up. And the movie would end with some sort of clue about more monsters. Admit it, even if my idea needs tweaking, I made a better idea for a movie to start the series up.
The scene of the mummy punching Tom Cruise in the air makes me laugh every damn time. Seriously, how did the creators of this movie not see that as super Looney Toons style comical?
"Who is he supposed to be?" He's Tom Cruise. This movie seems like it was made just for the sake of his ego and fantasy, and that's supposed to be enjoyable for anyone other than him.
8:42 That scene was left out of the review where she says "Sands of Egypt," and I feel like that actually makes the glass exploding more tolerable. What's glass made of? A lot of sand is involved. Egypt's a good place to get sand. I can see the idea behind it and it's a good idea, making a storm of glass is much more dangerous, it just sucks that it was done so poorly.
Hey, personally, I think it would have been redeemable if the mummy had really won. It's _Dark_ universe, right? They could have made the villains more protagonists.
Well in IT (2017) I was rooting for Pennywise half of the time, hoping he would make the main characters shut the fuck up, but I woudn't call it a bad movie.
Okay I meant to mention this on the Brandon Fraser one, but the cat thing actually does make sense, cats are underworld pet guardians. Their presence is essentially 'Imma tell Ra about you misbehaving!' ....You do need to remember that Cats are worshiped in Egypt.
How about Jackals, the animal Anubis is associated with? If I were a mummy, I wouldn't want the god of mummification and death rites to catch wind that I'm walking around as a shambling corpse.
Jade Annabel ye. The Brendan Fraser version actually takes the mythology and DOES something with it. Even if it seems a bit silly, it makes far more sense within its own universe.
9:41 "The end, movie over, roll credits, show me a scene of Jekyll and Hyde eating shawarma together." I have no idea why but I died laughing at that scene. XD
Wow I think we just found the only person on Earth that is willing and actually dares to defend Dragon Ball Evolution. He was probably drunk while watching that movie. (please note that this is meant as a joke. I say this because my jokes can be bad at times. I was not trying to offend anyone).
This movie failed completely in setting up the Dark Universe. The whole point is to have all of the classic monsters together. The Mummy dies at the end of this movie. They set up Tom Cruise as the god of death. Okay, whatever. That isn’t the Mummy. You’ve set up a whole new character that no one had any excitement over because he didn’t exist, and kill of the title character who is supposed to be in the shared universe. This is like if Marvel killed Tony Stark in the first movie, and had an after-credits scene where Nick Fury comes to recruit Ferro Boy - a character invented in this movie who killed Tony and stole his tech.
I agree. It seems like if there’s ever an unpopular war in a movie like the Iraq war or Vietnam then the soldiers will almost always be portrayed as assholes. .
Ventus 562 I'm another military kid and I emphatically agree. That's one trope that needs to die. Painfully. Sick of it. Why I really hated avatar. Enough
You know what could have been cool? Have the leader of the secret organization be secret and be giving contradicting orders. Then at the end, have Cruise meet Crow and he says, "Hello, you my call me Jekyll, Doctor Jekyll." But make the movie better.
Or better yet have the organization be called “Hide” (as in run and hide), making everyone think it would be Jekyll, then have it turn out to be Victor Frankenstein
-sigh- let me explain..if you watch the movie without seeing DBZ but only hearing about it..all you will see is a bad movie....now if you watched the anime..then he would probably have the same reaction he had when watching the Last air bender movie.
Dragon Ball Evolution is better than this movie. You know it's just a dumb Sci Fi action movie, it's not that horrible. The only reason people bash it is because of its name, but it has so few connection with Dragonball that it really doesn't matter.
I don't care what people think, I never find Tom Cruise charming or charismatic, and I think he's the reason why this movie sucks. Not only he had a lot of influence on the stupid plot, he also brought his editing team from Mission Impossible to edited the film Edit: He brought in Christopher McQuarrie, Dylan Kussman, and Andrew Mondshein, basically changed the entire film
In my eyes that dishonor actually goes to the role of Jenny. At least with Nick you could laugh... some times. Jenny was just bland and boring. Also Nick suddenly turning good while under the influence of both Ahmanet AND Seth While he himself had already said he wasn't really a good guy? THAT was the most stupid and over the top scene of the entire movie. The entire movie had built up to that moment, the moment Nick would become Seth and side with Ahmanet. But NO the good guys had to win and evil had to be destroyed. Well I have two things to say about THAT. 1) This was supposed to launch the DARK Universe. Everyone would expect with this for the bad guys to win. 2) Never heard of the saying "Evil always finds a way"? For those who do not know of this. This saying is from the Overlord game series.
I mean Penny Dredful and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen already did what Dark Universe is trying to do now. Both of them did it better in very different ways. Also, can we have doug review the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with the new dark universe thing?
As its own thing, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen can be fun like a lost '90s blockbuster movie... But judged as an adaptation of Alan Moore's comic book series, it's a VERY dumbed down version of the source.
Universal shit all over their own legacy. Just looking at pictures of the original Mummy you get the feel of it. What kind of movie is this? Generic and vapid I guess, but it's the fucking Mummy for crying out loud.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde wasn't even Universal. It was MGM and Paramount. His inclusion doesn't even make sense. I bet good money the producers didn't even know this. Just "Hey, Dr. Jekyll had a classic movie. I think we made it?"
@@EpicMickey777 Now I'm just imagining Abbott and Costello as the R2 and 3PO of the Dark Universe. They're kinda comic relief, but mainly the characters the plot unfolds for.
This film would not have been so Bloated if they did Not hire Alex Kurtzman to direct. they should've gotten The Director of the Babadook (I forgot her name)
Watching this video for the 2nd time I just now noticed something. 10:18 In the credits at title card the artifact is classified as Fr.B 424. Is that supposed to be a homage to Brendon Fraser?
When Russell Crowe said he was Jekyll I rolled my eyes until I saw nothing but dark and said "really? you are asking Russell Crowe, the man that can't even act like one convincing human being, to play two different human beings in the same body...for real?" ...then he started going nuts and at that point all I wanted to see was Hyde singing: and I'm Javert...
@6:18 The cat in the 1999 Mummy was at least drawing on Ancient Egyptian mythology with cats being considered sacred animals and living demi-gods. I give the writers points for at least making the mummy's weakness something that that is central to actual ancient Egyptian belief.
Want to know the worse part? They tried to make this movie popular with a shitty graphic novel app game that involves choices. I'm not fucking kidding. It was on the Google play store last time I checked
You can see how this version was trying to use what worked in the Brendan Fraser Mummy film but they didn't understand why it worked. O'Connell was a soldier who discovered the City of the Dead when his greedy regiment decided to hunt treasure, so let's make the the hero of our Mummy movie a treasure-hunting soldier. Problem: that was O'Connell's backstory. We meet him at the point where he and his regiment are fighting for their lives as the consequence of behaving in a greedy way. We meet him after he's learned that life is more valuable than treasure, and has become a wiser (if more traumatized) man. That's why we can get behind him as a hero. Cruise's character starts off as an arrogant, greedy dick and remains an arrogant greedy dick. He's impossible to think of as a hero (or even as an anti-hero) because he's just an unlikable dick.
I understand that. My point was that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that this person actually believes this, they just think saying shit like that will get a response. And even if they do belive what they're saying, they would have left you alone after the first comment had you not responded.
This is why I prefer the Monsterverse. At least in that universe, it kinda feels like Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures are actually trying to lay the groundwork and thinking about where else to go after Godzilla vs. Kong.
Dracula Untold, starring Luke Evans, was supposed to be the first movie. I’m still mourning that the movie wasn’t well received when it was so good. The ending was Dracula in mordern day London, so this movie, The Mummy, would fall into that established world. Unfortunately it became the Tom Cruise show, wanting to make Tom the “Captain America” of the Dark Universe, and completely derailed the actual purpose of the movie which was The Mummy. It had some good things in it, I loved the two pupil effect the mummy had on the eyes, but there just weren’t enough and it just didn’t come together at all.
2:04 The only good thing in this movie: Javier Botet as Set (Idk, I'm just a big nerd for monster actors (Doug Jones, Javier Botet, if you're out there, huge fan))
2:08 *smirks* "I HAVE A THING!!! HERE'S MY THING!!! IT'S YOUR THING NOW!!!" 5:46 I have so many jokes regarding this part! But should I go with "Thrillah!!" or "Quick before the hyenas come~"?
Really? James Rolfe suggested the cross over? That's awesome! And that line: "Unleash darkness itself." "Hey, I'm darkness itself- I realise that I'm not as cool as you thought I was gonna be" Made me spit out my tea- why wasn't that in the review somewhere?
10:34 I am sure that he is going to team up with that chick from Super Mario Bros and those three white kids from The Last Airbender to fight General Bisons Hand and Skeletors Head in that sequel that will OBVIOUSLY come!
I'm kind of sad that there probably won't be a Dark Universe now. Just because the first movie was terrible doesn't mean the others necessarily would be. Maybe that is just wishful thinking, but the universal monsters are some of (if not the) greatest movie monsters of all time, I was kind of looking forward to them getting modern re-imaginings.
That's the most frustrating thing. This could work! Amazingly even. Filmmaking has come a long way in so many ways since the original Universal Monsters, and if it's done right, they could translate excellently to a modern audience. They're just not doing it right. This is the third time they've tried in the last five years to launch a new cinematic universe, and they still haven't figured out what they're doing wrong. This can be done, they just have to think it over more. And I do hope they figure it out and try again when they can do these stories justice.
The DCEU movies have gotten better over time imho. Man of Steel absolutely sucked Batman vs Superman had its moments Suicide Squad was fun, if stupid Wonder Woman was a legit good movie Justice League not as good as WW, but not as bad as people say
The attitude of the ENTIRE studio can be summed up with the visual at 3:44- "Whatever, just put this stupid Mummy Legacy thing on a rope and let's drag it, by force, to the theaters as soon as possible.
Honestly, sorry Doug and Rob... but I LOOOOOVE the Brendan Fraser "Mummy" movies. And, this... was a severe step down. However... the CGI Rock in 2 was really awful. Nothing can defend that.
I love that Doug just gives up and walks off when Dr Jekyll shows up
DeltaPrime350 the worst part is Mr Hyde is probably the only cool part of this movie
And then rams his head into the chair! (probably a bit drunk)
I bit because he said he was too sober for the exposition.
That was totally me when I read Russel Crowe's character's description in this movie on Wikipedia, and yet, I'm STILL perplexed that when I share and revel at how God Damn STUPID this is, my dad and sister literally keep telling me that I'm being to judgmental, and that, in some way, bringing a fictional character into this franchise could work for the movie...........
😂😂😂😂😂😂
RIP Dark Universe
2017 - 2017
You will not be missed
Flame of Udun. Investigate the dark universe
I wish they could of made it work. Oh well I guess I will survive on marvel and star wars from now on.
Our Founding Liars Ah yes, the Dark Universe Conspiracy
Flame of Udun The movie still made movie world-wide , it can't be dead yet .
I SEE YOU EVERYWHERE
Is it wrong I would have much rather watched a Russell Crowe Jekyll and Hyde movie just to see him flip flop from his usual acting to over the top hammiest scene chewing?
Tadicuslegion78 he will? Maybe not.
Tadicuslegion78 I think that is what Russel Crowe is like IRL. Maybe they should just have a reality TV show: "Russell's been drinking again, he's gonna turn into a monster!"
strydom666 and FIGHTIN' ROUND DA WORLD!
motor4x4kombat...well it's what just about every other damn jekyll/hyde movie does because they either turn him into an apeman or the incredible hulk
at least with something llike apeman or hulk, they have a cgstun man to do all the work. with jekyll and hyde they are the same person acting like a completly diferent person. does russel crown can really do that, or they are gonna replace him with a cgi ballsack like in the league of extraordinary gentlements?
During Russell Crowe turning into Hyde I said with a monster voice “AND I’M JAVEIR”!
That's, actually already a thing. Sort of. If you're familiar with the Jekyll and Hyde musical. And it is glorious!
DO NOT FORGET MY NAME
Javier*
😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂nice!
You know what they SHOULD have done? An entire movie about how that woman became the mummy to begin with, and ended with a stinger of her tomb being discovered thousands years later. Or at least half and half of those and done as, you know, a HORROR film.
That sounds amazing actually. Why the heck do people like you who don't work in the business have more amazing ideas than so many people in Hollywood?!
Spencer McClure fuck that would have been amazing!
+KentuckyWallChicken- Because people with actual creativity are usually fired the instant they put forward an idea that would actually make an interesting story, instead of a bland cash grab. That is the way of current Hollywood, bland mediocrity to turn a profit. Genuine creativity is to much of a financial risk in their eyes to be allowed within 100 miles of Hollywood.
Graham Baxter that also Sounds like crap :V
Misantrope
I think you’re being a bit too harsh. The idea isn’t perfect, but it certainly isn’t crap. It does have possibilities.
For what its worth, the Fraser movie at least seemed to have some understanding of Ancient Egypt and Egyptian mythology. The Cruise movie seemed like it maybe looked briefly at Wikipedia at the most.
Considering they called Set, who, if I'm remembering correctly, is SUPPOSED to be the god of Chaos, the God of the Dead instead of Anubis... I think there was no coming back from that the second it happened
Not especially, no. At any rate, I really didn't care.
+Connor Jones oh here's how badly they fucked that up. A LOT OF FILMS assume Anubis is god of the dead (and evil....for some reason) but he's actually more the god of magic and embalming, OSIRIS, Set's Brother, is the god of the dead. Set is the god of the desert and the dangers it holds, and of storms. The God of Evil itself was the reviled, demonic snake Apep, a 12 metere long golden snake with a head of flint who attempted to eat the sun every night. He was so evil NOBODY worshipped him, and only made statues of him to be destroyed as part of a ritual warding him, and any intact imagry of him always featured a god nearby so he didn't fuck shit up.
AND NONE OF THE GODS LOOKED LIKE WHATEVER THAT BLACK ZOMBIE THING WAS.
Do you really expect Tom Cruise to know the difference between mythology and Scientology? You give him THAT much credit? ;)
It has a better understanding of the mythology, but the history is all over the place. Imhotep and Ankhesenamun were even alive at the same time.
I think the "Dark Universe" should have focused more on the Monsters themselves. Not the people fighting the monsters. Nobody remembers the couple in the Dracula, everyone remembers Dracula and the reason why there are so many incarnations of the Universal Monsters is because they're so interesting. I really liked the idea they were going with the Mummy, but then they made her evil and it just went downhill from there. If they wanted to create an interesting, unique cinematic universe, why not make the Mummy a good character and make Jekyll and his monster hunters the bad guys. Make the monsters more human!
GTunit7 This. Absolutely this.
Totally agreed. They failed miserably with this. All they did was rip off an already existing movie and slightly updated it while shoving in a bunch of future movie ideas instead of focusing on development and environment.
+GTunit7
"[...]should have focused more on the Monsters themselves. Not the people fighting the monsters. Nobody remembers the couple in [...], everyone remembers [...] and the reason why there are so many incarnations of [...] Monsters is because they're so interesting."
Wait, I think I heard that before, are we talking Dark Universe or King Kong vs. Godzilla Universe (Godzila 2014 to be precise) now?
You just made my day
I kinda agree it would be an interesting concept plus it focuses on the monsters!
- Where is it?
- Where's what?
Rob: The script.
I died
There was no script they just came up with ideas after taking 5 sh*ts in the toliet
McQuarrie, I demand a rewrite!
Doug: "I think I see the problem"
Rob: "Oh DO YA?!?!?!"
@@Sonichero151 It's right there see, i drew it with magic marker.
The bracelet of anubis
Dracula Untold (2014) was supposed to be the actual start of the Dark Universe...and this was supposed to be the retry. That's just depressing.
MrXemnas1992 Dracula Antold is Citizen Kane compared to this
MrXemnas1992 Dracula Antold is Citizen Kane compared to this
Actually this is their 3rd attempt. The first was The Wolfman (2010) so this makes it even more depressing.
MrXemnas1992 the Dracula movie seemed to be giving more effort
I love the Dracula movie, I just wish they connected it to I Frankenstein
These 1st viewings are great because Rob and Doug just bounce off each other so well!
SuperDandy I hope we get some more Real Thoughts as well.
That’s good brothers for you. My brothers and I are the same way.
Me and my brother love doing this with films. He and I laughed so hard when watching this and LoEG
7:17 Doug attempts to knock himself out by ramming into his couch...and fails.
OH MY GOD
Van Helsing should've been the leader of the organisation, if not the main hero of the universe
The problem with a Universal horror franchise is: everybody remembers the monsters, so you will make the monsters heroes? Adversaries? Turn it around and make their opponents the heros? But then why keep monster names as titles and why use this monster based franchise as model at all? This isn't as easy as doing a Marvel superhero universe is it?
@@Targisvear It really is though, but this film was a giant clusterfuck that didn't know what to do. Setting up a franchise is as easy as writing a novel series. They chose a great premise by using a female Mummy, but other than that, the screenwriter didn't know how to go forward or portray their story, so it got mutilated.
The only Hellsing I would have in charge would be Integra, because then Alucard would just kill everyone,
@@Targisvear To be fair, it's not the first time a shared universe was attempted with the Universal monsters. Even the original films had occasional recurring character and actors, and they did have crossover films, so it was a kinda sorta shared universe.
Two other comments pointed how a monster movie universe can work, and it can but has to be thought out well given that a villain focused franchise is rare and has to be well thoughtout, and it clearly wasn't for this attempt. Iron Man ended and it was clear that the protagonist was now a superhero, but The Mummy ended and... the mummy lady was dead and Tom Cruise was the new possessed mummy spirit? Or some other monster... or he became mummy helsing? I don't know.
Mission Impossible: Edge of Jack Reacher Interview with the Mummy
Tadicuslegion78 I heard Tom Cruise actually brought his editing crew from Mission Impossible to edit it
Why do I have a feeling a lot of the problems of this movie have its origins with Tom Cruise after reading that
But Cruise has been involved with his previous movies and they turned out okay.
Thread Bomb somehow everyone forgets that he was involved in quite a few good movies before.
One thing that irked me about this movie was how the movie described Set as the God of death. Set was the God of Violence, Disorder and the Desert he wasn't the God of Death. At least Brendan Fraser got some of the mythology right, heck in special edition of the DVD there was a section that gave foot notes on the gods of Egypt.
Right?? I'm surprised they got his animal-headed form correct.
ThatAussieGirl Yep
Yeah, sort of. He was the god of the underworld. You could call him the god of death or the head of a pantheon that took care of that role. There were several gods and spiritual entities that served under him, like Anubis.
@@mentaya11 I'm pretty sure Osiris was the God of the Underworld, not Set.
@@JenamDrag0n Um....wow, ok. Thanks for calling me out on that. I remember vaguely posting this, but I'm trying to remember where the disconnect was. Yeah, Osiris is clearly who I was talking about, not Set. I feel like I must have missed naming Osiris though. Old post, but best to keep the data clear. Yes, Osiris is who I was talking about, Set was disorder and such,.
The saddest part is that this mummy herself was really cool, it had a great design, they cast a perfect actress for the role and she was a female mummy which is exiting and new. But not only did they make everything around her shitty they also killed her at the end. THEY KILLED THE MAIN MONSTER IN THE FIRST MOVIE.
Honestly this mummy deserved to be next to dracula, the were wolf, the black lagon creature, and any other, this character had a lot of potential and they just throw it away. So sad.
Agreed
I liked how the Mummy moved more bent over and zombie ish like Samara instead of the stiff-jointed corpse we're used to seeing.
You can thank Tom Cruise for meddling with the script. True Story.
To be fair, they’ve killed off a lot of classic monsters only to bring them back in sequels so not sure why that’s what you’re bitching about
Wait! You two are now considering Brendan Fraiser Mummy as a good movie? Well at least one positive thing came from reviewing the shitty Cruise one! 😂
Only 1930's kids will remember the original Mummy. Best Mummy is old Mummy 😂
And I'm one of those kids who remember the black and white one.
I love all the old Universal monster movies. The Invisible Man and Dracula are my favorites ❤
Eh i prefer Christopher Lee's mummy. But i guess that ones too new for you
He's now wondering why is Hollywood killing his childhood favorites with cash ins like this.
James Rolfe remembers...I do not member
Tom Cruise is the poor man's Brendan Fraser, which is very impressive considering how Brendan Fraser is typically the poor man's Brendan Fraser.
This aged well.
So James actually suggested you this movie? That's sweet 😀
Afro Gunso! =D
I finally watched this for the first time last night and I couldn’t stop yelling “STOP REFERENCING BETTER MOVIES.”
Every studio today wants to have a cinematic universe, it has become the most powerful force in cinema and they all wield it like a kid who's found his Dad's gun. The problem with Universal's discovery is that it didn't require any discipline to attain it, they didn't earn the knowledge for themselves so they don't take any impressibility for it. They stood on the shoulders of geniuses (i.e: Marvel) to accomplish something as fast as they could, and before they even knew what they had, they patented it, packaged it, slapped in on a plastic box and now... THEY WANNA SELL IT, THEY WANNA SELL IT!
Uh, you could've uh included uh a few uh more uh "uhs." BUT but but that uh would uh be uh a bit uh less uh obvious. OBVIOUS!?
Ironically Universal was the first to do a cinematic Universe was back during monster movie days.
They even talk about it in the nostalgia critic review
IchigosHanyo Makes it all the more sad.
For starters trying to build a universe by dispersing the attention of a movie to all the spin off and sides of it is a huge mistake. You can only reference the rest of the Universe once there is actual ground work to reference that the audience understands. They needed to focus more on story telling and cinematography. The mummies in the older movies were motivated by the loss of someone they loved and trying to bring them back from the dead. This movies mummy uses a dark ritual to kill a child which could have easily been done without summoning Set.
*IchigosHanyo* Yeah but let’s be honest, those weren’t masterpieces either
Thank you, Tom Cruise. This manged to be worse than Scientology. What is with him and always being in board for dogshit?
Nobody who can make a reasonable movie will hire him, this is all he has.
Nothing is worse than scientology, well nazis are but they were defeated in ww2, tho
MadCap Productions that explains it, especially since Mission Impossible 3 and 4 were good
At least that would be entertaining.
I believe cruise brought over those writers and infact had considerable creative control, even over the director.
These cinematic universes always forget one thing, make a good movie first and then throw in the connective tissue. Iron man can be enjoyed by itself, avengers arguably can be seen by itself, Thor ragnorok can be seen by itself. My point is act like the other movies don't matter and this is the only ant-man movie or this is the only doc strange movie and keep the world building on the fringe. I mean I've seen every MCU movue, but it didn't start that way. At first I had only seen Iron-man and Iron man 3,then I rewatched everything. I didn't need to watch the avengers to enjoy Iron man 3 It certainly made it better, but I wasn't forced to miss out on plot points because I missed something. Secondly, D.C. doesn't need to reinvent the wheel superman doesn't need to be gritty, and please don't try to deconstruct something if you don't do deconstruction well.
+darkmyro
It seems enough to make an slightly above average movie first. So far the Godzilla/King Kong Universe is doing fine, and that one had a start that was neither particularly great nor particularly awful.
(and that one is about monsters as well, so it can be compared to the Dark Universe)
Agreed
yeah, but at least Godzilla was an ok movie and skull island was really great. They were movies first and universe movies second.
"They were movies first and universe movies second."
Yes, and that is naming the core problem most universe attempts fail to realise.
Making a introduction to "the greater universe movie" and a "good movie" at the same time is harder than just doing one of them. They would fare better by just upgrading some random good movie with a greater universe than by trying the establishing movie route.
Too true. The only DC movie that was legitimately good was Wonder Woman because it was a good movie. It didn’t rely on a cameo from Batman or Aquaman, or build up more of the Justice League. It kept the story simple and stuck with it.
Dr Jekyll should not have appeared in this movie until the end. Advice to all film studios starting shared universes: stop using your first few films to set up future events.
Shouldn't have been Jekyll, should've been Vic Frankie or Van Helsing. In my opinion.
Agreed. Sure, have a tie in of some kind. Have a cutscene at the end, or a reference to a character you *might* use in the future to show this world could be bigger. Heck, go the Captain America route and have a major plot item in the movie recur later. Just don't start building the next movie or telling it before the first is done. Same with the second. In DC BvS was the introduction of 2 characters, *and* the reference to more, *and* the death of a major character, *and* the hook for Justice League. Pick one. MoS wasn't strong enough to support all that. Feels similarly here.
Well its more like Universal was continuing their shared universe. Since they were the very first to have a shared universe with their monster movies
Tbf, they already set up a sequel for Iron Man in the first Iron Man by putting in Coulson, I think. The second film definitely put more of an emphasis on a franchise being created when Captain America was announced around that same time as its release. And after Thor's release and we see the mcguffin, the Tesseract, it was off to the races for multiple stages of films and the Marvel franchise taking over.
Jekyll and Hyde is a very well-known character, so you could get away with using him at the end. The biggest issue is that they didn't make a solid first film, they gave Cruise too much freedom, and they killed off a potential gold mine by getting rid of the female mummy, because Botella is a definite untapped gold mine of an actress.
Even I could've made a better movie to start up the Dark Universe.
Here's an idea. The son of Abraham Van Hellsing starts an organization to find the most dangerous creatures in the world with help from 2 scientists. Victor Frankenstein, and Dr. Jekyll. They end up discovering the coffin of Dracula, and they end up unleashing him. So it's up too the 3 men to capture him and get him locked up. And the movie would end with some sort of clue about more monsters.
Admit it, even if my idea needs tweaking, I made a better idea for a movie to start the series up.
James Rolfe really helped out with that crossover review of the Mummy (2017)
He had to suffer first. He saw it in theaters and couldn't drink.
ackbarfan5556 and couldn't swear in the theater
It's the start of the RUclips Critics Cinematic Universe. Up next: Jeremy Jahns & Chris Stuckmann review Dunkirk.
-stuckmann -jahns +sepe +johnston. there, much better.
He in it!
1:32 “Why, there’s nothing in here but some Bubble Yum! I’m _crazy...”_
LOL! 🤣
Gwaithe Dosbarche That’s what I thought too. What is it referencing?
I would love to see an abridged version of this movie by the Brothers Walker.
😂😂😂😂
The scene of the mummy punching Tom Cruise in the air makes me laugh every damn time. Seriously, how did the creators of this movie not see that as super Looney Toons style comical?
The Brendan Frasier movie is beloved because it's just dumb fun. Which is certainly more than what you can say about THIS movie.
Not to mention they had a better all round cast IMO.
Dumb fun or not ,I think the 1999 mumny is way better than Indiana Jones franchise.
Shape In The Water is a better Universal Monster movie than the actual Universal Monster movie 😂
tang roro Has that already come out?
Emilio Reyes It came out in early screenings. I actually saw it at the London Film Festival.
in germany the movie comes out in fucking february. i'm dying...
"Who is he supposed to be?"
He's Tom Cruise. This movie seems like it was made just for the sake of his ego and fantasy, and that's supposed to be enjoyable for anyone other than him.
why did they think that putting there equivalent of the avengers initiative talk in the middle of the movie was a good idea?
This mummy makes Brandon fraisers mummy look like a masterpiece.
It is masterpiece brah
I actually thought the 1999 mummy was a fun adventure movie, a fact which is far more evident after watching the 2017 Dark Vomit version.
4:26 - 4:29 Every frustrated movie goer through this. Dark Universe? More like Dark Litterbox!
"Here is it?!"
"Wheres what?"
"The Script!"
I died at that point xD
Next review must be:
Dragon Ball Evolution
He already confirmed that
it will be
*Evolution
I phone threw my phone across the room when he showed the DVD box in the review
That would be a great chance to torture Chris Stuckman one last time
I think I figured out the "plot." The Mummy is seeking revenge on humanity because of that awful helicopter ride!
I’d love it
Gravity Falls is darker than this movie.
Over the Garden Wall is darker than this movie.
For what it appears to be on first sight, even on second sight, the second season of Gravity Falls is really disturbing.
The dark universe logo is darker than this movie
It's just an ordinary stupid little kids show.
8:42
That scene was left out of the review where she says "Sands of Egypt," and I feel like that actually makes the glass exploding more tolerable. What's glass made of? A lot of sand is involved. Egypt's a good place to get sand. I can see the idea behind it and it's a good idea, making a storm of glass is much more dangerous, it just sucks that it was done so poorly.
You know your movie is a special kind of shit when your audience roots for the bad guy
Then again, the bad guy is the title character so... Hey it's their movie, right?
Hey, personally, I think it would have been redeemable if the mummy had really won. It's _Dark_ universe, right? They could have made the villains more protagonists.
Well in IT (2017) I was rooting for Pennywise half of the time, hoping he would make the main characters shut the fuck up, but I woudn't call it a bad movie.
Okay I meant to mention this on the Brandon Fraser one, but the cat thing actually does make sense, cats are underworld
pet guardians. Their presence is essentially 'Imma tell Ra about you misbehaving!'
....You do need to remember that Cats are worshiped in Egypt.
How about Jackals, the animal Anubis is associated with? If I were a mummy, I wouldn't want the god of mummification and death rites to catch wind that I'm walking around as a shambling corpse.
Now I really want to see how Imhotep travelled back to the City of the Dead as a sandstorm. Taking a detour at every stray cat or jackal.
Jade Annabel ye. The Brendan Fraser version actually takes the mythology and DOES something with it. Even if it seems a bit silly, it makes far more sense within its own universe.
9:41 "The end, movie over, roll credits, show me a scene of Jekyll and Hyde eating shawarma together."
I have no idea why but I died laughing at that scene. XD
9:57 Hey, look, it's Blackheart from Ghost Rider! 10:04 "Oh my god, that face is still scarier than anything in my Annabelle (2014) film!"
"There's nothing in here but Bubble Yum! I'm crazy."
7:18 - A perfect summary on the general audiences's feelings on the new Mummy movie, as well as the entirety of the Dark Universe.
This film will feel like a miracle after they watch Dragonball Evolution...
Dragon Ball Evolution is a better movie than this...
AcetylsaliciIique are you serious?
Wow I think we just found the only person on Earth that is willing and actually dares to defend Dragon Ball Evolution. He was probably drunk while watching that movie. (please note that this is meant as a joke. I say this because my jokes can be bad at times. I was not trying to offend anyone).
This movie failed completely in setting up the Dark Universe. The whole point is to have all of the classic monsters together. The Mummy dies at the end of this movie. They set up Tom Cruise as the god of death. Okay, whatever. That isn’t the Mummy. You’ve set up a whole new character that no one had any excitement over because he didn’t exist, and kill of the title character who is supposed to be in the shared universe. This is like if Marvel killed Tony Stark in the first movie, and had an after-credits scene where Nick Fury comes to recruit Ferro Boy - a character invented in this movie who killed Tony and stole his tech.
Dark Universe sounds like Steven's evil twin.
Imagine Steven Universe with a mustache.
ZuperNEZ
Either way he would be too adorable to be scary
XD
Thought the evil dude would be called Stefan Universe but okie dokie
Today's the 10th anniversary of the Bee Movie.
Spinosaurusking875 *Y A L I K E J A Z Z?*
That is un-BEE-lievable.....I'll go home....
And the 5th anniversary of Wreck-It Ralph.
Spinosaurusking875 who cares
Spinosaurusking875 YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ?
Brendan Fraser The Mummy was great fun. This however, was god fucking awful.
Another stillborn franchise bites the dust. Doop doop doop...
Pacifica Northwest Another one bites the dust.
As a military brat myself, I know how Doug feels about soldiers being represented in movies. They deserve to be portrayed better.
Ventus 562 Indeed. Yeah, our soldiers may be flawed but come on. Show some respect.
I agree. It seems like if there’s ever an unpopular war in a movie like the Iraq war or Vietnam then the soldiers will almost always be portrayed as assholes. .
Agree!
As another military brat, agreed! 👏👏
Ventus 562 I'm another military kid and I emphatically agree. That's one trope that needs to die. Painfully. Sick of it. Why I really hated avatar. Enough
You know what could have been cool? Have the leader of the secret organization be secret and be giving contradicting orders. Then at the end, have Cruise meet Crow and he says, "Hello, you my call me Jekyll, Doctor Jekyll."
But make the movie better.
You should become a screenwriter. You'd be better than half of the ones Hollywood is actually hiring.
Or better yet have the organization be called “Hide” (as in run and hide), making everyone think it would be Jekyll, then have it turn out to be Victor Frankenstein
Eugenideddis or Patrick Star
If your gonna do The Dragon Ball movie make sure you have the ambulance on stand by
Don't worry he only heard the anime was good he hasn't seen the anime so the disappointment won't be at it's peak.
Lelouchxzero1 I'm talking about the live action one
Lelouchxzero1 Isn’t Rob the anime fan?
-sigh- let me explain..if you watch the movie without seeing DBZ but only hearing about it..all you will see is a bad movie....now if you watched the anime..then he would probably have the same reaction he had when watching the Last air bender movie.
Dragon Ball Evolution is better than this movie. You know it's just a dumb Sci Fi action movie, it's not that horrible. The only reason people bash it is because of its name, but it has so few connection with Dragonball that it really doesn't matter.
I don't care what people think, I never find Tom Cruise charming or charismatic, and I think he's the reason why this movie sucks.
Not only he had a lot of influence on the stupid plot, he also brought his editing team from Mission Impossible to edited the film
Edit: He brought in Christopher McQuarrie, Dylan Kussman, and Andrew Mondshein, basically changed the entire film
tang roro I don’t see how any other actor could make this movie good. The plot itself was just too stupid.
baldawen he changed it a lot, he even brought his editting crew from Mission Impossible to edit this film
I think he's just one of many, many reasons this movie sucks.
+baldawen
And guess where the plot came from? Tom Cruise had a _lot_ of creative influence over the writing and direction on this film.
In my eyes that dishonor actually goes to the role of Jenny. At least with Nick you could laugh... some times. Jenny was just bland and boring. Also Nick suddenly turning good while under the influence of both Ahmanet AND Seth While he himself had already said he wasn't really a good guy? THAT was the most stupid and over the top scene of the entire movie. The entire movie had built up to that moment, the moment Nick would become Seth and side with Ahmanet. But NO the good guys had to win and evil had to be destroyed. Well I have two things to say about THAT.
1) This was supposed to launch the DARK Universe. Everyone would expect with this for the bad guys to win.
2) Never heard of the saying "Evil always finds a way"? For those who do not know of this. This saying is from the Overlord game series.
I mean Penny Dredful and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen already did what Dark Universe is trying to do now. Both of them did it better in very different ways.
Also, can we have doug review the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen with the new dark universe thing?
And League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was already incredibly cringy.
the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was cute and cheesy, but never cringy.
Oh yeah, forgot about that one somehow. I really Liked LXG.
As its own thing, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen can be fun like a lost '90s blockbuster movie... But judged as an adaptation of Alan Moore's comic book series, it's a VERY dumbed down version of the source.
Should had stuck with Dracula untold
8:06
Crowe is actually younger than Cruise. Jus' sayin'.
Universal shit all over their own legacy. Just looking at pictures of the original Mummy you get the feel of it. What kind of movie is this? Generic and vapid I guess, but it's the fucking Mummy for crying out loud.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde wasn't even Universal. It was MGM and Paramount.
His inclusion doesn't even make sense.
I bet good money the producers didn't even know this. Just "Hey, Dr. Jekyll had a classic movie. I think we made it?"
WeirdoTZero he did have one in Universal. Mind you it wasn't like the Frederic March version. It was Abbott and Costello meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
@@EpicMickey777 Now I'm just imagining Abbott and Costello as the R2 and 3PO of the Dark Universe. They're kinda comic relief, but mainly the characters the plot unfolds for.
Uhm, Jekyll and Hyde are classic Universal monsters because of Abbott and Castello meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. So there.
Is it weird that I have been more excited to see this video than the NC review?
Nope, I understand your feeling
Rob is hilarious, so I feel the same way.
Im-ho-tep Im-ho-tep..... sorry wrong movie......
This film would not have been so Bloated if they did Not hire Alex Kurtzman to direct.
they should've gotten The Director of the Babadook (I forgot her name)
Watching this video for the 2nd time I just now noticed something. 10:18 In the credits at title card the artifact is classified as Fr.B 424. Is that supposed to be a homage to Brendon Fraser?
best part is when Doug headbutts the couch
When Russell Crowe said he was Jekyll I rolled my eyes until I saw nothing but dark and said "really? you are asking Russell Crowe, the man that can't even act like one convincing human being, to play two different human beings in the same body...for real?"
...then he started going nuts and at that point all I wanted to see was Hyde singing: and I'm Javert...
@6:18 The cat in the 1999 Mummy was at least drawing on Ancient Egyptian mythology with cats being considered sacred animals and living demi-gods. I give the writers points for at least making the mummy's weakness something that that is central to actual ancient Egyptian belief.
Want to know the worse part? They tried to make this movie popular with a shitty graphic novel app game that involves choices. I'm not fucking kidding. It was on the Google play store last time I checked
You can see how this version was trying to use what worked in the Brendan Fraser Mummy film but they didn't understand why it worked. O'Connell was a soldier who discovered the City of the Dead when his greedy regiment decided to hunt treasure, so let's make the the hero of our Mummy movie a treasure-hunting soldier. Problem: that was O'Connell's backstory. We meet him at the point where he and his regiment are fighting for their lives as the consequence of behaving in a greedy way. We meet him after he's learned that life is more valuable than treasure, and has become a wiser (if more traumatized) man. That's why we can get behind him as a hero. Cruise's character starts off as an arrogant, greedy dick and remains an arrogant greedy dick. He's impossible to think of as a hero (or even as an anti-hero) because he's just an unlikable dick.
6:39 Trust me, the London Eye is not charming. It is however extremely fucking boring!
The US isn't filled with saints Doug
I pray for your soul next week Doug, may you survive the worst anime adaptation movie
Critic, might we be getting another commercial special soon?
Zag Zagzag I did nothing wrong. So leave me alone.
Zag Zagzag That's my fursona - a coyote. I advise you calm down and knock this off.
SukoYote I advise YOU to stop engaging. Your being baited beyond hell.
MrLegendofLP I know. But I try having them think about it in hopes they will see they're wrong.
I understand that. My point was that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that this person actually believes this, they just think saying shit like that will get a response. And even if they do belive what they're saying, they would have left you alone after the first comment had you not responded.
He looks like CinemaSnob! XD
He is now Lloyd Approved
Rose Venzis they should do another crossover
I really wanted the Dark Universe to work. Stupid Universal.
This is why I prefer the Monsterverse. At least in that universe, it kinda feels like Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures are actually trying to lay the groundwork and thinking about where else to go after Godzilla vs. Kong.
I'm digging this more organic interaction and review/viewing format. Looking forward to more like it. c:
7:30
"I only believe in Jesus!"
- Demonic Mummy Princess
I walk into this movie with low expectations. I'm still disappointed.
At 5:46 wtf happened did it turn into Michael Jackson's thriller
6:57 well the Universal Monsters are anti heroes in the marvel comics so they might appear in the MCU
Sparkle sparkle sparkle
Glad to see the Brendan Fraser The Mummy left more of an impact on Doug than I thought.
The more I think about it, the more I fucking hate this movie.
Doug's reaction to Jekyl's introduction is pretty much how I felt during the review when he introduced himself.
Dracula Untold, starring Luke Evans, was supposed to be the first movie. I’m still mourning that the movie wasn’t well received when it was so good. The ending was Dracula in mordern day London, so this movie, The Mummy, would fall into that established world. Unfortunately it became the Tom Cruise show, wanting to make Tom the “Captain America” of the Dark Universe, and completely derailed the actual purpose of the movie which was The Mummy. It had some good things in it, I loved the two pupil effect the mummy had on the eyes, but there just weren’t enough and it just didn’t come together at all.
8:57 and then aquaman came out and actually made it good.
FANT4STIC, starring Tom Cruise.
When Rob said about it being Mission impossible with mummies, THAT IS WHAT I SAID WHEN I SAW THE TRAILERS...turns out I was right.
2:04 The only good thing in this movie: Javier Botet as Set
(Idk, I'm just a big nerd for monster actors (Doug Jones, Javier Botet, if you're out there, huge fan))
It's the Mehmmy
2:08 *smirks* "I HAVE A THING!!! HERE'S MY THING!!! IT'S YOUR THING NOW!!!"
5:46 I have so many jokes regarding this part! But should I go with "Thrillah!!" or "Quick before the hyenas come~"?
This film involved Alex Kurtzman. How could it possibly turn out well?
Man, I love these videos.
Really? James Rolfe suggested the cross over? That's awesome!
And that line:
"Unleash darkness itself." "Hey, I'm darkness itself- I realise that I'm not as cool as you thought I was gonna be" Made me spit out my tea- why wasn't that in the review somewhere?
10:34 I am sure that he is going to team up with that chick from Super Mario Bros and those three white kids from The Last Airbender to fight General Bisons Hand and Skeletors Head in that sequel that will OBVIOUSLY come!
10:10 They could’ve said “Sand Helsing”
Last time I was this early, I left a comment that began with "Last time I was this early", followed by a joke about being this early.
Meta.
Meta. But still stupid.
This movie is soooo bad 😑
I'm kind of sad that there probably won't be a Dark Universe now. Just because the first movie was terrible doesn't mean the others necessarily would be. Maybe that is just wishful thinking, but the universal monsters are some of (if not the) greatest movie monsters of all time, I was kind of looking forward to them getting modern re-imaginings.
That's the most frustrating thing. This could work! Amazingly even. Filmmaking has come a long way in so many ways since the original Universal Monsters, and if it's done right, they could translate excellently to a modern audience. They're just not doing it right. This is the third time they've tried in the last five years to launch a new cinematic universe, and they still haven't figured out what they're doing wrong. This can be done, they just have to think it over more. And I do hope they figure it out and try again when they can do these stories justice.
What they need to do is put creative people who love and understand the source material in charge.
P.S. This movie did not earn the right to have that cool "God's and Monsters" line.
The DCEU movies have gotten better over time imho.
Man of Steel absolutely sucked
Batman vs Superman had its moments
Suicide Squad was fun, if stupid
Wonder Woman was a legit good movie
Justice League not as good as WW, but not as bad as people say
I mean DC started out like Carl, and it took them 4 movies to actually make a good movie.
The attitude of the ENTIRE studio can be summed up with the visual at 3:44- "Whatever, just put this stupid Mummy Legacy thing on a rope and let's drag it, by force, to the theaters as soon as possible.
Honestly, sorry Doug and Rob... but I LOOOOOVE the Brendan Fraser "Mummy" movies. And, this... was a severe step down. However... the CGI Rock in 2 was really awful. Nothing can defend that.