Just ask Warcraft or Assassin's Creed, which bombed in the U.S. But even the strongest brand names have to earn the audience's affection, especially if they're hoping to lure them back for sequels. Universal isn't the only studio prioirtizing existing IP over original concepts, and it's true that a familiar brand name can make an expensive movie an easier sell. (For starters, she is a princess, not a male priest.) Even if it were, that wouldn't necessarily help 2017's The Mummy, since this version of the monster has little in common with the other versions of the monster. The Mummy isn't like Batman or Spider-Man - it's not the kind of brand-name character so beloved that it's guaranteed to draw in moviegoers no matter what. It's been part of the studio's stable since the 1930s, and although the Brendan Fraser films of the 1990s and early 2000s weren't universally acclaimed, they've picked up a devoted following over the years.īut if they thought the popularity of past Mummy movies would translate into financial success for this one, they were wrong. Universal may not have known what they wanted to do with The Mummy, but they definitely knew the property had made money for them in the past. Loved the old Mummy movies? Here's a totally different Mummy who has nothing to do with those! Credit: Universal Pictures Don't assume audiences love all existing IP equally Put it this way: even Suicide Squad had a clearer vision, as ugly and sloppy as it was. The Mummy isn't be the worst would-be tentpole in recent memory, but it's one of the least inspired. I don't have a good answer for that question, and I'm not sure Universal does either. What was supposed to make The Mummy stand out in that landscape? Why should a moviegoer choose The Mummy over any of those? 2, Alien: Covenant, and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword are all still in theaters. ![]() ![]() The Mummy hits at a time when Wonder Woman, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. Did they have something to say about monsters or humans or the concept of evil? Did they want the Dark Universe to be funny, or scary, or exciting? Were they hoping moviegoers would fall in love with the characters, or get drawn into the mythos, or be wowed by the stunt work? What's harder to see is what else the studio thought this franchise would do. It's a given that Universal Pictures was hoping the Dark Universe would make them lots of money. What remains is a hodgepodge of tones, influences, and concepts halfheartedly tossed together and poured into a generic blockbuster mold. If anyone, at any point, ever had a clear vision for The Mummy, it's been muddled beyond recognition on the way to the screen. Then again, maybe it wasn't always obvious Cruise was bad for The Mummy, because it wasn't always obvious what The Mummy was supposed to be. Don't lose sight of your visionĮven The Mummy's highly touted zero-gravity stunt is totally unmemorable. In that light, The Mummy's decision to waste an actor of Cruise's caliber (and price tag) in a role that's clearly wrong for him is especially baffling. But The Mummy needs more than a strong opening weekend – it needs to be appealing enough to make fans return for sequels and spinoffs. True, Cruise is likely to sell more tickets than Johnson, particularly in international territories. You know it's bad when a Tom Cruise role seems like it would have been better suited for 39-year-old Johnson, who is relegated here to playing Cruise's funny sidekick. Hyde, played by 53-year-old Russell Crowe, refers to Nick as a "younger man," it's unintentionally hilarious and a little bit pathetic.Ĭruise fails to pull off the "lovable asshole" vibe that Nick calls for, in part because of the age issue and in part because the character is just thinly written - there's nothing to him but plot mechanics. ![]() Cruise is wildly miscast as Nick, starting with his age: Nick seems to have been written for an actor 15-20 years younger than Cruise, who is 55. In fact, though, he's The Mummy's most glaring misstep. Certainly he's the most famous actor in the cast, which also includes Sofia Boutella, Jake Johnson, and Annabelle Wallis. He's a household name who's got charisma in spades, and his daredevil streak spurs him to do things like shoot an entire action scene in zero gravity. Tom Cruise should be The Mummy's biggest asset. Universal's strategy for the Dark Universe looks reasonable enough in theory: A-list stars + existing IP = profit. What kind of movie puts Tom Cruise in a Jake Johnson role? Credit: Universal Pictures
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |