Re: THE MUMMY (2017) - June 9th - Trailer
Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:35 am
New trailer.
Wonder Woman and Captain Underpants were both embargoed until the last minute, and yet both received surprisingly strong reviews.AndyDursin wrote:Embargo for this one is supposedly "Thursday at 2AM EST". lol
Not a sign of confidence, seemingly
But less than 24 hours before showings begin? Nothing I can recall was this "last minute" of any recent "event" movie. Even JURASSIC WORLD was like a couple of days out.Wonder Woman and Captain Underpants were both embargoed until the last minute, and yet both received surprisingly strong reviews.
Sure but there's a world of difference between DC and Universal Monsters in terms of brand. THE WOLFMAN cost an absolute fortune and lost a ton of money. DRACULA UNTOLD didn't do much of anything. With DC, they can put out utter crap like BATMAN V SUPERMAN and SUICIDE SQUAD and both clear $300 mil domestic with ease because it's Batman, Superman, Joker, etc. Universal does not have that luxury with these characters, or any kind of track record when they've tried undertaking a resurrection of them (hello, VAN HELSING)...so planning out a series of films at this stage is a gamble. Perhaps the plug could be pulled if this thing really does disappoint, and that BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is really contingent on this movie reaching a certain level (the more I think about it, it probably is dependent on that).As for why Universal would continue to develop future entries in the "Dark Universe" franchise,
it's the same as Warner Bros. pushing forward relentlessly with their DC Universe despite how mediocre the first three entries were. It's essentially Vietnam for movie studios...they've invested so much time and money they HAVE to push forward for at least a few movies, or else be viewed as colossal losers.
Yep, this is true. This is why franchises like The Muppets or TRON (a movie that likely would've generated another sequel at any other studio) would've been better off at another company other than Disney. They definitely want billion dollar movies, not half-billion grossing ones, and characters that don't generate that level of coin will be put out to pasture -- sadly, just as Kermit and friends will be again...perhaps forever this time.It's no longer enough to make a $50 million movie that grosses $150 million worldwide, studios would rather blow $400 in production and marketing costs if it means even a slight change of a billion-dollar return, despite how rare that kind of wild success still is to this day.
But Crowe has looked craggy & saggy for the last decade, whereas Cruise has kept himself trim and in-shape for his entire career. I'm sure Cruise has had some subtle "work" done, but it's not glaringly obvious as it is for some actors. It's more worrisome to see him casting himself as the dashing leading man opposite actresses who are at least two decades younger than he is, even in films where the relationship remains strictly platonic (as in Edge Of Tomorrow or Jack Reacher: Never Go Back).Paul MacLean wrote:What I think is funny is that Cruise -- who is 54 -- is playing the young, dashing hero, while Crowe -- who is 53 -- is playing the "old professor" role!
It's kind of interesting how pretty much all of the leading actors cast or being courted for the Universal Monster movies are ones who have clearly "peaked" and are on a slow downward career trajectory...Cruise hasn't been a major box-office player (outside of the Mission: Impossible series) for the better part of a decade, Crowe hasn't had a hit in ages, Johnny Depp (set to play the Invisible Man) is apparently broke after his recent excesses and legal woes and even his signature POTC franchise has finally run aground, Angelina Jolie (being courted for the Bride of Frankenstein), Maleficent aside, hasn't had a hit for a while, and I can't think of one movie that has made money strictly because Javier Bardem (who might play Frankenstein's Monster) was in it. Granted, "Movie Stars" don't really have the same level of power they used to exert back in the 80's or 90's (when you'd literally hear people saying something to the effect of, "The new Tom Cruise/Harrison Ford/Tom Hanks/Julia Roberts movie is out, let's go see that!"), but it also seems like Universal is snapping up these actors on the rebound from fading former franchises, with the vague promise of that lucrative "Cinematic Universe" money that every studio and leading actor craves. Look at Robert Downey, Jr...dude snagged FORTY MILLION for the last Captain America movie alone. In terms of paychecks, profit participation and merchandising rights, he has to have cleared over a hundred million over the last decade of Marvel movies. And yet even Downey is far from a box-office draw OUTSIDE of the Marvel franchise (he never even got a third Sherlock Holmes made, despite the second ending on a blatant cliffhanger).AndyDursin wrote:No question THE MUMMY will do better overseas. All of Cruise's recent films have done better foreign -- stuff like RINSE LIVE DIE REPEAT or whatever it was retitled did very little in the states, and his casting on THE MUMMY was seemingly done for international audiences more than domestic ones. All I've heard is "oh come on" and "Tom Cruise again?" in terms of reaction to this film so far, and the trailers have given off nothing more than a "meh" feeling from the get-go. I think most agree there is very little enthusiasm for this movie here.
Cruise is definitely playing Peter Pan these days. He's kept himself in shape and has had work done (probably a host of subtle "upkeep" jobs), yet he's aged "well." Still, as a romantic lead, he's pretty much finished -- at least in this country. Nobody is buying tickets to see him as a romantic lead anymore, or buys him as such...not when he's old enough to often be his leading lady's DAD.It's more worrisome to see him casting himself as the dashing leading man opposite actresses who are at least two decades younger than he is, even in films where the relationship remains strictly platonic (as in Edge Of Tomorrow or Jack Reacher: Never Go Back).
This is a good point, but it also makes me think it's all resting on the performance of this movie. Maybe BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN will happen regardless of THE MUMMY being a hit or not, because with Condon and Bardem it's already achieved something of a "prestige" label for Universal. Perhaps that's why they announced that next, and gave it a date, because they've opted to make it no matter what. Yet Orci and Kurtzmann have been on TV talking about all the movies they're going to make in this series, and it's basically everybody. "We're gonna do Phantom of the Opera! We're gonna do Hunchback! Creature From the Black Lagoon! Dracula! Frankenstein!" They basically rattled off everyone....but something tells me it's all wishful thinking and none of it is happening if THE MUMMY bombs. We shall see.Granted, "Movie Stars" don't really have the same level of power they used to exert back in the 80's or 90's (when you'd literally hear people saying something to the effect of, "The new Tom Cruise/Harrison Ford/Tom Hanks/Julia Roberts movie is out, let's go see that!"), but it also seems like Universal is snapping up these actors on the rebound from fading former franchises, with the vague promise of that lucrative "Cinematic Universe" money that every studio and leading actor craves.
That Sherlock sequel is definitely happening. Went on the back burner with all the other projects they had going, but Variety ran an article stating they hired writers last fall. Problem is scheduling for him, Law and especially Ritchie, but the fact MAN FROM UNCLE and now KING ARTHUR died is now going to help "expedite" things on that end, guaranteed.and yet even Downey is far from a box-office draw OUTSIDE of the Marvel franchise (he never even got a third Sherlock Holmes made, despite the second ending on a blatant cliffhanger).
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/06/the-mu ... 201838756/Review: ‘The Mummy’ Is The Worst Tom Cruise Movie Ever
It's an irredeemable disaster from start to finish, an adventure that entertains only via glimpses of the adventure it should have been. It’s the kind of movie that Tom Cruise became a household name by avoiding at all costs.
A recent discovery of ruins beneath the London tube has Jekyll concerned, though not anywhere near as concerned as viewers might be about the fact that the Nick Fury of the Dark Universe is a drug fiend who turns into a purple-eyed Bob Hoskins imitator if he misses an injection of his meds.