Batman-Online.com

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=plIndObcoZM

Universal may have successfully brought old monsters into a new world. Could be the surprise hit of the summer.

Am I the only one who still likes the 1999 version with Brendan Fraser?  :-\

I'm cynical about reboots, but I think this has the potential to succeed. Tom Cruise legitimises the whole production, and I make it no secret that I think the man is a movie legend. The trailer gave me good vibes. It gave a completely different feel to the original film with Brendan Fraser. Which is precisely the point of a reboot. It's set in the modern day and therefore that's where the point of difference lies.

I can see this being more of an action/thriller with fantasy elements. And if that's the case, count me in. The plane sequence at the beginning of the trailer strikes that atmosphere, with a dose of Mission Impossible. If people actually give this a chance, I think they'll be pleasantly surprised.

I'm sorta apathetic about the trailer itself, but feel more intrigued by the whole "Classic Universal Monsters Shared Universe" idea which this is supposed to be the opening chapter. Who knows if it will actually be successful...

Course I was intrigued by this idea way back with Dracula Untold when Universal was initially toying around with the idea.  :D

As I posted before, Tom Cruise legitimises the production for me. If he's involved, it has to be decent. He doesn't really sign up for any old thing. He must have seen something worthwhile here. Jack Reacher 2 was rather good too. I think it's admirable that his career is as strong as ever. He has the highest work ethic and commitment you'll ever find. His inspiration is Charlie Chaplin and it shows.

This movie wasn't given a chance. It faced an uphill battle ever since it was announced, and then when the trailers dropped the same tone continued. People seem to view the Brendan Fraser Mummy as a solid gold classic, which I absolutely don't. I don't think they could let go of their own baggage and bias.

When the Cruise film was released it was predictably savaged by the critics who were all over it like a pack of starving hyenas, each trying to out hyperbole the other. This has continued to the point we have an 18% Rotten Tomatoes score. I saw this reaction and yep, I couldn't help but be discouraged.

But then I saw a few audience reactions. They said 'I had a good time, the critics were way too harsh', and that was enough to motivate me. And now that I've seen the film...F the critics. They behaved as if the Cruise film was a locust plaque. Their slurs painted the picture of the worst movie of all time in which all the reels needed to be burned.

Don't listen to them. See a film for yourself and make up your own damn mind. Don't let these dogs discourage you. It's the same old story.

If The Mummy reboot a classic? No, but neither are the Fraser films. This updates the concept to the modern day, and I liked that angle. The concepts were rather good, and the finale is what elevated the overall product. I'd give it about a 7/10. The universe building worked for me also. Without it, I actually don't think it would be as good. I'm glad I saw the movie.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 10 Jun  2017, 11:18People seem to view the Brendan Fraser Mummy as a solid gold classic

Really? Hmm. I always regarded that Mummy movie as a guilty pleasure. I guess I never realized how well-regarded it is. Interesting.

I am checking this out tomorrow.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 10 Jun  2017, 16:14

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 10 Jun  2017, 11:18People seem to view the Brendan Fraser Mummy as a solid gold classic

Really? Hmm. I always regarded that Mummy movie as a guilty pleasure. I guess I never realized how well-regarded it is. Interesting.

I agree, however that's the way they talk. You gotta put down that reboot at all costs bro!

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 13 Jun  2017, 03:42
I am checking this out tomorrow.

I give you the highest of all fives.

I saw this about a week or so ago. It had its moment, but it was a victim of poor editing decisions (using the wrong shots, not tightening up scenes, dialogue where dialogue isn't needed, awkward moments that could have easily been excised, etc.) I hope the next Dark Universe films fair better.

Finally checked this one off the list.

People talked at considerable length about how bad this movie is. And I just don't relate to that at all. I enjoyed it and had a great time. It's a shame that the Dark Universe got cancelled. But whatever, it's done. Still, I think The Mummy (2017) has a lot to offer for fans of the classic monsters.

I vividly remember seeing this in the theater, and besides being one of the very few at the screening I attended (possibly 10 people total), I thought it was alright.

I remember being somewhat intrigued on where/what would be happening with Cruise's character had Universal's "Dark Universe" continued on. Sofia Boutella as DU's initial mummy, Ahmanet, was ok. I just didn't really think she was as memorable as Universal's customary Mummy when kicking off the franchise, Imhotep, that was classically portrayed by Boris Karloff, and later Arnold Vosloo in the Sommers/Fraser movies.

To me, Russell Crowe as Dr. Henry Jekyll/Mr. Hyde was probably the best highlight. I liked how he played both personalities (along with the deal with the panic button alarm).

Speaking of 'updating' the classic Universal Monsters, I'm not sure how Johnny Depp as the Invisible Man would have turned out, but I was very pleasantly surprised how much I ended up really liking 2020's "The Invisible Man" self contained movie.

I re-watched the Brendan Fraser Mummy trilogy earlier this summer. I think the first one holds up reasonably well. Stephen Sommers' direction is creative and energetic and he does a good job captivating the viewer's eye with interesting shot compositions and scene transitions. It's an attractive film, with beautiful location photography and high quality production design. Of course none of that would matter if you didn't care about the characters and story. Luckily the first film has a likeable trio of protagonists negotiating their way through a fast-paced plot that clocks in at less than two hours without ever dragging. The chemistry between Fraser, Weisz and Hannah is strong, and Vosloo's Imhotep makes for an imposing villain.


The trilogy eventually degenerated into pure action comedy, but I like how the first film is still very much a horror movie. It has comedy, romance and action, but there's still plenty of gothic imagery, jump scares and gross-out body horror moments to offset the levity. The film is far from perfect though. The CGI is obviously very dated in places, and this tends to undermine the visual splendour of the practical sets and real locations. The tone is generally well balanced, but there are times when the humour can feel intrusive. It's not a particularly deep film either, and outside of the central romance there isn't a whole lot of dramatic substance. In that regard, it's very lightweight. But I still think it's an enjoyable action horror romp, and I rank it alongside Deep Rising (1998) as one of Sommers' best films.

The Mummy Returns marks the beginning of a decline in Sommers' career, where his use of CG effects became excessive. Nowhere is the flawed use of CGI more evident than in the infamous Scorpion King sequence at the end of the movie. Those effects looked bad in 2001 and they look even worse now.


I never liked the plot twist about Evie being a reincarnation, or how she lost some of the quirky idiosyncrasies that defined her in the previous movie. But Fraser's on good form, the gothic and Egyptian visuals are still appealing, and some of the fight scenes are entertaining. The first half of The Mummy Returns is generally good – I like the scene in the mansion, the resurrection sequence at the museum and the chase around London – but once the action shifts to Cairo, the horror gets marginalised and the effects sequences become wearisome. The first half of the movie is strong, the second half's weak. Overall, it's decent. A step down from the first, but still entertaining.


I didn't bother seeing Tomb of the Dragon Emperor on the big screen, and I have no regrets about that. I've never liked it. Rob Cohen's style of direction is completely different from Sommers', and that, combined with the shift from Egypt to China, creates a jarring discontinuity of style between the third Mummy movie and its predecessors. The recasting of Evie doesn't help. Bello delivers a spirited performance, but she just doesn't have the same chemistry with Fraser that Weisz had. I don't like the adult version of Alex. He comes across as a hollow and less charismatic imitation of his father. John Hannah's presence feels superfluous, and since his character's treasure hunting days are over he has no compelling reason to tag along for the adventure. There are some decent martial arts sequences, and I give the filmmakers credit for trying something different with the whole terracotta army thing and not simply retreading the Egyptian aesthetic of the earlier films. But ultimately Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is a flat and ill-judged misfire of a movie that fails to breathe new life into the franchise.


As for the 2017 Mummy film, I saw that recently on Netflix. I'm afraid I didn't think much of it. Director Alex Kurtzman, the driving force behind the ongoing ruination of Star Trek, imbues the whole thing with a Bad Robot/Jar Jar Abrams vibe that just doesn't sit well with me. The word that was going through my head as I watched it was 'bland'. I thought the direction was bland, the gloomy teal and orange cinematography was bland, the score was bland, the characters were bland, the McGuffin was bland, and so on. Cruise is solid, but the script and action sequences don't give him much to work with. When judged as a Cruise film, it compares unfavourably to his other recent efforts (the Mission: Impossible movies, Oblivion, Edge of Tomorrow, Maverick). It's not terrible, and it's certainly not the worst Mummy film I've ever seen, but it just didn't click with me. I felt a similar way about Dracula Untold when that came out. Neither that or The Mummy presented a strong enough foundation for a shared universe.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 30 Aug  2022, 18:43I just didn't really think she was as memorable as Universal's customary Mummy when kicking off the franchise, Imhotep, that was classically portrayed by Boris Karloff, and later Arnold Vosloo in the Sommers/Fraser movies.

The filmmakers probably thought they were breaking new ground by using a female mummy. Even though Hammer already did it back in the seventies with Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (1971), which starred Valerie Leon as Queen Tera.


This was adapted from Bram Stoker's 1903 novel The Jewel of Seven Stars. I own a copy of that book, though I've never actually read it. But I gather the mummy was female in the original novel too. Perhaps Stoker's story inspired Princess Ahmanet in the 2017 movie?

If the filmmakers wanted to avoid rehashing Imhotep, another option would have been to use Kharis. Kharis was the antagonist in most of Universal's Mummy films, beginning with The Mummy's Hand (1940) in which he was played by Tom Tyler.


Lon Chaney Jr. then played Kharis in The Mummy's Tomb (1942), The Mummy's Ghost (1944) and The Mummy's Curse (1944).


Later Hammer decided to use Kharis instead of Imhotep for the first film in their Mummy series. Christopher Lee played him in The Mummy (1959), which is tied with the 1999 movie as my favourite mummy film.


The main differences between Imhotep and Kharis are:

•   Upon awakening from his sarcophagus, Imhotep regenerates to look like a normal human. Kharis doesn't. He remains wrapped in bandages and lumbers about like a zombie.

•   Imhotep wields various magical powers like a sorcerer. Kharis does not. His powers are limited to superhuman strength and durability.

•   Imhotep has a will of his own. Kharis is controlled by whoever revives him.

Imhotep is more of a Dark Lord type character, while Kharis is a more physical henchman type. Since the 2017 movie was clearly trying to be an update of the 1999 movie, it made more sense to use Imhotep. But if Universal decide to have another crack at rebooting the Mummy franchise, it might be an idea to dust off Kharis.

Quote from: The Joker on Tue, 30 Aug  2022, 18:43Speaking of 'updating' the classic Universal Monsters, I'm not sure how Johnny Depp as the Invisible Man would have turned out, but I was very pleasantly surprised how much I ended up really liking 2020's "The Invisible Man" self contained movie.

I also enjoyed The Invisible Man (2020). It wasn't as good as director Leigh Whannell's previous movie – the excellent cyberpunk film Upgrade (2018), which I strongly recommend – but it was a solid reimagining of H. G. Wells' character.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  3 Sep  2022, 16:03The Mummy Returns marks the beginning of a decline in Sommers' career, where his use of CG effects became excessive. Nowhere is the flawed use of CGI more evident than in the infamous Scorpion King sequence at the end of the movie. Those effects looked bad in 2001 and they look even worse now.

(https://i.postimg.cc/NfYKdjLq/bad-cgi.gif)

Apparently, this infamous shot came down to Johnson's complete inability to come in and work with the effects team because that's how busy he was with the WWE. Eventually, the effects team just ran out of time. That shot was meant to be a placeholder and also a rough guide for Johnson's performance... which he obviously never gave, ultimately.

It isn't just bad. It's PAINFUL.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  3 Sep  2022, 16:03If the filmmakers wanted to avoid rehashing Imhotep, another option would have been to use Kharis. Kharis was the antagonist in most of Universal's Mummy films, beginning with The Mummy's Hand (1940) in which he was played by Tom Tyler.

(https://i.postimg.cc/mZJbFFwb/2078436-jpg.webp)

Lon Chaney Jr. then played Kharis in The Mummy's Tomb (1942), The Mummy's Ghost (1944) and The Mummy's Curse (1944).

(https://i.postimg.cc/x8PxSZ9f/the-mummys-tomb.webp)

I've been watching the og Universal movies. And man, those things HOLD UP. It's amazing how much suspense and atmosphere those directors were able to create using just production design, music and makeup. They're highly impressive productions, esp for their time.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat,  3 Sep  2022, 16:03Later Hammer decided to use Kharis instead of Imhotep for the first film in their Mummy series. Christopher Lee played him in The Mummy (1959), which is tied with the 1999 movie as my favourite mummy film.

Honestly? Same. People can say whatever they want about Hammer's ability to produce a sequel. But if you ask me, each first entry in their monster movie franchises is pretty solid.

Yes, even Frankenstein. It's hard to compete with the Universal original. But I, for one, enjoy the Hammer version rly exploring Victor's character.

And that first Mummy movie from Hammer stands alongside the best Mummy movies ever made in my opinion.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Sep  2022, 17:46Apparently, this infamous shot came down to Johnson's complete inability to come in and work with the effects team because that's how busy he was with the WWE. Eventually, the effects team just ran out of time. That shot was meant to be a placeholder and also a rough guide for Johnson's performance... which he obviously never gave, ultimately.

I'd heard something about the effects being incomplete, but I didn't realise that was the reason. Considering The Mummy Returns was Johnson's first big movie, he was pushing his luck playing the diva like that.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Sep  2022, 17:46I've been watching the og Universal movies. And man, those things HOLD UP. It's amazing how much suspense and atmosphere those directors were able to create using just production design, music and makeup. They're highly impressive productions, esp for their time.

From a purely visual standpoint, I don't think those classic Universal horror films have ever been surpassed. The sets, lighting and cinematography are still beautiful today. Many of the people responsible for establishing the look of those films later went on to define the look of film noir. For example, three-time Academy Award winner Arthur Edison, who was director of photography on Frankenstein (1931), The Old Dark House (1932) and The Invisible Man (1933), subsequently served as DP on The Maltese Falcon (1941) and Casablanca (1942).

Going back further, the lineage of the Universal gothic horror aesthetic can be traced all the way to the German Expressionist movement. Karl Freund, who directed The Mummy (1931) and was cinematographer on Dracula (1931), had previously served as DP on many classic German Expressionist films, including The Golem (1920), The Last Laugh (1924) and Metropolis (1927). So the Universal horror movies occupy an important place in the evolution of western cinematography – they're the artistic midway point between German Expressionism and film noir.

It's very telling that many of the best looking horror films of more recent decades, such as Coppola's Dracula (1992) or Burton's Sleepy Hollow (1999), were ones that consciously adopted the visual style of the old Universal movies (with a touch of Hammer and Mario Bava added to the mix). The Hammer remakes were visually striking in their own way, thanks to their use of colour film and gore, but there's still something very special about those old Universal pictures.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Sep  2022, 17:46Honestly? Same. People can say whatever they want about Hammer's ability to produce a sequel. But if you ask me, each first entry in their monster movie franchises is pretty solid.

I like how the 1959 film starts off as an Egyptian adventure story before taking a more gothic turn in the second half. The opening act features the bright colourful visuals you'd expect from a story about adventurers breaking into an ancient Egyptian tomb.


Then in the second half the cursed expedition members return to Europe, and the visuals become darker as the setting shifts to old mansions, mental hospitals and murky swamps.


I also dig how Christopher Lee's Kharis is depicted as an unstoppable juggernaut. He just smashes through any obstacle that gets in his path and snaps his victim's spine like a twig. He's a cinematic precursor to mute slasher movie villains like Jason Vorhees.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Sep  2022, 17:46Yes, even Frankenstein. It's hard to compete with the Universal original. But I, for one, enjoy the Hammer version rly exploring Victor's character.

I used to love the Hammer Frankenstein series when I was a teenager. The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) screenwriter Jimmy Sangster admitted that he never actually read Mary Shelley's novel, and it shows in the finished film. The characterisation of Cushing's Frankenstein has less in common with his literary namesake than with H. P. Lovecraft's Herbert West. He lacks the sympathetic qualities of the former and shares the latter's amoral single-mindedness and willingness to do terrible things in the service of his experiments. Where the Universal Studios Frankenstein series focused on the creature, the Hammer series instead focused on the doctor himself as he continued creating new monsters in each movie. That, I think, was the key to Hammer's success with the franchise. They were never going to top Karloff's monster, so they focused on the human monster instead.

Just compare Colin Clive's sympathetic Victor from the Universal series with the depiction of Victor in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969). Cushing's Frankenstein was evil from day one, and by time we get to FMBD he's degenerated into a masked serial killer who's stalking the streets at night, hacking off people's heads so he can use the parts in his experiments.


Later he blackmails Veronica Carlson's character, forces her to wait on him hand and foot, rapes her (a scene that wasn't in the original script and which Cushing strongly objected to) and eventually stabs her to death. The only other portrayal of Frankenstein I can think of that matches the Hammer version for pure evil was the one in Dean Koontz's series of Frankenstein novels. But as far as movies go, the Hammer version is surely the most cruel and sadistic.

George Lucas must have been a fan of Hammer's Frankenstein series, as he reteamed Cushing and Dave Prowse in Star Wars after they appeared together in Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell (1974).


John Carpenter has often spoken of his love for the first Hammer Frankenstein film.


In fact Cushing was Carpenter's first choice to play Dr. Loomis in Halloween. I can't help feeling this moment from The Curse of Frankenstein...


...might have influenced this moment in Halloween II.


I could be forcing the comparison here, but I remember seeing a documentary in which Carpenter highlighted this scene in The Curse of Frankenstein as having made a strong impression on him.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon,  5 Sep  2022, 16:29
I used to love the Hammer Frankenstein series when I was a teenager. The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) screenwriter Jimmy Sangster admitted that he never actually read Mary Shelley's novel, and it shows in the finished film. The characterisation of Cushing's Frankenstein has less in common with his literary namesake than with H. P. Lovecraft's Herbert West. He lacks the sympathetic qualities of the former and shares the latter's amoral single-mindedness and willingness to do terrible things in the service of his experiments. Where the Universal Studios Frankenstein series focused on the creature, the Hammer series instead focused on the doctor himself as he continued creating new monsters in each movie. That, I think, was the key to Hammer's success with the franchise. They were never going to top Karloff's monster, so they focused on the human monster instead.

Just compare Colin Clive's sympathetic Victor from the Universal series with the depiction of Victor in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969). Cushing's Frankenstein was evil from day one, and by time we get to FMBD he's degenerated into a masked serial killer who's stalking the streets at night, hacking off people's heads so he can use the parts in his experiments.

That was a clever move on Hammer's part for sure when taking on a line of Frankenstein films for a then-new generation. Universal's Henry Frankenstein certainly is presented initially as having the emblematic mania one would expect, but it's evoked that Henry, over time, starts to become cognizant of the mistake he's made in playing God. Thus evoking to the viewer a sense of sympathy (and possible hopeful redemption) for his character. Cushing's Victor Frankenstein, is clearly THE true monster over the course of that franchise.

QuoteJohn Carpenter has often spoken of his love for the first Hammer Frankenstein film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOnp-3xQDrA

In fact Cushing was Carpenter's first choice to play Dr. Loomis in Halloween. I can't help feeling this moment from The Curse of Frankenstein...

(https://i.postimg.cc/GmdG8xz4/tcof-eye-shot.gif)

...might have influenced this moment in Halloween II.

(https://i.postimg.cc/v8xWpBcZ/h2-eye-shot.gif)

I could be forcing the comparison here, but I remember seeing a documentary in which Carpenter highlighted this scene in The Curse of Frankenstein as having made a strong impression on him.

Interesting thought for sure.

After reading some of the comments in this thread, I've become a bit more interested in ordering a blu ray copy of the 1959 "The Mummy". Recently, Second Sight has released a edition that has a good number of extra features compared to the Warner Archive version of the 1959 Hammer Mummy. Which I believe is a bare bones release. The Second Sight Mummy blu is region 2 locked, so that does give me some pause even though I have one multi region player. Basically due to the cost of the set and overseas shipping rates being a factor. Evidently, Warner Archive are pleased with the sales of "The Curse of Frankenstein" blu ray, which finally got a proper Stateside release in 2020, and there have been talks of possibly "Horror of Dracula", and "The Mummy" getting similar treatments in the future. Though conceivably, "Dracula" would next. Presumably sometime next year.

If you do get a copy of 1959 The Mummy, let us know what you think of it, J. Hammer made four mummy films altogether. The other three are unremarkable, but the first one's a classic. I rate it as the second best Hammer Horror film after The Devil Rides Out (1968).

I've re-titled this thread. From now on we might as well use it for discussions on anything mummy related. Films, books, TV shows, comics or games, or even discussion of real life archaeological expeditions – anything mummy related is welcome here. But if anyone would rather create a separate thread about a specific mummy film, then by all means do.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  7 Sep  2022, 15:26
If you do get a copy of 1959 The Mummy, let us know what you think of it, J. Hammer made four mummy films altogether. The other three are unremarkable, but the first one's a classic. I rate it as the second best Hammer Horror film after The Devil Rides Out (1968).

Will do. I went ahead and purchased a copy. International shipping kinda made the buy a bit more steep than I would've liked, but it is what it is. Actually this edition of the '59 "The Mummy" will be my first Hammer blu. As I honestly do not own any movies (DVDs or blu rays), that were produced by Hammer. "The Mummy" will be my first step into Hammer Horror. I'm interested in collecting the Hammer Frankenstein, and Dracula series of films for sure (I'll probably reluctantly put Dracula on the back burner, until I see what Warner Archive are going to do about "Horror of Dracula", but probably won't know anything until next year at the earliest). In addition to possibly finishing up the Mummy series just for the sakes of being a completionist.

In any event, I'm looking forward to checking out the 1959 Hammer Mummy soon enough!

Quote from: The Joker on Thu,  8 Sep  2022, 07:38
In addition to possibly finishing up the Mummy series just for the sakes of being a completionist.

The other three Hammer Mummy films aren't bad. I've re-watched all of them in recent years, and they're all entertaining. But there's no real continuity between them. They're standalone films. None of them matches the quality of the 1959 movie, but none of them is terrible either.

Another thing I'll say for the first Hammer Mummy film is that it has a terrific score by Franz Reizenstein. It's one of only a handful of film soundtracks that Reizenstein ever composed, and it ranks among the best Hammer Horror scores.


I've mentioned this before in another thread, but since it's relevant to this discussion I'll repeat it here. The Batman: The Animated Series episode 'Avatar' begins with a direct homage to the 1959 The Mummy. Like the Hammer film, that episode's prologue takes place in Egypt in the 1890s where an adventurer archaeologist, visually modelled on Cushing, breaks into a tomb and discovers a cursed artefact.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  8 Sep  2022, 21:27
I've mentioned this before in another thread, but since it's relevant to this discussion I'll repeat it here. The Batman: The Animated Series episode 'Avatar' begins with a direct homage to the 1959 The Mummy. Like the Hammer film, that episode's prologue takes place in Egypt in the 1890s where an adventurer archaeologist, visually modelled on Cushing, breaks into a tomb and discovers a cursed artefact.

(https://i.postimg.cc/dV16NfyF/avatar.png)

Oh, that's interesting. Thanks for posting that. I already know I'll be conscious of this now once I finally get the blu in my hands to watch it.  8)