"People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
StringerBell wrote: »
For a start, how Cruise seems to survive a plane crash, or rather die, and come back to life is already bothering me.
I'll watch it though and expect it to be decent regardless
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
Brian? wrote: »
An ancient Egyptian super natural force is destroying London and that bother you?
What the world really needs is another comic book universe to milk with endless mediocre films
Kiith wrote: »
He dies, is brought back to life because of the curse/proximity to the mummy, plans to stop the mummy from destroying the planet, falls in love with blondie, night of passion, finds out killing the mummy will result in him dying, does it anyway. Fade to black.
Or something along those lines
pixelburp wrote: »
It's not a comic book adaptation. It's the latest iteration of Universals 'monster' franchise.
As another site phrased it, it looks like Mission Impossible with monsters to me. Not a bad thing mind but the trailers CGI looks pretty shonky
Agent Coulson wrote: »
Sad Professor wrote: »
In fairness to Cruise, it seems he did parts of that zero-g sequence for real in the "vomit comet". And it was his idea.http://collider.com/the-mummy-tom-cruise-vfx/
Ben Gadot wrote: »
Still seems very action orientated more than horror to me. Cruise also getting the star treatment given this is meant to be a launchpad for Amunet as a wider part of the UMU.
Venom wrote: »
The Brendan Fraizer version from back in the day, was pretty much action over horror focused and was still a cracker of a movie.
Ben Gadot wrote: »
Aye but I want a different sort of beast now for the overall universe. The aesthetic looks no different to what it was for Dracula Untold which was meant to be the start of the universe yet they canned it.
Mr E wrote: »
That's another good point. This version looks devoid of wit. Fraser had a bit of fun with his reluctant hero role, but this looks pretty dry in comparison.