I don't get it. Exposition written so that evne retards would understand, cardboard characters...

I don't get it. Exposition written so that evne retards would understand, cardboard characters, stillborn "conflict" and an incomprehensible final act--it's all legit complaints. But that's also true of any Marvel movie or Wonder Woman or Star Wars. I can understand not liking The Mummy, because it really is passable garbage, but how can someone shit on it and then praise other equally stupid and Hollywood shit? There IS a real difference between something like Transformers and this, but there's no difference between any MCU crap and this. It's just formulaic crap with coked-up actors who look and act like themselves but wearing comic book cosplay.

tl;dr The Mummy is just as badly filmed and idiotically written as the Wonder Woman. How the fuck do some people praise one and shit ont he other? They should either like both or hate both as they're both just design-by-committee disposable shit.

Other urls found in this thread:

rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/
nationalreview.com/article/448455/tom-cruise-mummy-showcases-american-guilt-masochism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Monsters#Dark_Universe
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>there's no difference between any MCU crap and this.
MCU has more shekels to pay buy out know who

I watched both and they're both 7/10. Stay mad.

Vagina agenda
Nick is a MGTOW

That's what I'm saying. They're ont he same level. I can udnerstand more or less liking both or more or less hating both. But praising one and byring the other is like screaming about how McDonald's is junk food and terrible and then going to Burger King.

Vaginas have nothing to do with this. Any X-Men or MCU movie is on the same level as The Mummy. How is drunk badly shaved man acting badly worse than aged cultist acting badly?

Reminds me of what happened with King Arthur or Warcraft. Sure they were flawed but in the age where the average Marvel gets a 90% on RT, those films were way harshly treated.

If you're refferring to critics, you're implying they actually know what they're talking about.
rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016/

Yeah it's like people on Sup Forums destroying suicide squad for "Plot holes" and or "cringy action scene" then they applaud with two hand logan.
I start to watch it. Litteraly a little girls coming onto 15 men, the guy tell them to shoot, two guys approach she kills them, the rest of the guys are just standing there waiting.
" Oh she killed them now we can pretend like we really wanna shoot her, quick arm your weapons !"
People are savage on some movie yet they forgive the same, even worse, flaw to shit movie because they like them
It's the rule of MCU.

>I don't get it. Exposition written so that evne retards would understand, cardboard characters, stillborn "conflict" and an incomprehensible final act--it's all legit complaints. But that's also true of any Marvel movie or Wonder Woman or Star Wars.
Disney has already bought "critics" and wonder women is about muh women power, so critics don't want to be under fire for criticising it

yes the movies are on par good or bad no one argues that. It's the marketing of personal politics.

>still trusting critics when their reviews boil down to how much their agenda was pandered to
Just like journalism at large, film criticism has turned into political activism where the films that don't sing the songs they do get branded as inferior. It's a brutal opinion checking process that is currently on-going.

Stalin would've been proud of his offspring.

You think that's bad? How about a film that completely transformed a rotten genre into unprecedented heights and then got branded as the worst film ever made by critics.

The aftermath of such criticism resulted in further infantilization of the genre.

I'm not surprised that people like Guardians of the Galaxy. What I'm surprised about is people liking Guardians of the Galaxy but not liking The Mummy. It's the same exact type of movie made with similar level of proficiency.

Charm. Or lack there of.

There's the same amount of "charm" in The Mummy as there is in any Disney shitout.

Is she talking about BvS? I honestly don't get the hate for that movie. Except for some minor things and MARTHA there weren't glaring flaws imo.

Big companies create mirage of opinion that most of the people, as the sheep they are, conform to. Blame the marketing team for mummy's failure

The critics are trying to give negative reviews to stand out because in this day and age negative criticisism is considered the only form of criticism

muh feelings aka everyone says is good so is good

Timing makes a successful movie. It's WW and Marvel age. If The Matrix or Titanic came out today they would flop miserable

Looks at the Tweets From the Black panther teaser. All the blacks have gone to fuck WW we Kangs now. They never liked WW it's band Wagon agendas. I like the mummy gonna see it one more time later today.

Yes. A critical response that echoed to Hollywood with resounding power that recycled Marvel stories are preferred over films that dare defy conventions of the genre into something more personal and human while also being competently filmed.

Hollywood listened and now it's all being streamlined into quips and light-tone shit that requires two brain cells to stay engaged for. Critics are literally destroying entire genres with their disgusting agendas and shitty attention-spans. Just like they want to. Hollywood becomes an extension of their agenda. The film medium isn't important. The agenda is.

I don't get it either. I liked Iron Man a lot. X-Men 1-3 too. Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty good. Captain America and Deadpool were decent.

The rest has been varying degrees of awful though. Iron Man 2 and Avengers are both just mediocre. Avengers 2 was fucking awful, so are the new X-Men films and Captain America 2. They feel like the exact same film now.

I can't even stomach more of them, so haven't bothered with any other sequels or new ones like Dr Strange.

The Snyder films I didn't even watch because they look even worse still.

However I'm much more likely to see The Mummy. It looks much more like standard Hollywood trash that's at least a little enjoyable.

>The spectres are scarier than in the original film. And the action is slicker. But the humour is surprisingly patchy in Paul Feig's hotly-anticipated Ghostbusters reboot.
I've been convinced a long while these RT snippet tagline reviews are the root and cause of all these awful critics

Movies like Guardians are strong corporate products. They follow the basic tenets of screenwriting; hero's journey, hit-all-the necessary beats kind of stuff. Competently made, entertaining, but ultimately meaningless. Movies like The Mummy and later Transformers movies fail at even that basic level and don't even hit the lowest threshold for a functional narrative. That's the difference.

>when was it decided superhero movies shouldn't be any fun?
> There is just one form of superhero movie formula and if you don't obey that your movie is bad...
How is this a featured critic?

>Movies like The Mummy and later Transformers movies fail at even that basic level and don't even hit the lowest threshold for a functional narrative. That's the difference.
Transformers were a mess, but The Mummy is no more of a mess than Wonder Woman or Guardians of the Galaxy. They're all bottom of the barrel, barely passable popcorn sellers. It's simply not true that The Mummy is less competent than Wonder Woman. How the fuck is mummy lady fight any more stupid than Sauron-in-Magneto-helmet wizard "Ares" fight?

Did you watch it? It wasn't great, probably not good, but it was fine. Well made, easy to watch, typical blockbuster. Not like this Fast and Furious (whatever they call them now) or Transformers they churn out every year or two which are utterly unwatchable.

Bullshit. The first Transformers was way more competent as a summer blockbuster than meme off Galaxy. In fact, MCU could never hope to measure up to Bay's directorial skills with its shitty TV-rate directors.

>Movies like The Mummy and later Transformers movies fail at even that basic level and don't even hit the lowest threshold for a functional narrative. That's the difference.
How does The Mummy fails? It's pretty straightforward and comprehensible.

No I didn't , because it was a complete marketing failure, literally the DmC of movies. An unasked for reboot whose makers anthagonized the fanbase.

>Guardians of the Galaxy. They're all bottom of the barrel, barely passable popcorn sellers.

You don't know where the barrel is, I doubt you can even recognize a barrel.

The reason I don't give a shit about The Mummy is because it appears to be about magic and shit like that. Do audiences not like a big bad chasing people anymore? I'd love a classic style Universal Monster movie, where it's just a physical abomination hunting people.

If you're amking some kind of reference, I'm not getting it. If you're tyring to communicate, you're failing.

top snek. this is hilarious that they're making this 'black panther' movie just as a scientific paper was published last week revealing the true genetic lineage of ancient egyptians (new DNA was found in a pyramid only recently).

Sorry that you can't understand a basic metaphor. Your bad reading comprehension makes sense considering your poor understanding of movies.

Nobody asks for reboots. Nobody hears if you ask for movies at all. You get what you're given.

It shouldn't surprise me in the least a videogame loving child takes to the internet to complain about things he hasn't seen.

>I'd love a classic style Universal Monster movie, where it's just a physical abomination hunting people

Have slasher movies died because everyone's figured out they'd just shoot the big meanie?

I see. What you did is called metaphor stretching, which makes your expression incomprehensible and/or silly. Don't do that.

>The reason I don't give a shit about The Mummy is because it appears to be about magic and shit like that
Nigger you stupid.

Y'all are stuck on surface level details. How "stupid" a fight is has nothing to do with the underlying story reasons for the fight. To bring this back to Guardians, the final fight has a thematic underpinning. The whole movie centers around family, these loner outcasts who learn to form relationships throughout the movie, and then use their bond to defeat the villain. Yes, the dancing shit was stupid and the way they beat the villain was lame, but the underlying drama is sound and all the character arcs and thematic lines culminate in the finale. In the Mummy, though, does Tom Cruise even really have any character arc, or is there any sort of theme that is hammered in by the finale? Or is it all just empty spectacle where the protagonist just beats the villain not because he's driven by some central character trait that expresses theme, but just because that's what the hero of an action movie does? I'm not saying that Guardians is great or anything, it just follows basic rules of drama.

>To bring this back to Guardians, the final fight has a thematic underpinning.
It's saturday-morning cartoon grade thematicism, and The Mummy also has that on the same level. That's the point.

>does Tom Cruise even really have any character arc
Of course. Did you see the movie? He used to be a rogue and a thief but then he turns into a selfless man, transformed by love. It's stupid and dull and basic--just like the "character arc" in Guardians of the Galaxy 2.

What's the theme of The Mummy? How is it expressed through character and conflict?

That movie was a legitimate piece of shit with the most retarded story they could've picked out of the Warcraft universe, shitty characters and the worst acting i've seen this year.

Cry me a river, faggot.

The theme is "you shouldn't be selfish and reckless". At first he puts everyone in danger and steals, but then he makes half-a-sacrifice, and in the end he makes a full-on heroic sacrifice.

>Tom Cruise even really have any character arc, or is there any sort of theme that is hammered in by the finale
Yes the asshole nick gets a heart and sacrifices his life to save the world from the god of death. I hope your not Mick Jay or Rich because you have no arguments. hack frauds, I turn this whole site on the prequel reviews.

This post is art. With this perfect comparrison to fast and furious a movie which actually winks at the audience how over the top it is you have sold me and the critics were right again.

Who give a shit, both are blockbuster schlocks.
>Or is it all just empty spectacle where the protagonist just beats the villain not because he's driven by some central character trait that expresses theme, but just because that's what the hero of an action movie does?
I really don't see any difference between this and the final battle in GotG2. Come to think, they are basically the same exact thing.

>Fast and the Furious
>Transformers
>unwatchable
Kys yourself pleb.

I bought the Warcraft movie on 4k just because I really like the orc half of the story but the humans were so shit they really drag down the movie's quality.

The first 5 minutes are a fantastic opening but as soon as a real actor shows up the movie plummets down into generic action comedy garbage. Could've been great, though.

i actually haven't seen the movie

Yeah because those constant 0.5 second shots and every scene painted a hideous grey are the height of cinema.

>Hour later post to think of rebuttal
>Misses my point completely
Brainlet, time to stop.

>Fast and Furious
>Unwatchable

but user the F&F franchise is blockbuster kino

>How the fuck do some people praise one and shit ont he other? They should either like both or hate both as they're both just design-by-committee disposable shit.
There's a saying: Its not what you say, but how you say it.
Its not what the story is, but how the story gets told.
And that makes all the difference.

So you're saying Marvel has better storytelling than other blockbusters?

That's wrong.

That movie was legitimately bad, though. It had a few neat scenes if you were an existing fan but that's it. All the real-life stuff looked like cosplay because they spent the budget on incredible CGI.

>All the real-life stuff looked like cosplay
How is that different from an average Marvel? Atleast Warcraft's story was somewhat refreshing for a blockbuster.

nationalreview.com/article/448455/tom-cruise-mummy-showcases-american-guilt-masochism

Based Armond telling it like it is.

>The Mummy does little more than reflect dark, Millennial political unease. Its Iraq War setting — in which characters playing American soldiers mimic the Taliban in violating the sanctity of anthropological treasures — evokes post-9/11 distress simply as a platform for violence: knockabout fight scenes and chase sequences.

>Cruise plays Iraq War soldier Nick Morton, an imperfect yet egotistical guy to whom comic-book fans might relate because he never takes himself seriously but, when forced to fight against evil, demonstrates invincible supernatural powers.

>As one more product made in the current mode of high-concept comic-book franchises, The Mummy follows the Marvel Comics formula though relentless, jokey action scenes

50 million people like warcraft stupid.

It got mostly 4/10 while WW mostly got 6/10s.

This is why RT's score system is retaded.

based.

noo, my qt north african's movie has bombed

>wonder woman

but it does

>King Arthur

Haven't seen Warcraft, but I couldn't agree with you more about King Arthur. I see a lot of movies, and I enjoyed KA as much or more than any movie I've yet seen this year. It was leaps and strides beyond Alien: Covenant in terms of enjoyment.

hmmmmmmm

based fucking Armond.

>waiting years for a new universal monster cinematic universe
>House of Frankenstein remake was okay but they didn't go further
>The Wolfman was good/bad (first half is great, second half is wolfshit) and was so hated they talked about rebooting it 1 fucking year after it came out
>Van Helsing was great fun and had a few side-stories in the animation format, but ultimately didn't go anywhere
>The Mummy movies were never supposed to be a start to a new UMCU, but they did have their own small cinematic universe with the Scorpion King movies

Now the new Mummy comes out, the first par tof the Dark Universe series of movies, and... it's so average I won't remember anything about it in a month. This is Dracula 2000-sequels tier kind of bland.

Even Jekyll/Hyde was average and cliché and his appearance didn't have any impact on me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Monsters#Dark_Universe

kek

reboot? more like DELETED

That order of movies is fucked up.

why Mike?

Mike?

Because Bride seens to be before Frankensein (I doubt they would make 2 Frankenstein movies one after the other), Van Helsing is way before Drac, the 2 movies fater Drac seem to be supernatural-less, etc.

Oh god please tell me its tanking, I don't want them to shit up an abortion remake of Creature From The Black Lagoon

There was already the sequels to shit it up.

But also:

The Creature from the Black Lagoon is one of many Universal Monsters that will be receiving a reboot as a part of Universal Pictures' shared film universe titled, Dark Universe. The series brings Universal's monsters into a modern-day setting, and begins with The Mummy (2017) and will continue with Bride of Frankenstein (2019). The Creature from the Black Lagoon has a story written by Jeff Pinkner and a script written by Will Beall. The Mummy alludes to the existence of the Gill-man when Nick Morton meets Dr. Henry Jekyll at Prodigium's base in London one of the objects has Gill-man's hand in it.

was this re-titled for England?

theyre gonna think the movie is about a mom

OR MAYBE IT WAS JUST SHIT

What movie?

This sounds about right to me as well.

One problem with mummy-- most of the major stunts were given away by the trailers.

Also, Tom Cruise's character wasn't very good. He was a good guy. But you are supposed to infer that he was some sort of anti-hero or morally shady character because he steals treasure from places ISIS is trying to destroy. So a big central conflict is lost.

Mummy explains and hand feeds you all of the plot except the most crucial part which is that Tom Cruise actually did need to "submit" to Ahmanet and not just be stabbed by the dagger. You thought she was just messing with his head but her whole plan hinged on Cruise submitting so he could be possesed. Which turns out to be convoluted and makes me seem Ahmanet didn't think things through. The writers wrote themselves into a corner.

I tend to get bored during movies but I didn't really get bored during the mummy. It is actually really well paced and has some nice creepy moments in it. Mummy is definitely believable as a villain. Needed more characters to get knocked of Alien style so you can get some tension. Clearly nothing was going to happen to Cruise.

now I have to see London has fallen.