Movies

Pro.BoxOffice.com, in its Long Range Forecast of the box office, estimates it could do $50M for Opening Weekend, with $143M for the full domestic run. I not only think they're amateurishly inaccurate: they're simply out of touch.

Tom Cruise's star power is waning (look to "Jack Reacher: Never Go Back" and its $58M TOTAL domestic run). His last big hit was "War of the Worlds (2005)," not including his always-reliable "Mission: Impossible" sequels, or his tiny part in "Tropic Thunder." "War of the Worlds" was 12 years ago! Everything else he's starred in has made less than $100M domestic. This will continue due to Millenials taking over the movie ticket buying power--they grew up on him jumping on couches and his weird Katie Holmes abduction thingy, not to mention his whole Scientology thing that he's still not done with. Yes, we even remember Red Sumner kicking his "Risky Business"-undies-butt out of Paramount. We're not gonna miss him. The generational gap is widening more every day.

It's like collectors purchasing '50s-'60s automobiles: eventually, no one will want to pay a hefty price for that piece of scrap metal...because the only people interested in it will all be dead of old age.

"The Mummy" property banked a LOT on Brendan Fraser's CHARISMATIC, FUNNY performance as Rick O'Connell (another actor we grew up on), and his absence is this reboot's biggest flaw. The tone is nowhere near similar. Instead, we get Tom Cruise giving serious-face the whole movie--which we've all seen plenty of before. Should've hired Chris Pratt while they had the chance (merely an example; I'd have cast someone similar).

Universal is trying to act like this is their "next big thing" with their Universal Monsters Universe (or whatever they're going to eventually decide to label it). Yet, they have not marketed it with the budget and scope necessary to convince us it's worth a ticket, or the time, or the attention span. They should've labeled this as a sequel to "Dracula Untold" and included that audience--but they crapped on the fans' faces the moment they announced the UMU would no longer include "Dracula Untold." "Dracula Untold" is like "Green Lantern (2010)" to them: it was announced it would be the start, but it became a false start after disappointing box office. I'd call it overinflated budget. There's no reason why such films cannot get a tonal correction upon second installment, yet continue to include the mythology. "Iron Man," "Transformers," "X-Men," "Godzilla (2014)," and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)" weren't perfect, either, but the studios weren't scaredy pussies: they took a chance, and continued the story they had spent millions on. Universal did not, and now they're a step behind. The groundwork has become redundant and moot. But they did it to themselves by nixing "Dracula Untold," which actually was not bad. Better than "Green Lantern," at least.

The trailers have tried to display a balance between "horror" imagery and action suspense, but are not succeeding. The trailers have received a mixed response. It sounds like, "Oh yay, a 'Mummy' movie! Oh...it has Tom Cruise? Wait, is that Russell Crowe? Why is the Mummy a girl? Is this an action movie or a horror movie? Well this doesn't seem very scary. Yet another Tom Cruise stunt with probably a lot of CGI. Where's Brendan Fraser? This has nothing to do with any of the others, does it? *yawn* Oh well, what else is on? I'm not in the mood for yet another pseudo-important reboot that likes to have its cake and eat it too before I can get a slice."

Lastly, there's questions still to be answered about changing the gender of the Mummy from male to female. I liked the idea on the outset. Now the story sounds like "Princess deserved Queendom, but sexist Egyptians said no, so now she's going to conquer the whole world centuries later." Doesn't that sound lazy to you? Imhotep, the Mummy of the '32, '99 and '01 films, had this elaborate romantic backstory (with the gorgeous Anck-su-Namun) that lends itself to the inherent persuasive powers of the resurrected Mummy, most prominently displayed in the original '32 film. It also gave him a solid character motive and more reason to resurrect other dead mummies to make him more of a threat to the protagonists. Win-win. I like Sofia Boutella, and know she doesn't have creative control--but this film won't help her career any, and I'll be a bit disappointed if she gets any blame from trolls.

Now Princess Ahmanet mostly throws sand and multiplies the pupils in her eyes. *shiver* So terrifying! (eye-roll) It might've been better if Annabelle Wallis weren't in the film at all, so Tom Cruise might've had to struggle with a potential romance with the monster! "The Mummy" films aren't just gothic horror--they've always carried a sense of reluctant romantic and sexual tension, much like the original "Dracula." Oh well. I'm assuming Universal chose to go this way because it's controversial, therefore should reap in the cash...this isn't 2006 anymore, and this isn't "The Da Vinci Code." Obviously, as we saw last summer with "Ghostbusters (2016)": not all controversy is good.

Does anyone else notice with these Mummy movies: the Mummy tends to be in a terrible sense of denial about the mistakes they made during their life, and decide to just keep doing the exact same thing long after they're dead, and have been resurrected? They take no second chances--they just repeat themselves. So dumb. Merely to say that the plot is starting to seem less-than-worthwhile to follow and buy into. What would they bother doing for a sequel (besides combining more monsters, then resurrecting a CGI Abbott & Costello)? Very much a feeling of "I've seen this all before," which is something studios fill their films with on purpose due to their mantra, "Because it sells!" Tom Cruise sells, the Mummy sells, action sells, CGI sells, uncomplicated simplistic plots make better trailers, and those sell! It's like they make a whole line of mistakes and justify it with "It will sell!" Until it doesn't.

We'll have to wait on positive reviews if this film has ANY chance to be saved/salvaged. I'm hoping it flops so they also choose to salvage the modest-grossing "Dracula Untold" into the canon, and already have 2 films down before attempting a third monster film. I'm rooting for Johnny Depp's "Invisible Man," or Javier Bardem's "Frankenstein" (NOT "The Bride of Frankenstein" first...come on, idiots!). Any chance Benicio Del Toro's "The Wolfman (2010)" could be folded into the canon as well? Forget Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson--he's ruined enough franchises.

The box office competition simply does not allow for yet another blockbuster. Women will be too busy with "Wonder Woman," horror fans will be too busy praising "Alien: Covenant," adventure fans will be too busy with "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales," and comedy fans will either be at "Baywatch" or patiently awaiting "Rough Night" the week after. Obviously guys like me just don't care. There's way more interesting films, and the marketing isn't succeeding at yanking our eyeballs further out of their sockets than they already are.

Lastly, the director of "The Mummy (2017)" is Alex Kurtzman, known for directing "People Like Us" FIVE years ago, and an episode of "Alias" 14 years ago. We all know he's better off as a writer, and only got this gig because Universal thinks a writer/director (as well as a writer's room) is key to the success of cinematic universes. Let me put it this way: successful writer/directors are less common than successful reboots. Also, for a writer/director, this film's plot is undercooked.

Good luck, Universal, picking yourselves up out of the debris of your mistakes yet again. I'll be curious to see the final numbers on this travesty in a little over a month, and wonder if they'll compare to "The Mummy (1999)" at all. Adjusted for inflation, "The Mummy (1999)" made $270.4M, and "The Mummy Returns (2001)" made $315.5M. To be honest, I doubt this reboot could manage the unadjusted domestic numbers in its entire run. Therefore, it's obvious: "The Mummy (2017)" has no chance, and already pales in comparison in many, many ways. Above all, it just doesn't look fun...the single attribute that popular culture exhalts in their films above all others.

Thoughts? Got guesses on OW, or final domestic run?