NEEERRRDDDDD!!!!! Hope everyone enjoyed this years Nostalgia-Ween! Check out AVGN's UA-cam channel here - ua-cam.com/users/JamesNintendoNerd Grab a signed IT (2017) Nostalgia Critic title card here - theawesomestore.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=30000
@@BlackMasterRoshi well it's what it deserves! they literally tried to capture the same "magic" of the 1999 version, but they lazily copy things from that movie as well as add horseshit like Tom "Scientology nut" Cruise.
Your comment sounds like Brendan Fraser is dead. xD But he's very much alive and still making movies. So there's no reason to "miss" him. But I get, what you're saying.
Ugh, seriously? SET ISN'T EVEN THE GOD OF DEATH! That's Osiris! The only reason they threw Set in there was because anyone with a very vague understanding of Egyptian mythology would be like, "Oh, well Set is the bad one, so he must be the god of death." I mean, that's like saying Ares is the god of death in Greek mythology!
Anubis is closer to a 'judge' than a ruler of the dead, he basically judges and weighs souls to see if they'll be allowed into the afterlife, although with how often he's seen as being related to death and mummification he would have probably fit more than Set.
Nerd: when you see Thor's hammer at the end of the movie, you know Thor is coming. When you see Dragonball evolution movie at the end of this video, you know Dragonball evolution review is coming
Wait wait wait... She kills her brother because she wants to be queen? This is ancient Egypt - having a brother would mean marrying said brother, and still being queen. And with that much of an age gap, you could pretty much guarantee she'd be running the show. So... zero motive for the entire movie? o.0
I pointed that out with another comment too. And ancient Egypt was not sexist either. She would have more likely been crowned as actual pharaoh do to the age gap with her baby brother. And, hell, female pharaohs not only existed, but it was a step up from just being queen, favorite wife of the pharaoh. So her plan was convoluted and most likely 99% unnecessary.
Honestly, the only part the film makers seemed to have researched in the slightest is the costumes. They seem to just assume that ancient Egypt was like medieval Europe with sexist rules about women not being allowed to be leaders, when all evidence we have points to ancient Egypt being a historical culture where sexism literally didn't exist. Female pharaohs were pretty common, in fact.
Good point, however, remember that awkward first clip of England from centuries back? Did England ever have a war with Egypt centuries ago? Something that could've caused or set a civil war? Maybe the Princess wanted to be the ruling Queen of Egypt during that time. Even if that was what they were going for, though, the directors should've connected the dots. That should've made a bigger impact on the plot, been clearer. Is it just a waste of my time to try to make any sense out of this dumb movie?
Lol, they took it to Iraq? Ancient Mesopotamians: "Um, hey, who the fuck are you and what are you doing?" Ancient Egyptians: "Hey, we're the Egyptians, we thought we'd just dump this body here." Ancient Mesopotamians: "No." Ancient Egyptians who just crossed thousands of miles of desert: "Fuck."
"Set, the God of Death" - STOOOOOOOOP! Okay, Set was NOT in fact the God of Death. He was the god of Storms, the Desert Reaches, Foreigners... He was many things, but DEATH wasn't his purview. ANUBIS was the God of Embalming and shepherded the dead souls to the afterlife. OSIRIS was the King of the Realm of the Dead. Set literally had nothing to do with death. *Okay*
"He was the god of Storms, the Desert Reaches, *_Foreigners_* " Wait what? I don't know much about the ancient Egyptian religion (though I knew of Osiris and Anubis due to the History Channel....and Yugioh) so what does that mean? And whoever answers can be really descriptive cause I'm super interested yet don't wanna google. If anyone has a documentary I can watch too that would be really awesome.
exactly, i laughed when i heard them say Set, my friends were like, "why are you laughing?" I said, "They copy 50 movies and can't even get Egyptian Mythology right!"
I just love how the writers pathetically tried to make Ahmanet sympathetic even though she has no sympathetic qualities to speak of and her only reason for murdering her entire family and making a deal with the devil amounts to a single line: "It was a different time." Like Linkara once said: "There's a difference between a sympathetic backstory and actually being sympathetic."
@@supereldinho I was way more invested in her story arc oh, and I really wanted her to win. I found every other character in the film far less interesting, and I cared Far less for what happened to them. I do know what sympathetic means. I wonder if you understand what good film writing means.
@@shinigamijack4208 Good writing? This movie? Hah, that's a good one... Also, let's just analyse your understanding of the word sympathetic. By definition, a sympathetic character is someone whose motives and struggles you can understand and identify with, a character you are expected to like and even admire. In this movie's case, you identify with a character that killed her entire family -- her little brother included -- out of pure jealousy and a lust for power. By your own admission, you condone such actions. Then she made a deal with a dark god to plunge the whole world in darkness, again out of pure lust for power. You admit to supporting her in this endeavor. Centuries later, she reawakens and wreaks untold havoc across the land -- voluntarily I might add, in direct contrast to Imhotep who inadvertently and involuntarily triggered the Ten Plagues as a direct result of him being resurrected. Again, you support her in this. Adding to her monstrous nature, she shows zero remorse for her actions and her entire rationale for killing her family and making a deal with Set is a flippant excuse that clearly didn't even hold water in her own time because she got mummified alive as punishment. THIS is the character you fully admit to caring about and supporting in her endeavor merely because the movie's writing is shit as opposed to her having some actual traits of humanity that would make her likable and relatable. Buddy, you're full of shit. You know you've got a serious problem when even characters like Jason fucking Voorhees are more sympathetic than the monster you're rooting for; at least Jason had a good fucking reason for going kill crazy and he's not even meant to be sympathetic.
Wait, Set isn't the god of death. That's Osiris. Set is closer to a god of chaos. He's like, disorder and sandstorms and violence and all the things Egyptians were afraid of....why not just go with the actual Set? There's way more you could've done with that. Or, if you really wanna focus on death, why not make him Osiris? I'm not against a fantasy re-imagining of mythology, but this just feels like a missed opportunity.
Isn't the god of death Anubis? I mean Osiris is also the god of death but also god of fertility and rebirth. Then again I'm not too knowledgeable on Egyptian gods despite being named after one, you could be right.
There's a lot of overlap, and it depends on the time period. The popularity of the two gods alternated over the centuries. In the Old Kingdom, Anubis was the chief god of death, but he was mostly eclipsed by Osiris in the Middle Kingdom.
Osiris is known to be a benevolent god I'm not sure it would work... Maybe Anubis, god of cemeteries and afterlife which is a more neutral figure? Or go clearly for a malevolent god like Apophis... Seth isn't even a "bad" god, he is more of a jealous and angry trickster if anything.
I'm pretty sure in the Egyptian mindset, Set was considered evil. He was made to represent everything Egyptians were afraid of, chiefly chaos, sandstorms, and wanton violence.
Set... the god of death. No. God of chaos yes. God of discord and the general to Ra, yes. But god of death? His brother Osiris was king of the afterlife. Anubis was god of burials and funerals. Thoth judged and recorded the lives of dead souls. Ammut was the devourer of evil dead souls. THERES MULTITUDES OF DEATH. Why you gotta slap death on someone who's already badass and implied to be evil in his own right?!?!?!?
And besides Death was in the eyes of Ancient Egypt actually neutral and I think even cellebrated. Also two tings about Set. 1) This movie spelled it wrong since the name is actually Seth and not Set. 2) Seth was Ancient Egypts version of Hades and NOT the Devil or Satan. That weird darkness creature that Ra had to fight every night was Egypt's version of the devil if I am correct. And if I am wrong in this please let me know.
what annoyed me about the mummy (2017) was the fact that Dracula untold was originally meant to be the 1st step of the dark universe, but because it didint perform well, it was slated and replaced with a god awful mummy reboot that gets basic mythology wrong.
@@DrDolan2000 basically yeah, but because it underperformed at the box office and there was some behind the scenes stuff as well, Universal made the Mummy the first entry into the Dark Universe and decided to exclude Dracula Untold from the Dark Universe line-up, which imo was a bad idea, i mean Dracula Untold literally sets up the Master Vampire as a threat in the modern day.
Same happened with Green Lantern (2011) which was so bad they made Man of Steel the first in DCEU. At least Untold was pretty cool and Castlevania-ish movie. I don't like the modern world stuff at the end but Charles Dance as the bigger threat had loads of potential.
The Dark Universe had serious potential, and if there’s ANY studio that has a legitimate claim the the concept of the cinematic universe, it’s Universal. Unfortunately, they’re going about it all wrong. “Dracula Untold” (which was originally intended to be the kickstart to this cinematic universe until the critics ripped it a new one) was okay, but nothing special, while “The Mummy” was just plain bad. Way I see it, Universal should just table the Dark Universe for now and take a few years to regroup and try again at a later date... preferably with writers and directors that would try to honor the legacy of the classic Universal Monsters, instead of trying to turn them into your typical “Bayformers-esqe” escapism trash. If they screwed up “The Mummy” this bad I shudder to think what they’d do to a reboot of “Creature from the Black Lagoon” or “Bride of Frankenstein”.
Scotttjt: Agreed. I think it could work. They just need good writers. And someone who’s really passionate about the Perspective monsters. And whom really wants to make something special out of the universe.
bad question honestly I really enjoyed Tom Cruise in this, which is odd because I usually don't care for him. I'd like to see his character continue. They can take what was good and leave the rest. Building a universe doesn't have to be done in one movie, that's DCs mistake. Just make some good movies and connect them and see where it goes. This wasn't a great movie but man I could really relate to Cruises character in this. Maybe because I often react to trauma and surprise with dumbfoundedness as well but I enjoyed him a lot. They can salvage this in my opinion. Make bride of Frankenstein. At the end of the story have Cruise show up and make an offer. Then make wolfman at the end have Crow show up and recruit him. Back and forth while both sides build an army for some bigger event. Maybe have Dracula recruit the creature from the black lagoon or have Crowe working for him or something. Its possible I think to salvage this. The first one can be bad and they rest can be better. Compare BVS to Wonder woman, its possible is what I mean.
For me, one of the biggest mis-steps is pushing Crowe straight out of the gate as Jekyll and Hyde. Why not have the two sides of his personality have private conversations, where we hear both voices but only see Crowe? Why not have a large archway where we see a shadowy figure standing, only to later see in the background that it is actually a mirror, and Hyde manifests in Jekylls' psyche in reflections, like in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie? Why not have Crowe constantly knocking back shots of a clear liquid, misdirect us as to thinking it's a drinking habit, and it's later revealed to be the potion he needs to remain as Jekyll? What does this character add to the story at this point that couldn't be carried out by Mycroft Holmes, or Van Helsing, or any other iconic but un-powered character from classic fiction? I wish this had been good, but the potential is streaming out through the plot holes like a water through a sieve.
@SaverioPanaccione That line made me think of various ideas. I'll try to write a short story before I expand it into a long arc and add it to my book. Lol! As they say, start small before you create a whole multi-universe. 😂
The new Death Note movie isn't really that terrible tbf. Not good, but not awful. DBE is next level shit. And not just because it doesn't stick to the source material, it's just shit in general. At least Death Note TRIED to stick somewhat to the source material, DBE is all over the fucking place.
The best way for Universal to start a “Dark Universe” is to pay homage to the original films. The monsters themselves don’t work with the modern grittyness this film tried to have. They need the gothic tone the originals have. Look at “Sleepy Hollow.” It embraced the time setting and tone of the original story while having a likable and fun protagonist. The story itself was fairly simple. Making stories like Frankenstein and Dracula overly complex would ruin them. Make the films something to enjoy around Halloween and not action movies.
Also, I personally find Sleepy Hollow a very overlooked Tim Burton film. It’s fun, creepy, and a cool take on the headless horseman. It’s not close to perfect, but it’s a good flick to watch in October.
Liam Garrison honestly, the real issue this and every film that tried to be dark and gritty as opposed to being it has done: they make a lot of the scenes literally too dark to see, and thats not dark and gritty or really artistic, its just being cheap and not wanting to show anything. You can have dark scenes, but if you literally can't make out or see a single shape or anything for that matter, its pointless and comes off as a lazy way to not have to pay for lights or a set for that matter (after all, why pay millions for a set and lights if you can cut that out for a scene in a street in the pitch black)
12:19 To be PERFECTLY honest, who wouldn't have that reaction if you died in a terrible plane crash only to suddenly come back to life without a scratch?
Osiris, Anubis, even Horus has more claim. Set is chaos, not death. Death is in fact very orderly, certain, predictable. Set would just throw everyone who ever lived back onto the Earth, just to see the mayhem.
@@handsomebrick that was actualy what I muttered throughout the entire movie, everytime someone said "Seth, god of death" I muttered "god of EEEEEEEVIL!" because i knew the egyptians saw Death with respect, hence Osiris and Anubis were benevolent gods.
man I think that could have worked!!!!!! also I agree with Critic. I WANT TO SEE the old monsters back in film but not crappy CGI ones that focus on the next story not the one they should be telling. Just SHOW ME THE MONSTERS AND MAKE IT ABOUT THEM!!!!!! EASY!!!! but hard for Hollywood. HAhahahahahahahAHAHAHA
I always considered The Wolfman 2010 and Dracula Untold to be the true kickstarters for this so-called universe. Those movies had flaws but still better than this dung heap.
Dracula Untold was offically the beginning while being planned. However that movie did not pull the numbers that Universal was hoping for, so they pushed the idea of a shared universe to the side until they found an idea that could use bigger name actors to Kickstart the universe. They put a lot of effort into The Mummy (2018,) but as Doug and James said the film was all over the place, it took the game plan of DCEU, doing their Justice League/Avengers first. The truth is that they've been toying with the idea since about 2001. When Stephen Sommers did an amazing job with The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns. They asked him to come up with an idea that would combine their franchises. The result was Van Helsing. The movie went highly over budget and even though it made a lot in theater and home sales, the movie just broke even. Then they did try again with Wolfman, but that one did not perform well at all. Less people saw that than Dracula Untold and The Mummy (2018) combined. Sorry for the long post, but I thought that you might want to know that your thought actually was right on the nose.
@@captianlucky That's pretty interesting that they played around with the idea since Stephen Sommers' Mummy movies. Honestly with the path they're taking now(individual films that don't connect with each other) I think that's the better idea. Invisible Man was a sleeper hit. And hopefully this upcoming Wolfman film with Ryan Gosling will do well.
Oh my god, i got it.... Tom Cruise character dies in the plane, cames back to life, has Seth posses him and the movie finish with him having vague supernatural powers. HE IS THE ACTUAL MUMMY but turned into a "hero" to have him be the Iron Man of the monsters avengers or whatever. AHMANET IS NOT EVEN IMPORTANT! THIS IS SO F*CKING STUPID!!!!!!!!
I think this is like when Batman v. Superman tried to be like 6 different films at once. Just have one film for each concept. 1. When a grave robber steals an artifact from the Chaos god Seth, ____ must find/destroy a crystal to prevent himself from becoming his mortal avatar. 2. After being released from her millennia long slumber Princess Ahmanet must be stopped before she exacts revenge on the descendant of an ancient family member. 3. A mysterious plague of the undead wreaks havoc across London. I don't know which monster you'd tie this one to. 4.. (The final film in this Dark Universe) Dr.Jekyl recounts his life's story about the various monsters he has met, or whatever they were planning to do with them. And whatever other films in between. If you don't want to have two desert villains you can fuse the first two together somehow but I can't see why so many films need to be tied together.
And in the next film, would Tom Cruise keep getting injured and applying bandages? He is a long way from my idea of a mummy. They already came up with a better design for a mummy.
This movie was a fail in its very plot, from the story-line on down, it fails to grasp the audiences appeal towards Mummy movies well before it hit theatres. If they wanted to create an Egyptian-History themed Mummy horror movie they could've chosen a backstory that made sense w/ Motives that are understandable & all the darker for it. If Hollywood doesn't want to tread new ground by using different names they could re-use the name 'Anakhesenamun' for the Egyptian princess. They could've drawn inspiration from the history of past Queens that were mummified. * Queen Twosret died in a Civil War, so she might come back for Revenge for that Rebellion Queen Nefertari was another Ancient Egyptian Queen that was Mummified, who was well known to act as a Priestess on behalf of the Goddess Hathor, a many facetted Goddess. Either Queen could've been motivated to come back as a Mummy to punish the Heathens of the Present for no longer worshipping the Egyptian Gods & Goddesses. Just the process of Mummification is terrifying, authentic mummification... really scary to see. It would've been easy to ,make a good Horror Movie with the Main Monster of the Mummy movie being a female Mummy.
Well, this is what happens when you tell an aging Tom Cruise he gets the ability to rewrite your movie however he wants and then say nothing when he changes the entire script to make himself look cool out of desperation
How this movie could have gone better: -DO NOT Advertise the dark universe logo with the first movie,wait until like,the 5th film -Have the movie set ENTIRELY in Egypt -give ahmanet an actual good reason for becoming evil -Make tom cruises character a likeable character -Make Jenny an interesting character -DO NOT rip off american werewolf in London -Have cruise the only one possessed -DO NOT Include the devil in the story -If you're going to have jekyll in the story,have him join the exposition at the beginning of the film under cover -DO NOT have so much exposition in the film,have it reveled in the middle of the film -Have the build up of the dark universe begin at the end of the movie, with the build of the wolfman(I'm with the nerd On that) and jekyll going after the wolfman.
Also - Don't hire a desperate, aging actor and give him the ability to change your script at his whims Tom Cruise obsessively changed this movie to make himself special and cool looking, so...
Another thing that drives me nuts about this movie is that Egyptian mythology has a lot of death gods, a lot. Set is not a death god, he's a chaos god. It's like all the movies that make Hades into Ancient Greek Satan. No. You're wrong. That's not how it was, and you could make this movie much more interesting and original by following the actual mythology, since these days, everyone seems to not only break away from it, but they make the same changes each time.
Wouldn't that be better like, "In rage, she summoned Set, the god of chaos and destruction, to grant her the power to rule Egypt for all time. He agreed but only after she sacrificed her newborn brother, and without another thought, she almost succeeded before she was caught by her father who ordered her to be mummified for her crime. Using her last words she cursed the world with the chaos and destruction she would bring if she was ever reborn."
So if Ahmenet's sarcophagus is lowered deep into the mercury so it can never be recovered, then why are there pulleys to...recover...it from the mercury?
I have a bigger question: What was the sarcophagus made of? If it was made from steel then it should be floating because mercury (13,594 kg/m3) is more dense than most steels (7,750 to 8,050 kg/m3).
The only metals known to ancient Egyptians denser than mercury were gold and electrum (gold-silver alloy). But here's a problem. Both gold and silver combine with mercury, creating amalgams. Therefore, the sarcophagus should in all those years get dissolved in mercury. Hollywood magic kept it intact, I guess.
As much hate as it got, I think Universal would've been better off if they stuck with the original plan of having Dracula: Untold be the start of the Dark Universe.
Right? And I think we can pinpoint why, too. Marvel's cinematic universe is dominating right now. And I know some people will say that DC's cinematic universe is floundering, but the fact is DC is five films in with one more on the way and several more in various stages of development, which means that while they are behind, the DCEU is still in the running and may very well become more successful in the future. Now, let's look at how both of those cinematic universes began. The first MCU film was Iron Man, and when I first saw it I didn't realize it was the start of a cinematic universe - all I saw was a movie about Iron Man. Quite honestly it wasn't until the Avengers that I caught on to what they were doing. The first DCEU film was Man of Steel. And just like with Iron Man, I did not realize when I first saw it that I was seeing the first film in a cinematic universe; all I saw was a Superman movie. And that's why I was able to get interested in it. I was watching a movie about one of our most iconic heroes - nothing more, nothing less. The point is both of them began with standalone films that actually ACTED like standalone films. It wasn't until the Avengers and Batman v. Superman that the cinematic universe stuff started becoming obvious. And it worked! By focusing on just one character in the beginning, both the Marvel and DC cinematic universes were able to begin with a single movie that focused more on the characters and the story than on setting up a universe, which led to more people being engaged and excited by what they were seeing! They wanted to see more because they were sucked into the story and the characters that were presented at the beginning. And that's what Dracula: Untold was. It was a standalone movie about Dracula that FOCUSED on Dracula. This movie is theoretically supposed to be a standalone movie about the Mummy, but it tries too hard to give us too many references and other characters, making the cinematic universe intentions obvious. The focus really isn't on the Mummy, or at least not as much as it should be for a movie called the Mummy. With Dracula: Untold on the other hand, Dracula was truly the star. There was room left for expansion, and even some hints dropped that there was more to this world than what we were seeing, but ultimately the focus, from start to finish, was on Dracula, the most iconic vampire lord in movie history and the one that people had come to see. It did the same thing with Dracula that Iron Man did with Iron Man and Man of Steel did with Superman, and after seeing what those movies started, it really does baffle me that Universal decided to make this and have it be the start of their Dark Universe when they already had a perfect (or near-perfect) setup in Dracula: Untold!
Eric Naylor Plus, I would've liked seeing more of Charles Dance's character from Dracula Untold; maybe he could've appeared alongside Dr. Jekyll as he turns into Mr. Hyde again at the end credits? That would've been a better tease than what we got. At least there, we would've got a hint Dracula was still alive and maybe in this "Dark Universe".
Eric Naylor You know, the Master Vampire? The end credit tease could be Jekyll enters his office to give himself his next injection, the Master walks in and stops him, breaking the needles, saying "Sorry, Doctor, but for the next round of the game, you're not the one I need." And then Jekyll transforms back into Hyde, with Hyde saying "So, what's the next move?"
I like how the nerd and critic make fun movies and tv shows having too many cinematic universes while making a cinematic universe of their own. It's ironic, yet clever.
Also nowhere they said that whatever happened in the previous movies didn't, this probably means that Imhotep's and Brendan Fraser's movies still happend. Also it was the Book of Life it was the golden book.
I have an idea for a movie I call it stereotype the movie it's a movie where everyone's a stereotype it ends with all them learning that they can stop being stereotypes whenever they want the whole movie is a bunch of stereotype jokes.
"Set, the Egyptian god of death" Ha ha ha, no he's not. No, he's fucking not. Osiris is the Egyptian god of death, not Set. Set is the Egyptian god of disorder. That ending's getting me hyped for the next review, I thought it was gonna be Death Note or Ghost in the Shell, but dis gon be gud.
Luther Barrett well, I mean, so is Anubis, and Maat weighs the souls, but yeah Set? Of all the ways to choose a god for death or evil, this was kinda stupid as my fifth grader self would now the difference.
Luther Barrett well at least they tried to include the Egyptian version of the devil instead of shoving the Egyptian pantheon's equivalent of saint peter in there insteaf
Not really. Anubis is the god of mummification and embalming while Maat is the goddess of truth, justice, balance, and order. They have their roles to play after death, but only Osiris is the god of death.
Set wasn't the Egyptian equivalent of Satan. In fact, Set traveled with and protected Ra, god of the sun and light, from Apep, god of chaos and darkness. It wasn't until later that he was misinterpreted as an evil god, much like Hades. It's no wonder people make false assumptions the way modern media mishandles ancient deities.
Movie: "Set is the Egyptian God of Death" Books and other sources: Set, God of Desert, Storms, Disorder, Violence, and Foreigners. Great research Hollywood *slow claps*
Don't forget war. Makes you wonder why they wanted to call him the god of death in the movie when his REAL LIFE DESCRIPTION MATCHES HIM SO MUCH BETTER IN THIS.
The Egptian god of death was Anubis. Not only that; No Ancient Egyptian would have EVER considered death to be antagonistic simply because they considered death to be a force that, while terrifying, was both benevolent and neccercary in its workings. Set/Seth, spellings vary, was considered to be evil during all but the earlier dynasties, but death was NEVER considered to be his domain even in part.
"watch out for the mummy, she'll slap you!" I died. Deadass the Queen of Death just reminds me of that woman Bill Murray keeps going on the same date with in Groundhog Day.
The problem with all these cinematic universees trying to catch up with Marvel is that they're too preoccupied with getting a great reputation than making the good movies to get that reputation. I could care less about how great a company or a studio compared to others. What I would want is for them to do what they're doing well so people can appreciate it. It hardly matters how much money they make in comparison to others in terms of what the consumer wants. And I'm saying this as a fan of Nintendo. The company isn't ranked the best when put up against Sony/PlayStation and Xbox/Microsoft. But I don't care about because they do what they do great and I like what they do. The best way to build a reputation is by DOING cool things that people can appreciate. Not try to feign coolness by just putting on sunglasses and talking like one of the "Cool Kids".
azart61 In what way exactly? I try not to oversell things as I fear some one will trash talk me down for saying "X thing is AWESOME". So I may have undersold Nintendo in this comment as a result...
PopstarChamp what's funny is everyone says that many cinematic universes (mainly failed ones like this one) are trying to copy marvel, but in reality are copying the dceu: rush it out, cram it all in, set up next 7 movies as opposed to focus on this one, and above all, make no sense in any way.
ilopominecrafter And you know what slays me about all of this? All these cinematic universes, in an attempt to gain instant rampant success, are burning through multiple movies worth of material in one go. Which means they would over all make less money in the long term. Even if these movies were good, that doesn't mean the general audience would watch them 5 times over. If you made 5 good movies in a good series, then the majority of people would definitely come back for each one and you'd likely make overall more money that way. But nope, all the CUs want there instant gratification so we end up with these messes. :P
Here's a good rule of thumb that Hollywood needs to get through their thick skulls. Make a movie and THEN establish a universe around it. Not the other way around
Katherine Stephen Anubis is the god of death rituals (mummification and such), they didn't really have a specific god of death. Closest to that would be lord and judge of the dead, Osiris. Both Anubis and Osiris were revered as keepers of order, and NOT THE NAD GUYS. What Set was actually god of is EVIL. Literaally the god of evil. Why change that? Did these people not know how to Google or just didn't bother to?
The God of Chaos thing would actually work better for the climax, explaining why he might turn on the Mummy after he has what he wants (physical body to inhabit).... because unpredictable chaos, Bitch!
The idea alone of creating a modern monster cinematic universe isn't bad, in fact if done well it could be really cool to bring back such classic characters. *If done well.* Good job creators of this movie, you fucked it up.
Sophie Goodman-Merel Yeah, it'll could've been like a legit Modern Castlevania-esque film! But no, we won't get Van Helsing, we won't get the monster from the black lagoon, and we won't get any Bride of Frankenstein... or maybe an teen monster girl sorority film...
But because this movie was so bad, we will likely never see any of the classic monsters again Thankfully, we still have the classic movies and books they came from, but it would still be nice to see them in the modern era
Superman had 2 movies, before they did Batman vs. Superman (which also had a Wonder Woman cameo). Then it got a Wonder Woman and a Justice League movie. The Avengers started with 5 movies with no connecting plot (except that Iron Man 2 was a sequel of Iron Man). There are hints of a "team" or hints to the next film in post-credits scenes, but not in the movie itself. Heck, Iron Man 2 and Thor feature minor Avengers (Black Widow and Hawkeye) who don't even get their own movie, but the others are solo acts. The team is only put together in the 6th movie. That's how you build a universe. Start with The Mummy as just The Mummy. Then do Dracula, and have a few callbacks to an event in Egypt, but nothing else. Then have a Frankenstein movie, where Frankenstein justifies his actions by talking about the undead in Romania. Then do a werewolf movie that doesn't call back. Then do a crossover where Dr. Jeckel calls the rest of the monsters together to find and destroy a creature which turns out to be Mr. Hyde. That's you do a cinematic universe.
I've often wondered how you could do a Jekyll and Hyde movie that could actually recreate the shock reveal of the original novel. Nowadays, it seems pretty much impossible, seeing as everyone knows Hyde and Jekyll turn out to be the same person. I think you've actually come up with a way to do it. I could just imagine a movie where everyone in the audience assumes this unnamed doctor who's turned these monsters into monster hunters is Van Helsing. Then *BOOM,* turns out he's Jekyll!
1) Use his first name. Call him Henry, or better yet call him Harry (when its revealed later his name is Henry Jeckyll). "Dr. Henry" would make him sound like it's his last name. 2) Use codenames for the group. If you don't know his real name is Jeckyll. 3) Subvert the original story. Dr. Jeckyll is not Mr. Hyde. There's another that is. Then in the 2nd ensemble movie, he is Mr. Hyde. Unexpected because the first time he wasn't, either. 4) Make the movie for teenagers who don't even know who Jeckell and Hyde are.
I like how james rolfe is calm and chill, though he does get mad a few times in the video, while doug walker is so hyper and goes crazy about how bad this movie is LOL
What gets me is that they completely waste the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde character! That could have been really suspenseful since the audience already knew he would go bad and so we would be waiting for it. When he finally did turn it would be like Colombo where the suspense would come from the characters (including Jekyll himself) finding out the truth. It could have been about the struggle between a man and his dark side. Instead we get an obvious bad guy trying to kill our wonder bread protagonist.
Someone didn't look up their Egyptian history. She still would have been queen, when she married her new brother, and being so much older probably would have ruled in his stead.
If Universal really wanted to pull a Marvel Universe, they should have remade each classic in the time period it was originally set, with elements that indicate a group/organization is trying to track down evidence from these various legends in the present day. This would enable each movie to stand alone while still having that world-building element. For instance, a cold open showing people rumaging throught the British Museum's storage that flashes back to the actual story of the Mummy, and then closes with the people from the opening finding the sarcophagus or an ancient papyrus with the ressurection spell. You could write it to give just enough introduction to these characters that the audience becomes invested, but still not give away if we should think they're good guys or bad guys. It would probably work really well because of how much the Internet LOVES to speculate about films from tiny shreds of evidence, so if each establishing film introduced one or two new characters who would eventually form the cast of the crossover films, the hype would create itself. And with this film, I have no idea what they're even trying to set up. Is it an Avengers knockoff, where the "gods and monsters" will be assembled into a team to fight a greater foe? Is it ripping off that League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie from a decade ago (how long until THAT becomes a universe?) where the guy putting the team together is trying to steal all the powers for himself to take over the world? Are they conducting research to protect humanity from supernatural threats, or trying to form a version of the B.R.P.D.? For a movie that is all about setting up future movies, I feel like I have no idea what's going on.
There’s the 1 thing Monster and other universe are missing. Fiege&Kennedy. No one else really had leader above the directors, who had control of the overall vision. Snyder doesn’t really count, since he was personally invested in his own vision of how it should go, and not the arc of the other movies, outside of his control. Anyone like that is a must for combined universe success. Something that DC finally appointed in a non-director.
Fun Fact, Egypt actually did allow female rulers. They thought the soul of the pharaoh simply changed vessels when a new pharaoh took place. So the villains motivations make less sense
MrDemonking30 Well, according to a comment chain right above this one, no. While the pharaoh one may be a little harder to suss out, Googling "Egyptian god of death" would probably not give you Set as the first hit. You're more likely to end up with Osiris, Anubis, or maybe even Isis (the last I'm really just spitballing with, it seems more like she's the goddess of life, just by GOOGLING IT).
Life, magic, and people. Anubis was god of death first, before Set killed Osiris, who then took the role, and Anubis became god of embalming, which is why priests wore jackal heads during funerals and mummifications. Osiris retained his position as god of judgement. Anubis and Osiris are two of the three who judge the dead by weighing their hearts against the Feather of Truth/Ma'at, which also means order.
You don’t get to decide that. The executives do. Dracula Untold was supposed to be a self contained story till at the last minute the executives ordered it changed to make it the start of the dark universe. Which also failed.
Apparently, The Mummy and Man of Steel have something in common: a) Both contain the always awesome Russell Crowe... b) ... who provides the exact same expositions TWICE ... c)... and ultimately dooms two cinematic universes in a row.
Glen Wang at least with Man of Steel, it focused on one story rather than setting up a cinematic universe. The Mummy on the other hand is the exact opposite.
Honestly, this would be a great Universe. And Cinematic Universes have ALWAYS been around, it's just now they're being done in a very bad way, despite Marvel being the first working compilation series for DECADES.
Well, Marvel's universe is still currently the most successful and regarded as the best. All the other attempts at cinematic universes failed before they even started. (Except the Monsterverse with Godzilla and Kong, though I'm not sure if they have any plans for longevity after Godzilla vs Kong.)
That's because everyone else is rushing the development of the Universe, Marvel put theirs together over a decade, and if Iron Man had been a flop we probably wouldn't even have the MCU. I really think the fact Universal announced this as the launch of their own cinematic universe effectively made it dead on arrival, because then they just looked like they were riding Marvel's coattails. Which obviously they were, but they also should have chosen a different film than "The Mummy" to start with, because OF COURSE people would compare it to the Brendan Frazier film and not the original version. They should have started with a less popular character and built up to The Mummy, with Dr. Jekyll's film origin story either taking place somewhere in the middle, OR being peppered throughout the films. So much wasted potential...
@@KnightsaysNi In the Universal Classic Monsters, the cinematic universe should've been started with Phantom Of The Opera since it's the first movie that started all before Frankenstein, Dracula, Werewolf, and other monsters.
God, I think even I could've written this movie better, and I've never made a movie. In fact: The film would take place in modern day, but will have Cruise play an Archaeologist with Annabelle Wallis as his partner/love interest (cliché, but whatever). They would hire a PMC group to guard the dig site as three members (C-list actors for recognition) follow then into the tomb, where the movie would mostly take place. We'd shortly cut to Ahmanet awakening from her undying slumber in bandages, and casting a form of the curse to shut the tomb. They'd explore deeper and deeper to find another exit, as they encounter multiple traps and, of course, the bugs from the Brendan Frasisr film. As they get deep enough, Cruise and Wallis find a large wall with Heiroglyphics explaining Ahmanet's curse and her origin. She'd become a Pharoah's wife, but kill him to get all power. As she delves into dark magic to kill any conspirators, she soons becomes a lover to the God of Chaos, Set. She soon runs afoul of her pride, that conspirators kill her and has a curse placed on her body, where she has to kill whomever enters her tomb to regain full power. There'd be all forms of ancient seals and whatnot shown on her sarcophagus, and even a view as to how degraded and ruined they've become. As they continue on, the PMC members turn their guns to the Archaeologists, telling them that they're not leaving until they get the Pharoah's treasure near her sarcophagus. When they reach the burial chamber, they see all her followers buried with her, and she arises in a horrific splendor of Ahmanet. She then threatens to release her magic upon the world by releasing Set, and the Archaeologists scatter with the PMC group leader dying after showing blatant stupidity in shooting at her. As they run, she brings to life her undead army, and Cruise finds an ancient artifact to end her undead army and seal her away powerless. They succeed, but have to escape. Ahmenet manages to somehow remove the artifact from her, and uses her power to chase after the group in a large sandstorm. They find an ancient exit, a tunnel with two boats: one a trap, and the other the real exit. One PMC hops into one boat to reveal their end, and Cruise's group leaves in the other. The final PMC member runs for the treasury to grab something before leaving, only to be trapped with the legion of insects. Crusie and Wallis leave in a large gust of sand, as Ahmanet follows quickly behind them. They find the dig site, and grab two horses to run off into the desert. As the storm approaches, the woman finds the artifact in the sand, and rides back into Ahmanet's storm. As the artifact enters, the sand falls to the ground with Ahmanet revealed, and she places the artifact on Amonet's body, causing it to return to a mummified state. She and Cruise take the Sarcophagus and Amonet's body with them to bude back in the tomb. Roll credits. Mid-credit Stinger: a group of people with strange uniforms find her sarcophagus, and Crowe opens it, and removes the artifact. He quickly places cursed braces on her wrists, placing her under his momentary control. A soldier would ask Dr. Jekyll something about the next creature, and he would even say something like "Grab the silver rounds." Done; Boom.
Starman Gaming I think that would have been a better film than what we got. It would have been a better starting off point for the universe, and possibly we would have gotten sequels. They should have hired you over the other writers.
the problem with cinematic universes (that aren't marvel) is that their trying to rush things, iron man started it and was subtle with it, introducing shield and then waiting for nick fury at the end, did it again with hulk bringing up the super soldier serum and then tony stark coming up at the end, then iron man 2 had black widow and said thor was next, point being, marvel waited, they were penitent with it, every other CU is trying SOOOOOOOOO hard to push in so much, all for nothing because they cum on too strong (yes that was intentional since the product is on the same level as that), its all about waiting
I agree om that one. You clearly cant rush a cinematic universe. It just doesnt work. Getting the viewer into that universe, introducing key players and aspects and build up for the big cross over event are just too vital. I mean why would I care about a crossover, when I am not invested in the cross over characters or worse (looking at you Justice League) havent been introduced to them at all. And I feel like thats the core idea of a cinematic universe: you introduce characters in their personal isolated plotlines, while in the backgrounf you work towards that big cross over, when those plotlines eventually collide.
Yeah, that's also why Kong: Skull Island worked in terms of introducing the Godzilla and the other kaiju: it focused on presenting the one adventure, with one or two references to what would come later and the reveal of Monarch's true purpose at the end of the film.
Andrew Viewtieful Tachibana I kinda hate marvel for starting this trend to begin with Cause now everything is part of an extended universe But I will be honest The monsterverse is doing pretty good in building it up at least The DCEU is doing pretty solid with films like Wonder Woman Shazam and aquaman That's btw about it of good extended universes next to marvels
"That's like saying that after Bruce Wayne's parents died, he wanted to become Batman, open a flower shop, become a disco dancer and create three different new ice creams." 😂haha
Everyone knows that Batman story would have failed because everyone knows Batman would have opened up a taco stand. Him opening a flower shop would have ruined the suspension of disbelief.
After opening the taco stand, Deadpool kills Batman because of two reasons- Marvel told him to, and he wanted to sell chimichangas himself. Motivations everywhere!
I know Poison Ivy opened a flower shop when she "went straight" for a while, it may have even been sponsored by Wayne Enterprises (reform program) soooooo technically.....
Tbh I liked the crooked army guy setup... no idea why they thought it was offensive but I am not American and dont care about the military so what do I know
@@bingobongo1615 Americans have a wierd thing about the armed forces. Generally Non-Americans find it... odd. Soldiers are usually held up on some pedestal. Which is a little odd considering every war they've fought in the last 70 years has been one collosal fuck up after the other - and the fact that they have standing orders to invade the Hague if an American is ever charged with war crimes... Which wouldn't exactly inspire me to have confidence in my nations armed forces...
The us military is constantly disrespected now and days and we should be grateful that they protect us while we’re just minding our own business. Just saying they deserve more respect!!!
@@questworldiangreenknight7455 First of all get out of your bubble. The US military is not the only military in the world. Just because we enjoy an American creator doesn't make us American. And secondly I was referring to the concept of being a soldier anywhere in the world. Killing someone for a living or being order to kill someone even if it is a matter of justice doesn't make you a saint. A saint would not harm anyone for no reason.
Dylan Kaiser well neither can be specifically called the god of death or the dead. Osiris was the god of the underworld while anubis was the god of mummification. It was mostly translation errors
Yeah... but Anubis and Osiris were not "evil", Set was, at least from an Egyptian perception.... and people know that Set = Evil guy, even if theyt do not know anything about Egyptian mythology. I guess "God of Death" sounds cooler and most people will not even know the difference anyway.
Are we not gonna talk about the fact that SETH IS NOT A GOD OF DEATH??? He's a chaos god. A single Google search could've fixed this. Osiris would have been the better choice as he was ruler of the underworld and himself a dying and rising god who was in charge of death and resurrection. He even wore bandages and seemed to be actively decomposing. But they chose Seth... for some reason.
Well, Seth was the bad boy in Egyptian mythology. He killed Osiris and chopped him up into different parts and hid him. Osiris, on the other hand, was a benevolent god. He was a god of fertility. That is why his skin is green in Egyptian iconographics. The colors and sizes in them don't signal "real" circumstances but have a distinct meaning, eg the bigger the more important.
Weren't ancient Egyptians WORSHIPPED death and looking forward to it so that they can live happily in the Afterlife? Isn't that why all those pyramids were built?
The OFFICIAL Dark Universe Plan: - Release Dracula Untold - It sucks so nobody watches it - Say Dracula Untold is not canon and start over - Release The Mummy(2017) - It sucks so nobody watches it - Delay Bride of Frankenstein with obvious plans to cancel it in the future - Start over in 2020 And here I thought DC was the worst at building good Cinematic Universes.
I thought Dracula Untold was ok. Wierd that they turned an evil blood sucking monster based on a tyrant that impaled his enemies both within and without in such a way that they could survive for several day on wooden spikes to scare off invaders but still a somewhat decent vampire flick.
Pee Wee Didi I prefer the Dracula from Van Helsing to be honest. That movie was good in my opinion as it was over the top in a sense where I could enjoy it. Like the Brendan Fraser Mummy it was a bit more cooler and entertaining
I watch movies to have fun can no one do that anymore I mean this movie got flaws but every movie got flaws just I love the old monsters and some parts were good In this film. Just stop bashing on movies and except them as movies don't watch them if u don't like them. But everyone has opinions and that's fine.i just love the old monsters
There is also the problem that they made Cruse's character totally OP. He is now a god. If this hadn't sunk the Dark Universe, how was he going to go up against Dracula, the wolfman and all the other monsters?
Well Mr. Hyde seem to go toe-to-toe with God Tom really well. ...soooo the other monsters may have a chance. We can always call League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to help out.
While there were many instances of bad writing in the movie, the one that pissed me off the most was the scene with Dr. Jekyll turning into Mr. Hyde. The timing and where they used it played absolutely no part in furthering the story with the mummy. You could have cut that entire scene and it wouldn't have made a difference, spectacle for the point of spectacle. They could have done so much more with it. Make him turning into Mr. Hyde a plot point. Instead of the random possessed guy releasing the mummy, have Mr. Hyde do it. He revels in chaos and destruction, so make him strike a deal with the mummy, as watching the world burn when she rampages should entice him. Then they could even make it so that the female lead has to deal with him while Cruise fights (gets his ass kicked) by the mummy. Maybe even give her a chance to get a little more characterization or at least be more useful. It was just a waste.
Like I said before they should've made the ending where Dr. Jekyll is trying to create a way to separate Set from Cruise which will be the potion that will turn him into Hyde.
Here's another thing: how often does he take the Potion to hold back Hyde? He takes it when Cruise gets there and needs to take it again in like, what, 2 hours? If they set up the idea that the Mummy made him transform, fine. They don't.
They had so much set up. Can you imagine a GOOD mummy movie that takes place in the middle east? Can you imagine the powerful imagery that could come from Soldiers vs Terrorists, fighting to take control of the mummy and having the power spiral out of control? A firefight erupting between the two forces, soldiers helping evacuate civilians, children and adults screaming while mortars go off, and a sandstorm sweeping in. The horrific quiet as the sand dies down, desiccated bodies frozen in place still clinging weapons as the mummy walks through the town, reaching down and picking up an artifact. The eerie scene of the mummy leaving the town, a legion of soldiers, terrorists, and civilians following behind... Can you imagine how creepy it would be to see a marching child, clinging to a teddy bear with a gunshot hole? The horror of war in a horror movie?
Wag the Director: Variety's expose revealed that Tom Cruise had a lot of control over the film and these include: -Early drafts of the script gave about 50/50 screentime to Nick Morton and Ahmanet. But Cruise brought in writers he was more familiar with (David Koepp, Christopher McQuarrie, and Dylan Kussman) to make changes to the script, including (but not limited to) increasing Nick's screentime at the expense of Ahmanet's screentime and development. Given that this was one of the most heavily-criticised aspects of the film (see They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot on the YMMV page) this could qualify as one of the most-destructive examples of this trope in recent history. -Alex Kurtzman was director in-name only, as it was essentially Cruise who was the actual director of the movie. In all fairness to Cruise, Kurtzman's inexperience in directing big-budgeted action blockbusters was showing through, giving even more incentive for Cruise, who's worked on these type of films for a good portion of his career and knows the ins and outs of them, to take the reins. -The whole production team basically falling in line with whatever Cruise said, going as far as overseeing the editing of the movie with his preferred editor, Andrew Mondshein.
At first I thought he was going to review the Ghost in the Shell movie and I thought "Oh God no, he's going to hate it." Then I saw what he's actually reviewing and OH GOD THIS IS EVEN WORSE!!
I was first not sure if it would be Ghost in the shell or Death note but when he showed Dragon ball Evolution I gave away a little scream. I am going to enjoy that review more than I should.
Ghost in the Shell wasn't bad, it just wasn't great, which is what anime to movie adaptations need right now. It died in it's own mediocrity. I think the the key to adapting anime to a movie is to not let anyone know about it. Look at Edge of Tomorrow, it was based off a manga but no one knew that until after they loved the movie.
When this movie was released, a friend of mine who knew how much I loved the Brendan Frazier version made me promise not to go see this. But to my everlasting shame, I broke that promise.
@@macroplanet yup, and they did The Mummy dirty in that 3rd one. This movie line was supposed to be a mix of horror and action (with comedy of course). But that movie was as scary as Disney's Snow White.
This is something I have not been able to understand when it comes to these other movies trying to create a cinematic universe. They keep wanting to rush it. Marvel succeeded because Iron Man, the first in the Marvel cinematic universe was almost completely shock of all shocks completely about Iron Man. there was one other character during most of the movie that had a part that ended up having to pay off of him being part of S.H.E.I.L.D. And there was the reveal of Nick fury at the end credits but other than that Tony Stark did not create the suit escape his captors and then spend a half hour looking up stuff on Captain America, Thor, and the Hulk.
Nazo- kage Yeah it was one of the flaws of why DC with its new universe St ugglea at times and other people just go rush in like idiots to get on the cinematic universe craze before it all runs out... Which it has at this point.
In a sense, the Fox X-Men films could also be considered a shared cinematic universe, since it revolves around the interweaving stories of multiple main characters over many decades of history/lore (plus in two different timelines, with "Days of Future Past"). Wolverine and Deadpool even have their own movies within that universe. While I think the MCU method works as a good model for world-building (as it also seems to work for the Legendary's recent Monsterverse starring Kaiju like Godzilla and Universal's original gothic horror flicks starring Dracula/Wolfman/Frankenstein's Creature), I am hesitant to say that it is the only way to make one, since X-Men did the exact opposite: starting out with the team-up movies and then making solo films. Then again, X-Men might have worked so easily that way because all of the characters had similar origins (since they were all mutants, as oppose to the Avengers that were each different) and it was easy to portray those multiple characters naturally fighting for a common cause (since the main movies revolved heavily around the Xavier/Magneto conflict, which had implications for all mutants).
plus if they wouldn't rush and just take it slow they would have a lot more movies to profit off of. You'd think that alone would give them a reason to do it right.
Yeah, I've seen it, and that's why I've commented this... The Critic didn't like the movie, but here's hoping that watching this turd will make him grow a little more respect for that fine adaptation...
Gods of Egypt is a surprisingly decent film. It has a nice story pacing, and the actions is entertaining enough. If you can just pretend its a Transformers Egyptian spinoff. AFAIK it follows the mythology much closer than other Hollywood movies
The actual term is "venomous". Venom is injected into you via bites and stings from insects and reptiles. Plants, foods and drinks can be poisonous because you can consume them.
Well, the way I see it, that worked because they save the shared universe until the very last minute, and the rest of the movie acted as a single story for us to enjoy.
That's interesting to see these monster movie universe since Godzilla, King Kong, Megalodon, etc. Well, it could be interesting if there's also a monster universe from classic monsters like Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, Invinsible Man, Werewolf, The Mummy, etc. They should have stick to the classic since they don't make it anymore. The classic monster universe should have re-made into CGI if necessary or stick to the traditional/practical effect.
12:52 - Thank you, Nerd. I'm not even a huge horror buff and I immediately thought of American Werewolf, mainly because that's one of my favorite parts of that movie. This piece of shit just flat-out stole it. Way to ruin the mystery of your antagonist and make your story more convoluted, Hollywood! Also, setting up a film universe is fine, but you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot if you're already trying to cram several movies' worth of lore INTO THE INTRODUCTORY FILM. Also Russell Crowe is not a stand-in for Nick Fury. Whoever made that dumbass decision to have Javier in this role needs to be fired.
Set... the god of... death? did the people who wrote this bother looking at any egyptian mythology?! (unless there is some obscure interpretation of set that portrays him as a god of death, instead of the desert god, in which case nevermind)
Seth has nothing to do with death! (other than being the father of Anubis and the brother of Osiris). I don't think they did any research on Egyptian culture. The Egyptians didn't vilify/fear death the way that Europeans did so making the god of death (Anubis I believe) the villein makes no sense anyways.
And Set killing Osiris was because Isis (Osiris's wife) banished Set's master. Set had no problem with Osiris, but he loathed Isis for what she did. He made sure to hurt her just as hard as she hurt him.
Okay, I really have a problem with the mummy's design. She has big puppy eyes. She can be a big powerful undead monstrosity, but those big puppy eyes just kill it.
+Eurotrash RC Well, to be honest, the one in the 1999 adaptation was pretty fuckable too for us girl-folk. But he didn't stay that way long. In fact, he was more often seen in his decayed-corpse form because, you know, he was supposed to be a MONSTER and all.
The only Major thing they forgot to mention was Dracula Untold with how it was originally going to being the Dark Universe but it was also a better film.
about that... Why do people (most notably, producers and, possibly, directors) think that is a popular thing?? I believe many, many people have already proclaimed how incredibly tired these bland colourschemes are! Really, what movie made that 'filter' popular? What movie was praised for it's boring colours??
Shaky cam CAN add to a sense of panic, but it's hardly ever used that way, it's almost always shaky cam plus EXTREME CLOSE UP on the action. Looking at you, most fight scenes from the past 15 years...
NEEERRRDDDDD!!!!! Hope everyone enjoyed this years Nostalgia-Ween!
Check out AVGN's UA-cam channel here - ua-cam.com/users/JamesNintendoNerd
Grab a signed IT (2017) Nostalgia Critic title card here - theawesomestore.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=30000
Channel Awesome i mean day of dead is close enough to halloween
Hey there!
CRRRIIIIIIIIIIITIC!!!!
Teletubbies has a universe.
Life has meaning now.
Channel Awesome NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD
the entire dark universe in one review? Man you are dedicated
Davie L arts Damn...that was a good one 😂
Commitment and closure... Wait!
@@monhunterz5430 r/whoosh
I always wanted to see a moment like this happen
@@monhunterz5430
-_-
This movie just made me miss Brendan Frasier like a lost loved one.
Damn, that's the harshest review of this movie yet.
@@BlackMasterRoshi well it's what it deserves! they literally tried to capture the same "magic" of the 1999 version, but they lazily copy things from that movie as well as add horseshit like Tom "Scientology nut" Cruise.
Your comment sounds like Brendan Fraser is dead. xD
But he's very much alive and still making movies. So there's no reason to "miss" him. But I get, what you're saying.
@@sinisternightmare indeed not dead, just so far in debt he probably wishes that he was sometimes.
200th like!
Ugh, seriously? SET ISN'T EVEN THE GOD OF DEATH! That's Osiris! The only reason they threw Set in there was because anyone with a very vague understanding of Egyptian mythology would be like, "Oh, well Set is the bad one, so he must be the god of death."
I mean, that's like saying Ares is the god of death in Greek mythology!
Well, there's also Anubis. Or was he the god of the underworld?
Boy, that last sentence with Ares being the god of death really made me cringe.
Anubis is closer to a 'judge' than a ruler of the dead, he basically judges and weighs souls to see if they'll be allowed into the afterlife, although with how often he's seen as being related to death and mummification he would have probably fit more than Set.
Ikr that annoyed me so much, I actually said that to my mum in the movie theatre.
Yes this is very anoying. THank you pointing out...
Nerd: when you see Thor's hammer at the end of the movie, you know Thor is coming. When you see Dragonball evolution movie at the end of this video, you know Dragonball evolution review is coming
Wait wait wait... She kills her brother because she wants to be queen? This is ancient Egypt - having a brother would mean marrying said brother, and still being queen. And with that much of an age gap, you could pretty much guarantee she'd be running the show. So... zero motive for the entire movie? o.0
I pointed that out with another comment too. And ancient Egypt was not sexist either. She would have more likely been crowned as actual pharaoh do to the age gap with her baby brother. And, hell, female pharaohs not only existed, but it was a step up from just being queen, favorite wife of the pharaoh. So her plan was convoluted and most likely 99% unnecessary.
Is it wrong to say she look good as a mummy?
Alakuriel Motivation, are you drunk again?
Honestly, the only part the film makers seemed to have researched in the slightest is the costumes. They seem to just assume that ancient Egypt was like medieval Europe with sexist rules about women not being allowed to be leaders, when all evidence we have points to ancient Egypt being a historical culture where sexism literally didn't exist. Female pharaohs were pretty common, in fact.
Good point, however, remember that awkward first clip of England from centuries back? Did England ever have a war with Egypt centuries ago? Something that could've caused or set a civil war? Maybe the Princess wanted to be the ruling Queen of Egypt during that time. Even if that was what they were going for, though, the directors should've connected the dots. That should've made a bigger impact on the plot, been clearer. Is it just a waste of my time to try to make any sense out of this dumb movie?
Lol, they took it to Iraq?
Ancient Mesopotamians: "Um, hey, who the fuck are you and what are you doing?"
Ancient Egyptians: "Hey, we're the Egyptians, we thought we'd just dump this body here."
Ancient Mesopotamians: "No."
Ancient Egyptians who just crossed thousands of miles of desert: "Fuck."
Not thousands of miles, but still pretty far, given this was the third or second millennium BC.
You forgot a few steps:
Ancient Mesopotamians: "No."
Ancient Egyptians: We pay with gold?
Ancient Mesopotamians: We meant to say, no problem!
Turns out illegal toxic waste dumping has been a problem for thousands of years.
I am quite certain that they let the ancient egypt dump the bodies that filled with magical curse in their territory.
Also Why did they even make a ways for her to get out of the tomb
"Set, the God of Death" - STOOOOOOOOP! Okay, Set was NOT in fact the God of Death. He was the god of Storms, the Desert Reaches, Foreigners... He was many things, but DEATH wasn't his purview.
ANUBIS was the God of Embalming and shepherded the dead souls to the afterlife. OSIRIS was the King of the Realm of the Dead. Set literally had nothing to do with death.
*Okay*
thats excaptly what i thought, and i guess even the 1st movie was aware of that fact... atleast i know Anubis was mentioned in the first one.
Kyman102 Thank god someone else knows this!
FINALLY SOMEONE WHO GETS MYTHOLOGY
"He was the god of Storms, the Desert Reaches, *_Foreigners_* "
Wait what? I don't know much about the ancient Egyptian religion (though I knew of Osiris and Anubis due to the History Channel....and Yugioh) so what does that mean? And whoever answers can be really descriptive cause I'm super interested yet don't wanna google. If anyone has a documentary I can watch too that would be really awesome.
exactly, i laughed when i heard them say Set, my friends were like, "why are you laughing?" I said, "They copy 50 movies and can't even get Egyptian Mythology right!"
I just love how the writers pathetically tried to make Ahmanet sympathetic even though she has no sympathetic qualities to speak of and her only reason for murdering her entire family and making a deal with the devil amounts to a single line:
"It was a different time."
Like Linkara once said:
"There's a difference between a sympathetic backstory and actually being sympathetic."
And she still managed to be the most sympathetic character in the movie
@@shinigamijack4208 I don't think you understand what the word "sympathetic" means.
@@supereldinho I was way more invested in her story arc oh, and I really wanted her to win.
I found every other character in the film far less interesting, and I cared Far less for what happened to them.
I do know what sympathetic means. I wonder if you understand what good film writing means.
@@shinigamijack4208 Good writing? This movie? Hah, that's a good one...
Also, let's just analyse your understanding of the word sympathetic.
By definition, a sympathetic character is someone whose motives and struggles you can understand and identify with, a character you are expected to like and even admire.
In this movie's case, you identify with a character that killed her entire family -- her little brother included -- out of pure jealousy and a lust for power. By your own admission, you condone such actions.
Then she made a deal with a dark god to plunge the whole world in darkness, again out of pure lust for power. You admit to supporting her in this endeavor.
Centuries later, she reawakens and wreaks untold havoc across the land -- voluntarily I might add, in direct contrast to Imhotep who inadvertently and involuntarily triggered the Ten Plagues as a direct result of him being resurrected. Again, you support her in this.
Adding to her monstrous nature, she shows zero remorse for her actions and her entire rationale for killing her family and making a deal with Set is a flippant excuse that clearly didn't even hold water in her own time because she got mummified alive as punishment. THIS is the character you fully admit to caring about and supporting in her endeavor merely because the movie's writing is shit as opposed to her having some actual traits of humanity that would make her likable and relatable.
Buddy, you're full of shit. You know you've got a serious problem when even characters like Jason fucking Voorhees are more sympathetic than the monster you're rooting for; at least Jason had a good fucking reason for going kill crazy and he's not even meant to be sympathetic.
@@supereldinho r/murderedbywords
Man, this crossover is such a great start to the Cinemassacre/Channel Awesome cinematic universe!
Flame of Udun start??? They done stuff like this before
Nick Hartless Fine, I guess this is the Avengers 5 of this cinematic universe
Hopefully, it'll do better than the movie there're reviewing.
It already begun after 2008
start? it have been happening long before than marvel xD
Wait, Set isn't the god of death. That's Osiris. Set is closer to a god of chaos. He's like, disorder and sandstorms and violence and all the things Egyptians were afraid of....why not just go with the actual Set? There's way more you could've done with that. Or, if you really wanna focus on death, why not make him Osiris? I'm not against a fantasy re-imagining of mythology, but this just feels like a missed opportunity.
Isn't the god of death Anubis? I mean Osiris is also the god of death but also god of fertility and rebirth. Then again I'm not too knowledgeable on Egyptian gods despite being named after one, you could be right.
There's a lot of overlap, and it depends on the time period. The popularity of the two gods alternated over the centuries. In the Old Kingdom, Anubis was the chief god of death, but he was mostly eclipsed by Osiris in the Middle Kingdom.
oh ok
Osiris is known to be a benevolent god I'm not sure it would work... Maybe Anubis, god of cemeteries and afterlife which is a more neutral figure? Or go clearly for a malevolent god like Apophis...
Seth isn't even a "bad" god, he is more of a jealous and angry trickster if anything.
I'm pretty sure in the Egyptian mindset, Set was considered evil. He was made to represent everything Egyptians were afraid of, chiefly chaos, sandstorms, and wanton violence.
Set... the god of death.
No.
God of chaos yes. God of discord and the general to Ra, yes. But god of death?
His brother Osiris was king of the afterlife. Anubis was god of burials and funerals. Thoth judged and recorded the lives of dead souls. Ammut was the devourer of evil dead souls. THERES MULTITUDES OF DEATH. Why you gotta slap death on someone who's already badass and implied to be evil in his own right?!?!?!?
Shut the fuck up. Set is the god of death. So sayeth Hollywood and Scientology.
The god of death is allah
Set was the god of storms, chaos, violence and *foreigners*
That last one cracks me up and says a lot about Egyptian culture.
And besides Death was in the eyes of Ancient Egypt actually neutral and I think even cellebrated. Also two tings about Set.
1) This movie spelled it wrong since the name is actually Seth and not Set.
2) Seth was Ancient Egypts version of Hades and NOT the Devil or Satan. That weird darkness creature that Ra had to fight every night was Egypt's version of the devil if I am correct. And if I am wrong in this please let me know.
Christianity/Islam/Hebrew only have one god, dipshit. So no shit.
what annoyed me about the mummy (2017) was the fact that Dracula untold was originally meant to be the 1st step of the dark universe, but because it didint perform well, it was slated and replaced with a god awful mummy reboot that gets basic mythology wrong.
So, Dracula Untold is essentially the first Dark Universe movie?
@@DrDolan2000 basically yeah, but because it underperformed at the box office and there was some behind the scenes stuff as well, Universal made the Mummy the first entry into the Dark Universe and decided to exclude Dracula Untold from the Dark Universe line-up, which imo was a bad idea, i mean Dracula Untold literally sets up the Master Vampire as a threat in the modern day.
@finmorton6840 Not only that but while the movie wasn't great, Dracula Untold was still 10x better than whatever the Mummy reboot tried to "set up."
@@garrtoons4303oh Yeah I rather watch dracula than this peace of Crap
Same happened with Green Lantern (2011) which was so bad they made Man of Steel the first in DCEU. At least Untold was pretty cool and Castlevania-ish movie. I don't like the modern world stuff at the end but Charles Dance as the bigger threat had loads of potential.
The Dark Universe had serious potential, and if there’s ANY studio that has a legitimate claim the the concept of the cinematic universe, it’s Universal. Unfortunately, they’re going about it all wrong.
“Dracula Untold” (which was originally intended to be the kickstart to this cinematic universe until the critics ripped it a new one) was okay, but nothing special, while “The Mummy” was just plain bad.
Way I see it, Universal should just table the Dark Universe for now and take a few years to regroup and try again at a later date... preferably with writers and directors that would try to honor the legacy of the classic Universal Monsters, instead of trying to turn them into your typical “Bayformers-esqe” escapism trash.
If they screwed up “The Mummy” this bad I shudder to think what they’d do to a reboot of “Creature from the Black Lagoon” or “Bride of Frankenstein”.
I really like the idea of the
Dark Universe. But I think they should go in the stylized atmoshery direction, and less mainstream.
I disagree. I liked it, it was an okay adventure movie.
Jason Mckay but is it good enough to start a new franchise?
Scotttjt:
Agreed.
I think it could work. They just need good writers. And someone who’s really passionate about the Perspective monsters. And whom really wants to make something special out of the universe.
bad question honestly I really enjoyed Tom Cruise in this, which is odd because I usually don't care for him. I'd like to see his character continue.
They can take what was good and leave the rest. Building a universe doesn't have to be done in one movie, that's DCs mistake. Just make some good movies and connect them and see where it goes.
This wasn't a great movie but man I could really relate to Cruises character in this. Maybe because I often react to trauma and surprise with dumbfoundedness as well but I enjoyed him a lot.
They can salvage this in my opinion. Make bride of Frankenstein. At the end of the story have Cruise show up and make an offer. Then make wolfman at the end have Crow show up and recruit him. Back and forth while both sides build an army for some bigger event. Maybe have Dracula recruit the creature from the black lagoon or have Crowe working for him or something.
Its possible I think to salvage this. The first one can be bad and they rest can be better. Compare BVS to Wonder woman, its possible is what I mean.
For me, one of the biggest mis-steps is pushing Crowe straight out of the gate as Jekyll and Hyde. Why not have the two sides of his personality have private conversations, where we hear both voices but only see Crowe? Why not have a large archway where we see a shadowy figure standing, only to later see in the background that it is actually a mirror, and Hyde manifests in Jekylls' psyche in reflections, like in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie? Why not have Crowe constantly knocking back shots of a clear liquid, misdirect us as to thinking it's a drinking habit, and it's later revealed to be the potion he needs to remain as Jekyll? What does this character add to the story at this point that couldn't be carried out by Mycroft Holmes, or Van Helsing, or any other iconic but un-powered character from classic fiction? I wish this had been good, but the potential is streaming out through the plot holes like a water through a sieve.
Shouldn’t someone like van helsing be the nick fury of this universe
“Zombie knights in London” that actually sounds like a cool syfy movie
It does. But not in a mummy movie
I'd see it!
@SaverioPanaccione That line made me think of various ideas. I'll try to write a short story before I expand it into a long arc and add it to my book. Lol!
As they say, start small before you create a whole multi-universe. 😂
28 Days Later
I'm honestly surprised nobody's ever done zombie crusaders!
“Wanted the universe to continue”.....Should we tell him that Blumhouse wants to revive the Dark Universe after the success of The Invisible Man
wait are they actually? cause if so I think I trust Blumhouse more on this than universal trying to press the redo button multiple times
@@juanTURTLEking hm...Blumhouse has done a lot bad shit, too, though :D
They might do a better job than this POS
They did an invisible man? That was successful?
@@brovid-19 yep
NC- 'I'm really going to enjoy watching this' pulls out Dragonball Evolution.
Me- he's fucked.
NAVEMAN3 NEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRD!!!!!!! How could you?!?!?!?!
i'm gonna start calling the paramedics guys
Better make it a month since we’ve got GiTS and Death Note too. But they have to end it with Rurouni Kenshin.
May Dende have mercy on his soul.
NAVEMAN3 He'a going to get sent to the next dimension.
"A movie based on an anime."
*slowly shakes head* Oh no. Which one? Which one is it?
" *holds up live action DBZ movie* "
*Screams!*
Honestly, with the build up I was expecting the new Death Note movie, but DBE is much worse.
i was thinking ghost in the shell
The new Death Note movie isn't really that terrible tbf. Not good, but not awful. DBE is next level shit. And not just because it doesn't stick to the source material, it's just shit in general. At least Death Note TRIED to stick somewhat to the source material, DBE is all over the fucking place.
The GITS movie was actually a good adventure movie wen you stop comparing with the anime, that was fantastic. The barwas kinda too higth
I was thinking he was going to do Astro Boy
The best way for Universal to start a “Dark Universe” is to pay homage to the original films. The monsters themselves don’t work with the modern grittyness this film tried to have. They need the gothic tone the originals have. Look at “Sleepy Hollow.” It embraced the time setting and tone of the original story while having a likable and fun protagonist. The story itself was fairly simple. Making stories like Frankenstein and Dracula overly complex would ruin them. Make the films something to enjoy around Halloween and not action movies.
Also, I personally find Sleepy Hollow a very overlooked Tim Burton film. It’s fun, creepy, and a cool take on the headless horseman. It’s not close to perfect, but it’s a good flick to watch in October.
Liam Garrison nice observation. Grittyness killed all the magic.
Dracula Untold?
Liam Garrison honestly, the real issue this and every film that tried to be dark and gritty as opposed to being it has done: they make a lot of the scenes literally too dark to see, and thats not dark and gritty or really artistic, its just being cheap and not wanting to show anything. You can have dark scenes, but if you literally can't make out or see a single shape or anything for that matter, its pointless and comes off as a lazy way to not have to pay for lights or a set for that matter (after all, why pay millions for a set and lights if you can cut that out for a scene in a street in the pitch black)
12:19 To be PERFECTLY honest, who wouldn't have that reaction if you died in a terrible plane crash only to suddenly come back to life without a scratch?
I’d probably be testing if I was comatose or not tbh
"Set, the god of death..."
HAAAAAAAAAAAANo.
Anubis says hi.
So do Horus and Osiris. Either of them fit better than Set too.
They could have said Set was the god of evil, at least that would be in the same general ballpark.
Osiris, Anubis, even Horus has more claim. Set is chaos, not death. Death is in fact very orderly, certain, predictable. Set would just throw everyone who ever lived back onto the Earth, just to see the mayhem.
Anubis will feed this movie to Ammit. There's no way it's passing his judgement.
@@handsomebrick that was actualy what I muttered throughout the entire movie, everytime someone said "Seth, god of death" I muttered "god of EEEEEEEVIL!" because i knew the egyptians saw Death with respect, hence Osiris and Anubis were benevolent gods.
I think they would have fixed all of this by having Russel Crowe say:
My name is Horrace. And I'm here to talk to you...
About the Monster Squad.
👏... 👏... 👏
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. 👍
"What are we? Some kinda Suicide Squad?"
man I think that could have worked!!!!!! also I agree with Critic. I WANT TO SEE the old monsters back in film but not crappy CGI ones that focus on the next story not the one they should be telling. Just SHOW ME THE MONSTERS AND MAKE IT ABOUT THEM!!!!!! EASY!!!! but hard for Hollywood. HAhahahahahahahAHAHAHA
more like monster squat
@@matthewchandler7845 Only way to bring back the originals would be deep fake tech.
I always considered The Wolfman 2010 and Dracula Untold to be the true kickstarters for this so-called universe. Those movies had flaws but still better than this dung heap.
Dracula Untold is ew
I thought The Wolfman was affiliated with the Brendan Fraser Mummy series.
Lone Wolf I haven't seen the Wildman remake but I'm fine with Dracula: Untold and that theory.
Dracula Untold was offically the beginning while being planned. However that movie did not pull the numbers that Universal was hoping for, so they pushed the idea of a shared universe to the side until they found an idea that could use bigger name actors to Kickstart the universe. They put a lot of effort into The Mummy (2018,) but as Doug and James said the film was all over the place, it took the game plan of DCEU, doing their Justice League/Avengers first. The truth is that they've been toying with the idea since about 2001. When Stephen Sommers did an amazing job with The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns. They asked him to come up with an idea that would combine their franchises. The result was Van Helsing. The movie went highly over budget and even though it made a lot in theater and home sales, the movie just broke even. Then they did try again with Wolfman, but that one did not perform well at all. Less people saw that than Dracula Untold and The Mummy (2018) combined. Sorry for the long post, but I thought that you might want to know that your thought actually was right on the nose.
@@captianlucky That's pretty interesting that they played around with the idea since Stephen Sommers' Mummy movies. Honestly with the path they're taking now(individual films that don't connect with each other) I think that's the better idea. Invisible Man was a sleeper hit. And hopefully this upcoming Wolfman film with Ryan Gosling will do well.
Oh my god, i got it....
Tom Cruise character dies in the plane, cames back to life, has Seth posses him and the movie finish with him having vague supernatural powers.
HE IS THE ACTUAL MUMMY but turned into a "hero" to have him be the Iron Man of the monsters avengers or whatever.
AHMANET IS NOT EVEN IMPORTANT!
THIS IS SO F*CKING STUPID!!!!!!!!
I think this is like when Batman v. Superman tried to be like 6 different films at once. Just have one film for each concept.
1. When a grave robber steals an artifact from the Chaos god Seth, ____ must find/destroy a crystal to prevent himself from becoming his mortal avatar.
2. After being released from her millennia long slumber Princess Ahmanet must be stopped before she exacts revenge on the descendant of an ancient family member.
3. A mysterious plague of the undead wreaks havoc across London. I don't know which monster you'd tie this one to.
4.. (The final film in this Dark Universe) Dr.Jekyl recounts his life's story about the various monsters he has met, or whatever they were planning to do with them.
And whatever other films in between. If you don't want to have two desert villains you can fuse the first two together somehow but I can't see why so many films need to be tied together.
And in the next film, would Tom Cruise keep getting injured and applying bandages? He is a long way from my idea of a mummy.
They already came up with a better design for a mummy.
For his punishment, he won a well deserved Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor
You just blew my mind. I feel so dumb for not seeing it!
@Juni Post Remember, Frankenstein's the scientist. They never named the monster or spare body parts man.
This movie was a fail in its very plot, from the story-line on down, it fails to grasp the audiences appeal towards Mummy movies well before it hit theatres. If they wanted to create an Egyptian-History themed Mummy horror movie they could've chosen a backstory that made sense w/ Motives that are understandable & all the darker for it. If Hollywood doesn't want to tread new ground by using different names they could re-use the name 'Anakhesenamun' for the Egyptian princess. They could've drawn inspiration from the history of past Queens that were mummified.
* Queen Twosret died in a Civil War, so she might come back for Revenge for that Rebellion
Queen Nefertari was another Ancient Egyptian Queen that was Mummified, who was well known to act as a Priestess on behalf of the Goddess Hathor, a many facetted Goddess.
Either Queen could've been motivated to come back as a Mummy to punish the Heathens of the Present for no longer worshipping the Egyptian Gods & Goddesses.
Just the process of Mummification is terrifying, authentic mummification... really scary to see. It would've been easy to ,make a good Horror Movie with the Main Monster of the Mummy movie being a female Mummy.
Thank you!
Poppy M *THIS.*
Just had a thought...Shouldn't a secret society in London that hunts monsters and demons be lead by Van Helsing?
Well, this is what happens when you tell an aging Tom Cruise he gets the ability to rewrite your movie however he wants and then say nothing when he changes the entire script to make himself look cool out of desperation
How this movie could have gone better:
-DO NOT Advertise the dark universe logo with the first movie,wait until like,the 5th film
-Have the movie set ENTIRELY in Egypt
-give ahmanet an actual good reason for becoming evil
-Make tom cruises character a likeable character
-Make Jenny an interesting character
-DO NOT rip off american werewolf in London
-Have cruise the only one possessed
-DO NOT Include the devil in the story
-If you're going to have jekyll in the story,have him join the exposition at the beginning of the film under cover
-DO NOT have so much exposition in the film,have it reveled in the middle of the film
-Have the build up of the dark universe begin at the end of the movie, with the build of the wolfman(I'm with the nerd
On that) and jekyll going after the wolfman.
- Choose an actual Egyptian god of death.
-Research ancient Egyptian culture and their belief system.
-AND CHANGE THE MUMMY ACTOR TOO BCUZ SHE WAS TERRIBLE
Also
- Don't hire a desperate, aging actor and give him the ability to change your script at his whims
Tom Cruise obsessively changed this movie to make himself special and cool looking, so...
That explains a lot actually.
Another thing that drives me nuts about this movie is that Egyptian mythology has a lot of death gods, a lot. Set is not a death god, he's a chaos god. It's like all the movies that make Hades into Ancient Greek Satan. No. You're wrong. That's not how it was, and you could make this movie much more interesting and original by following the actual mythology, since these days, everyone seems to not only break away from it, but they make the same changes each time.
Wouldn't that be better like, "In rage, she summoned Set, the god of chaos and destruction, to grant her the power to rule Egypt for all time. He agreed but only after she sacrificed her newborn brother, and without another thought, she almost succeeded before she was caught by her father who ordered her to be mummified for her crime. Using her last words she cursed the world with the chaos and destruction she would bring if she was ever reborn."
Annie and Elsie of Arendelle Yes! Exactly! You get it. See everybody, this girl, this girl gets it!
It would actually make more sense too.
You have just surpassed a buch of hollywood script writers
YAY!
Tom Cruise: Brendan Frasier you are not.😤
Sorry, Cruise. Its not us, its you.
So if Ahmenet's sarcophagus is lowered deep into the mercury so it can never be recovered, then why are there pulleys to...recover...it from the mercury?
Health and Safety. The ancients had it too.
yeah but, why no cut the chains?
I have a bigger question: What was the sarcophagus made of? If it was made from steel then it should be floating because mercury (13,594 kg/m3) is more dense than most steels (7,750 to 8,050 kg/m3).
Tasiam Moros Damn dude, nice catch!
The only metals known to ancient Egyptians denser than mercury were gold and electrum (gold-silver alloy). But here's a problem. Both gold and silver combine with mercury, creating amalgams. Therefore, the sarcophagus should in all those years get dissolved in mercury. Hollywood magic kept it intact, I guess.
These two are freaking legends.
True!!!
Super Mega Deth Christ meets Santa Christ crossover anyone?
Definitively!
GOD’s, you guys are Gods!!!!!!!
You're a legend, my friend. You're nice to your parents, and have a winning smile.
As much hate as it got, I think Universal would've been better off if they stuck with the original plan of having Dracula: Untold be the start of the Dark Universe.
I definitely agree.
Henry Stanley I'm with ya there.
Right? And I think we can pinpoint why, too.
Marvel's cinematic universe is dominating right now. And I know some people will say that DC's cinematic universe is floundering, but the fact is DC is five films in with one more on the way and several more in various stages of development, which means that while they are behind, the DCEU is still in the running and may very well become more successful in the future. Now, let's look at how both of those cinematic universes began.
The first MCU film was Iron Man, and when I first saw it I didn't realize it was the start of a cinematic universe - all I saw was a movie about Iron Man. Quite honestly it wasn't until the Avengers that I caught on to what they were doing.
The first DCEU film was Man of Steel. And just like with Iron Man, I did not realize when I first saw it that I was seeing the first film in a cinematic universe; all I saw was a Superman movie. And that's why I was able to get interested in it. I was watching a movie about one of our most iconic heroes - nothing more, nothing less.
The point is both of them began with standalone films that actually ACTED like standalone films. It wasn't until the Avengers and Batman v. Superman that the cinematic universe stuff started becoming obvious. And it worked! By focusing on just one character in the beginning, both the Marvel and DC cinematic universes were able to begin with a single movie that focused more on the characters and the story than on setting up a universe, which led to more people being engaged and excited by what they were seeing! They wanted to see more because they were sucked into the story and the characters that were presented at the beginning.
And that's what Dracula: Untold was. It was a standalone movie about Dracula that FOCUSED on Dracula. This movie is theoretically supposed to be a standalone movie about the Mummy, but it tries too hard to give us too many references and other characters, making the cinematic universe intentions obvious. The focus really isn't on the Mummy, or at least not as much as it should be for a movie called the Mummy. With Dracula: Untold on the other hand, Dracula was truly the star. There was room left for expansion, and even some hints dropped that there was more to this world than what we were seeing, but ultimately the focus, from start to finish, was on Dracula, the most iconic vampire lord in movie history and the one that people had come to see. It did the same thing with Dracula that Iron Man did with Iron Man and Man of Steel did with Superman, and after seeing what those movies started, it really does baffle me that Universal decided to make this and have it be the start of their Dark Universe when they already had a perfect (or near-perfect) setup in Dracula: Untold!
Eric Naylor Plus, I would've liked seeing more of Charles Dance's character from Dracula Untold; maybe he could've appeared alongside Dr. Jekyll as he turns into Mr. Hyde again at the end credits? That would've been a better tease than what we got. At least there, we would've got a hint Dracula was still alive and maybe in this "Dark Universe".
Eric Naylor You know, the Master Vampire? The end credit tease could be Jekyll enters his office to give himself his next injection, the Master walks in and stops him, breaking the needles, saying "Sorry, Doctor, but for the next round of the game, you're not the one I need." And then Jekyll transforms back into Hyde, with Hyde saying "So, what's the next move?"
I love how Nerd is like "who else? Dr Jekyll". Almost directly referencing his Jekyll and Hyde NES review.
This is the only Egyptian themed movie that is less accurate than Gods of Egypt
And Exodus: Gods and Kings.
They're making Yu-Gi-Oh look more accurate!
Gods of Egypt is legit fun though.
@@SubstanceD91 I would have more fun watching The Mummy with Brendan Fraser than Gods of Egypt.
I disagree
I like how the nerd and critic make fun movies and tv shows having too many cinematic universes while making a cinematic universe of their own. It's ironic, yet clever.
They're not making a cinematic universe!
They're making a critic universe!
Yeah, the NCU, the Nostalgia Critic Universe
Nop, you guys are wrong. It's the AVGN universe
Honestly, Doug and James are the only media critics I'd watch if I needed a good laugh.
Yes, I'd like some DARK JUSTICE ice cream, please?
I'd like strawberry #2 myself.
Can you subscribe to my channel? I do animations.
How about a Justice and Dark Justice Swirl?
Imagine the slogan. "Taste the sweet justice!"
What, no Batgirl flavor?
I'll say this. They at least had a call back to the Brendan Fraser Movie when the book of the dead briefly showed up.
Also nowhere they said that whatever happened in the previous movies didn't, this probably means that Imhotep's and Brendan Fraser's movies still happend. Also it was the Book of Life it was the golden book.
while the rest of the movie has them take a shit on said book.
@@mitsvanmitsvanio6106 didn't they destroy the golden book to stop the Mummy?
That ending... right there... it's how you set up a sequel.
It's funny how a UA-cam channel can set up a sequel better than a freaking Hollywood company.
+A normal Guy sad more than anything.
Money doesn't mean creativity.
"can't buy taste or talent hollywood is living proof"
It can buy plenty of rapists and sexual predators though it seems. lol
"The anime/cartoon is good so the movie must be too"
Apparently Doug didn't learn from his Last Airbender review
The Last Airbender was a western cartoon. Anime usualy counts as Japanese animation.
I hoped it would be the Death Note movie. But this is cool too.
To be fair, Japanese Anime adaptation movie can be hit or miss too.
Strykon Indeed, he has learned nothing.
qinlongfei Yup, the Death Note movie on Netflix was awful!
James and Doug work and review well together, its a great dynamic of disappointed film history buff nerd and pissed off exasperated nerd.
I have an idea for a movie I call it stereotype the movie it's a movie where everyone's a stereotype it ends with all them learning that they can stop being stereotypes whenever they want the whole movie is a bunch of stereotype jokes.
Eh, sounds like it’s been done before😜
@@sydneyslaughter7163 oh yeah give me an example
You can't do that now, because it would be all kinds of -ist and no studio would do it in fear of angry Twitter mob at their doors.
I think 9 was basically that
@@psoras don't worry it's not bad stereotypes and they're all white men
"Set, the Egyptian god of death"
Ha ha ha, no he's not. No, he's fucking not.
Osiris is the Egyptian god of death, not Set. Set is the Egyptian god of disorder.
That ending's getting me hyped for the next review, I thought it was gonna be Death Note or Ghost in the Shell, but dis gon be gud.
Luther Barrett well, I mean, so is Anubis, and Maat weighs the souls, but yeah Set? Of all the ways to choose a god for death or evil, this was kinda stupid as my fifth grader self would now the difference.
I KNEW something was off about that
Luther Barrett well at least they tried to include the Egyptian version of the devil instead of shoving the Egyptian pantheon's equivalent of saint peter in there insteaf
Not really. Anubis is the god of mummification and embalming while Maat is the goddess of truth, justice, balance, and order.
They have their roles to play after death, but only Osiris is the god of death.
Set wasn't the Egyptian equivalent of Satan. In fact, Set traveled with and protected Ra, god of the sun and light, from Apep, god of chaos and darkness.
It wasn't until later that he was misinterpreted as an evil god, much like Hades.
It's no wonder people make false assumptions the way modern media mishandles ancient deities.
Movie: "Set is the Egyptian God of Death"
Books and other sources: Set, God of Desert, Storms, Disorder, Violence, and Foreigners.
Great research Hollywood *slow claps*
Don't forget war. Makes you wonder why they wanted to call him the god of death in the movie when his REAL LIFE DESCRIPTION MATCHES HIM SO MUCH BETTER IN THIS.
To be kind of fair, the first remake (the 90's one) called Anubis the 'dark god' of the dead so that's a continuing trend.
To be fair, to the egyptians the desert WAS death. It was destruction and decay of everything natural and manmade.
Wasn't Sekhmet the goddess of war?
The Egptian god of death was Anubis. Not only that; No Ancient Egyptian would have EVER considered death to be antagonistic simply because they considered death to be a force that, while terrifying, was both benevolent and neccercary in its workings. Set/Seth, spellings vary, was considered to be evil during all but the earlier dynasties, but death was NEVER considered to be his domain even in part.
NC and AVGN need to do more crossovers
They make a better team than Family Guy and unoriginality.
I agree but not too many
For starters, the critic needs to get even for Dragonball: Evolution.
The Nerd and The Critic Vs.....
Too much of 1 thing is a bad thing
"watch out for the mummy, she'll slap you!" I died.
Deadass the Queen of Death just reminds me of that woman Bill Murray keeps going on the same date with in Groundhog Day.
Lmao 🤣
The problem with all these cinematic universees trying to catch up with Marvel is that they're too preoccupied with getting a great reputation than making the good movies to get that reputation.
I could care less about how great a company or a studio compared to others. What I would want is for them to do what they're doing well so people can appreciate it. It hardly matters how much money they make in comparison to others in terms of what the consumer wants.
And I'm saying this as a fan of Nintendo.
The company isn't ranked the best when put up against Sony/PlayStation and Xbox/Microsoft.
But I don't care about because they do what they do great and I like what they do.
The best way to build a reputation is by DOING cool things that people can appreciate. Not try to feign coolness by just putting on sunglasses and talking like one of the "Cool Kids".
Which is why I like Dracula Untold better, even in the slightest.
azart61 In what way exactly?
I try not to oversell things as I fear some one will trash talk me down for saying "X thing is AWESOME". So I may have undersold Nintendo in this comment as a result...
Yeah, I get that they're profit-making companies, but none of their execs seem to get that making *good* movies can make a lot of money...
PopstarChamp what's funny is everyone says that many cinematic universes (mainly failed ones like this one) are trying to copy marvel, but in reality are copying the dceu: rush it out, cram it all in, set up next 7 movies as opposed to focus on this one, and above all, make no sense in any way.
ilopominecrafter And you know what slays me about all of this? All these cinematic universes, in an attempt to gain instant rampant success, are burning through multiple movies worth of material in one go. Which means they would over all make less money in the long term.
Even if these movies were good, that doesn't mean the general audience would watch them 5 times over. If you made 5 good movies in a good series, then the majority of people would definitely come back for each one and you'd likely make overall more money that way.
But nope, all the CUs want there instant gratification so we end up with these messes. :P
Here's a good rule of thumb that Hollywood needs to get through their thick skulls. Make a movie and THEN establish a universe around it. Not the other way around
That's why the teaser is always in the epilogue.
This. This is why Marvel succeeded (at least thus far) with their universe, and why DC's scramble to catch up is utterly failing.
Set's not... The gods of death were highly... They didn't even... Aw, fuck it
actually they got it wrong it is anubis god of death
Katherine Stephen Anubis is the god of death rituals (mummification and such), they didn't really have a specific god of death. Closest to that would be lord and judge of the dead, Osiris. Both Anubis and Osiris were revered as keepers of order, and NOT THE NAD GUYS. What Set was actually god of is EVIL. Literaally the god of evil. Why change that?
Did these people not know how to Google or just didn't bother to?
Yeah everytime they called Set the god of death I internally died. Set's the god of chaos, deserts, storms, stuff they could of actually fuckin used.
They don't even take History serious but they want us to take their Dark Universe serious. GTFOH!
The God of Chaos thing would actually work better for the climax, explaining why he might turn on the Mummy after he has what he wants (physical body to inhabit).... because unpredictable chaos, Bitch!
I want them to at least make a Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde movie inspired by the game.
Blame the people who did the 95 version from HBO video
@@arielfangirlmendez oh.
The idea alone of creating a modern monster cinematic universe isn't bad, in fact if done well it could be really cool to bring back such classic characters. *If done well.* Good job creators of this movie, you fucked it up.
Sophie Goodman-Merel
Yeah, it'll could've been like a legit Modern Castlevania-esque film! But no, we won't get Van Helsing, we won't get the monster from the black lagoon, and we won't get any Bride of Frankenstein... or maybe an teen monster girl sorority film...
But because this movie was so bad, we will likely never see any of the classic monsters again
Thankfully, we still have the classic movies and books they came from, but it would still be nice to see them in the modern era
Superman had 2 movies, before they did Batman vs. Superman (which also had a Wonder Woman cameo). Then it got a Wonder Woman and a Justice League movie.
The Avengers started with 5 movies with no connecting plot (except that Iron Man 2 was a sequel of Iron Man). There are hints of a "team" or hints to the next film in post-credits scenes, but not in the movie itself. Heck, Iron Man 2 and Thor feature minor Avengers (Black Widow and Hawkeye) who don't even get their own movie, but the others are solo acts. The team is only put together in the 6th movie.
That's how you build a universe. Start with The Mummy as just The Mummy. Then do Dracula, and have a few callbacks to an event in Egypt, but nothing else. Then have a Frankenstein movie, where Frankenstein justifies his actions by talking about the undead in Romania. Then do a werewolf movie that doesn't call back. Then do a crossover where Dr. Jeckel calls the rest of the monsters together to find and destroy a creature which turns out to be Mr. Hyde. That's you do a cinematic universe.
That would be
AWESOME
I've often wondered how you could do a Jekyll and Hyde movie that could actually recreate the shock reveal of the original novel. Nowadays, it seems pretty much impossible, seeing as everyone knows Hyde and Jekyll turn out to be the same person. I think you've actually come up with a way to do it. I could just imagine a movie where everyone in the audience assumes this unnamed doctor who's turned these monsters into monster hunters is Van Helsing. Then *BOOM,* turns out he's Jekyll!
1) Use his first name. Call him Henry, or better yet call him Harry (when its revealed later his name is Henry Jeckyll). "Dr. Henry" would make him sound like it's his last name.
2) Use codenames for the group. If you don't know his real name is Jeckyll.
3) Subvert the original story. Dr. Jeckyll is not Mr. Hyde. There's another that is. Then in the 2nd ensemble movie, he is Mr. Hyde. Unexpected because the first time he wasn't, either.
4) Make the movie for teenagers who don't even know who Jeckell and Hyde are.
Id watch THE SHIT out of that crossover movie
DC is a terrible, terrible example, but yeah. And Superman had only one movie.
I like how james rolfe is calm and chill, though he does get mad a few times in the video, while doug walker is so hyper and goes crazy about how bad this movie is LOL
JurassicAvenger/Goji14 the opposite
Good cop/bad cop. Same result. BAD MOVIE.
Well james is the one who reviews movies the nerd does video games
"They're not even poisonous" . . . well, he's technically right, spiders aren't poisonous.
Those are probably camel spiders, and being venomous would be a downgrade from the realty of those damned horrors
Except for BLACK WIDOWS!
@@liampatrick3110 nah they're still venomous, i think
What gets me is that they completely waste the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde character! That could have been really suspenseful since the audience already knew he would go bad and so we would be waiting for it. When he finally did turn it would be like Colombo where the suspense would come from the characters (including Jekyll himself) finding out the truth. It could have been about the struggle between a man and his dark side. Instead we get an obvious bad guy trying to kill our wonder bread protagonist.
Someone didn't look up their Egyptian history. She still would have been queen, when she married her new brother, and being so much older probably would have ruled in his stead.
To be fair when is Hollywood ever truly historically accurate
**Shudders**
If there was realistic royal family Amunet could have been eviller by killing dozens siblings and lesser wives. No sense
And (I’m no expert on the matter) wasn’t being mummified an honor? At the verry least, I know Anubis was the god of death, not Seth.
This is clearly not meant to be historically accurate because if it was the actors would all be black.
If Universal really wanted to pull a Marvel Universe, they should have remade each classic in the time period it was originally set, with elements that indicate a group/organization is trying to track down evidence from these various legends in the present day. This would enable each movie to stand alone while still having that world-building element. For instance, a cold open showing people rumaging throught the British Museum's storage that flashes back to the actual story of the Mummy, and then closes with the people from the opening finding the sarcophagus or an ancient papyrus with the ressurection spell. You could write it to give just enough introduction to these characters that the audience becomes invested, but still not give away if we should think they're good guys or bad guys. It would probably work really well because of how much the Internet LOVES to speculate about films from tiny shreds of evidence, so if each establishing film introduced one or two new characters who would eventually form the cast of the crossover films, the hype would create itself.
And with this film, I have no idea what they're even trying to set up. Is it an Avengers knockoff, where the "gods and monsters" will be assembled into a team to fight a greater foe? Is it ripping off that League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie from a decade ago (how long until THAT becomes a universe?) where the guy putting the team together is trying to steal all the powers for himself to take over the world? Are they conducting research to protect humanity from supernatural threats, or trying to form a version of the B.R.P.D.? For a movie that is all about setting up future movies, I feel like I have no idea what's going on.
That actually sounds pretty cool, exciting, imaginative and clever. What other ideas do you have, I want to see more!
Yea an Ammunet movie would've been great. Ends with her getting ressurected and sliding the cover off the tomb
There’s the 1 thing Monster and other universe are missing. Fiege&Kennedy. No one else really had leader above the directors, who had control of the overall vision.
Snyder doesn’t really count, since he was personally invested in his own vision of how it should go, and not the arc of the other movies, outside of his control.
Anyone like that is a must for combined universe success. Something that DC finally appointed in a non-director.
You...are a genius
Damn, the comments section is filled with BETTER ideas than what was actually presented!
9:55
Funny thing is it wasn't on a spinning set. It's actually taken in a nosediving plane because Cruise wanted the scene to look more authentic.
Fun Fact, Egypt actually did allow female rulers. They thought the soul of the pharaoh simply changed vessels when a new pharaoh took place. So the villains motivations make less sense
Bentheheropon :D DID THEY DO ANY RESEARCH?
Cleopatra comes to mind, all 7 of them..
Hatshepsut's another.
MrDemonking30 Well, according to a comment chain right above this one, no. While the pharaoh one may be a little harder to suss out, Googling "Egyptian god of death" would probably not give you Set as the first hit. You're more likely to end up with Osiris, Anubis, or maybe even Isis (the last I'm really just spitballing with, it seems more like she's the goddess of life, just by GOOGLING IT).
Life, magic, and people. Anubis was god of death first, before Set killed Osiris, who then took the role, and Anubis became god of embalming, which is why priests wore jackal heads during funerals and mummifications. Osiris retained his position as god of judgement. Anubis and Osiris are two of the three who judge the dead by weighing their hearts against the Feather of Truth/Ma'at, which also means order.
If I ever make a cinematic universe, I will make sure that telling a good story takes priority over setting up a franchise.
You don’t get to decide that. The executives do. Dracula Untold was supposed to be a self contained story till at the last minute the executives ordered it changed to make it the start of the dark universe.
Which also failed.
shadowspider9 Well f@$#
MAybe you should just go independent for now.
Easier said than done.
I will gladly help you with this! I basically wrote an outline of another version of The Mummy
Apparently, The Mummy and Man of Steel have something in common:
a) Both contain the always awesome Russell Crowe...
b) ... who provides the exact same expositions TWICE ...
c)... and ultimately dooms two cinematic universes in a row.
Glen Wang at least with Man of Steel, it focused on one story rather than setting up a cinematic universe. The Mummy on the other hand is the exact opposite.
True Story!
Man of Steel was good
*_are you sure about that_*
Biggest difference Man of steel led to something more
Honestly, this would be a great Universe.
And Cinematic Universes have ALWAYS been around, it's just now they're being done in a very bad way, despite Marvel being the first working compilation series for DECADES.
Well, Marvel's universe is still currently the most successful and regarded as the best. All the other attempts at cinematic universes failed before they even started. (Except the Monsterverse with Godzilla and Kong, though I'm not sure if they have any plans for longevity after Godzilla vs Kong.)
I know, I just don't have any interest in comic books, so it doesn't do anything for me.
They should have STARTED with Crowe's Jeckyll, and how he came to start his whole organisation.
That's because everyone else is rushing the development of the Universe, Marvel put theirs together over a decade, and if Iron Man had been a flop we probably wouldn't even have the MCU. I really think the fact Universal announced this as the launch of their own cinematic universe effectively made it dead on arrival, because then they just looked like they were riding Marvel's coattails. Which obviously they were, but they also should have chosen a different film than "The Mummy" to start with, because OF COURSE people would compare it to the Brendan Frazier film and not the original version. They should have started with a less popular character and built up to The Mummy, with Dr. Jekyll's film origin story either taking place somewhere in the middle, OR being peppered throughout the films. So much wasted potential...
@@KnightsaysNi In the Universal Classic Monsters, the cinematic universe should've been started with Phantom Of The Opera since it's the first movie that started all before Frankenstein, Dracula, Werewolf, and other monsters.
God, I think even I could've written this movie better, and I've never made a movie. In fact:
The film would take place in modern day, but will have Cruise play an Archaeologist with Annabelle Wallis as his partner/love interest (cliché, but whatever). They would hire a PMC group to guard the dig site as three members (C-list actors for recognition) follow then into the tomb, where the movie would mostly take place. We'd shortly cut to Ahmanet awakening from her undying slumber in bandages, and casting a form of the curse to shut the tomb. They'd explore deeper and deeper to find another exit, as they encounter multiple traps and, of course, the bugs from the Brendan Frasisr film. As they get deep enough, Cruise and Wallis find a large wall with Heiroglyphics explaining Ahmanet's curse and her origin. She'd become a Pharoah's wife, but kill him to get all power. As she delves into dark magic to kill any conspirators, she soons becomes a lover to the God of Chaos, Set. She soon runs afoul of her pride, that conspirators kill her and has a curse placed on her body, where she has to kill whomever enters her tomb to regain full power. There'd be all forms of ancient seals and whatnot shown on her sarcophagus, and even a view as to how degraded and ruined they've become. As they continue on, the PMC members turn their guns to the Archaeologists, telling them that they're not leaving until they get the Pharoah's treasure near her sarcophagus. When they reach the burial chamber, they see all her followers buried with her, and she arises in a horrific splendor of Ahmanet. She then threatens to release her magic upon the world by releasing Set, and the Archaeologists scatter with the PMC group leader dying after showing blatant stupidity in shooting at her. As they run, she brings to life her undead army, and Cruise finds an ancient artifact to end her undead army and seal her away powerless. They succeed, but have to escape. Ahmenet manages to somehow remove the artifact from her, and uses her power to chase after the group in a large sandstorm. They find an ancient exit, a tunnel with two boats: one a trap, and the other the real exit. One PMC hops into one boat to reveal their end, and Cruise's group leaves in the other. The final PMC member runs for the treasury to grab something before leaving, only to be trapped with the legion of insects. Crusie and Wallis leave in a large gust of sand, as Ahmanet follows quickly behind them. They find the dig site, and grab two horses to run off into the desert. As the storm approaches, the woman finds the artifact in the sand, and rides back into Ahmanet's storm. As the artifact enters, the sand falls to the ground with Ahmanet revealed, and she places the artifact on Amonet's body, causing it to return to a mummified state. She and Cruise take the Sarcophagus and Amonet's body with them to bude back in the tomb. Roll credits. Mid-credit Stinger: a group of people with strange uniforms find her sarcophagus, and Crowe opens it, and removes the artifact. He quickly places cursed braces on her wrists, placing her under his momentary control. A soldier would ask Dr. Jekyll something about the next creature, and he would even say something like "Grab the silver rounds." Done; Boom.
Sounds pretty boring dude, sorry
There's a reason you never made a movie, that was not very good, you bring nothing new to the story
Starman Gaming I think that would have been a better film than what we got. It would have been a better starting off point for the universe, and possibly we would have gotten sequels. They should have hired you over the other writers.
Honestly it sounds rather long but the visual effects it would take and need for your version I'm certain it would overall be a great Mummy movie.
better than THIS god-awful reboot
the problem with cinematic universes (that aren't marvel) is that their trying to rush things, iron man started it and was subtle with it, introducing shield and then waiting for nick fury at the end, did it again with hulk bringing up the super soldier serum and then tony stark coming up at the end, then iron man 2 had black widow and said thor was next, point being, marvel waited, they were penitent with it, every other CU is trying SOOOOOOOOO hard to push in so much, all for nothing because they cum on too strong (yes that was intentional since the product is on the same level as that), its all about waiting
The Monster-Verse is doing fine.
I agree om that one. You clearly cant rush a cinematic universe. It just doesnt work.
Getting the viewer into that universe, introducing key players and aspects and build up for the big cross over event are just too vital.
I mean why would I care about a crossover, when I am not invested in the cross over characters or worse (looking at you Justice League) havent been introduced to them at all. And I feel like thats the core idea of a cinematic universe: you introduce characters in their personal isolated plotlines, while in the backgrounf you work towards that big cross over, when those plotlines eventually collide.
Yeah, that's also why Kong: Skull Island worked in terms of introducing the Godzilla and the other kaiju: it focused on presenting the one adventure, with one or two references to what would come later and the reveal of Monarch's true purpose at the end of the film.
This was such a masterpiece of writing. I wish you could’ve been the spokesperson at WB when they stated the DCEU. 😇
Andrew Viewtieful Tachibana I kinda hate marvel for starting this trend to begin with
Cause now everything is part of an extended universe
But I will be honest
The monsterverse is doing pretty good in building it up at least
The DCEU is doing pretty solid with films like Wonder Woman Shazam and aquaman
That's btw about it of good extended universes next to marvels
"That's like saying that after Bruce Wayne's parents died, he wanted to become Batman, open a flower shop, become a disco dancer and create three different new ice creams." 😂haha
Everyone knows that Batman story would have failed because everyone knows Batman would have opened up a taco stand. Him opening a flower shop would have ruined the suspension of disbelief.
After opening the taco stand, Deadpool kills Batman because of two reasons- Marvel told him to, and he wanted to sell chimichangas himself. Motivations everywhere!
I know Poison Ivy opened a flower shop when she "went straight" for a while, it may have even been sponsored by Wayne Enterprises (reform program) soooooo technically.....
But before Batman died, at least he found a way to be a disco dancer while learning to be a mariachi. All is right with the world again. 😌
" _I understand that not every soldier is a saint_ "
- Nostalgia Critic
Tbh I liked the crooked army guy setup... no idea why they thought it was offensive but I am not American and dont care about the military so what do I know
@@bingobongo1615 I have zero problems with the character. The quote of the critic was dumb. No soldier is a saint.
@@bingobongo1615 Americans have a wierd thing about the armed forces. Generally Non-Americans find it... odd.
Soldiers are usually held up on some pedestal. Which is a little odd considering every war they've fought in the last 70 years has been one collosal fuck up after the other - and the fact that they have standing orders to invade the Hague if an American is ever charged with war crimes... Which wouldn't exactly inspire me to have confidence in my nations armed forces...
The us military is constantly disrespected now and days and we should be grateful that they protect us while we’re just minding our own business. Just saying they deserve more respect!!!
@@questworldiangreenknight7455 First of all get out of your bubble. The US military is not the only military in the world. Just because we enjoy an American creator doesn't make us American. And secondly I was referring to the concept of being a soldier anywhere in the world. Killing someone for a living or being order to kill someone even if it is a matter of justice doesn't make you a saint.
A saint would not harm anyone for no reason.
Also, Set's the god of the desert, not the dead. That's Osiris or Anubis
actually set was the god of chaos, indeed they got the egyptian gods all wrong
anubis is the god of the dead osiris is the god of death
Dylan Kaiser well neither can be specifically called the god of death or the dead. Osiris was the god of the underworld while anubis was the god of mummification. It was mostly translation errors
Yeah... but Anubis and Osiris were not "evil", Set was, at least from an Egyptian perception.... and people know that Set = Evil guy, even if theyt do not know anything about Egyptian mythology. I guess "God of Death" sounds cooler and most people will not even know the difference anyway.
Are we not gonna talk about the fact that SETH IS NOT A GOD OF DEATH??? He's a chaos god. A single Google search could've fixed this. Osiris would have been the better choice as he was ruler of the underworld and himself a dying and rising god who was in charge of death and resurrection. He even wore bandages and seemed to be actively decomposing. But they chose Seth... for some reason.
Wait, he's a Chaos god? We'd better call the Space Marines and Inquisition...
EmileeArsenic 00f is that jugos sexy facial hair I see?
Well, Seth was the bad boy in Egyptian mythology. He killed Osiris and chopped him up into different parts and hid him.
Osiris, on the other hand, was a benevolent god. He was a god of fertility. That is why his skin is green in Egyptian iconographics. The colors and sizes in them don't signal "real" circumstances but have a distinct meaning, eg the bigger the more important.
Weren't ancient Egyptians WORSHIPPED death and looking forward to it so that they can live happily in the Afterlife?
Isn't that why all those pyramids were built?
i could have sworn, from all the books I've read, that it's the chaos god ofthe barren earth, Set. Not Seth.
The OFFICIAL Dark Universe Plan:
- Release Dracula Untold
- It sucks so nobody watches it
- Say Dracula Untold is not canon and start over
- Release The Mummy(2017)
- It sucks so nobody watches it
- Delay Bride of Frankenstein with obvious plans to cancel it in the future
- Start over in 2020
And here I thought DC was the worst at building good Cinematic Universes.
I thought Dracula Untold was ok. Wierd that they turned an evil blood sucking monster based on a tyrant that impaled his enemies both within and without in such a way that they could survive for several day on wooden spikes to scare off invaders but still a somewhat decent vampire flick.
I know, but I want Dark Universe to exist. It has so much potential. I'm not happy that this movie bomb. I'm saaaad.
Pee Wee Didi I prefer the Dracula from Van Helsing to be honest. That movie was good in my opinion as it was over the top in a sense where I could enjoy it. Like the Brendan Fraser Mummy it was a bit more cooler and entertaining
Thrall Fan you forgot the wolfman remake and I Frankenstein
I watch movies to have fun can no one do that anymore
I mean this movie got flaws but every movie got flaws just I love the old monsters and some parts were good In this film. Just stop bashing on movies and except them as movies don't watch them if u don't like them. But everyone has opinions and that's fine.i just love the old monsters
There is also the problem that they made Cruse's character totally OP. He is now a god. If this hadn't sunk the Dark Universe, how was he going to go up against Dracula, the wolfman and all the other monsters?
Well Mr. Hyde seem to go toe-to-toe with God Tom really well. ...soooo the other monsters may have a chance. We can always call League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to help out.
“Watched this one, have I. All his life, as he looked away to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. What he was doing.”
-Yoda
Yoda in the originals: an actual funny and lovable character
Yoda in the prequels: *Backflip, I do. Committed war crimes, I have*
@@theresarayner5726
War crimes?
@@wrybreadspread watch the Clone Wars.
@@topcoppelion6626
Shall do. 'Preciate the head's-up.
Lol 😂 good point!
While there were many instances of bad writing in the movie, the one that pissed me off the most was the scene with Dr. Jekyll turning into Mr. Hyde. The timing and where they used it played absolutely no part in furthering the story with the mummy. You could have cut that entire scene and it wouldn't have made a difference, spectacle for the point of spectacle.
They could have done so much more with it. Make him turning into Mr. Hyde a plot point. Instead of the random possessed guy releasing the mummy, have Mr. Hyde do it. He revels in chaos and destruction, so make him strike a deal with the mummy, as watching the world burn when she rampages should entice him. Then they could even make it so that the female lead has to deal with him while Cruise fights (gets his ass kicked) by the mummy. Maybe even give her a chance to get a little more characterization or at least be more useful. It was just a waste.
Like I said before they should've made the ending where Dr. Jekyll is trying to create a way to separate Set from Cruise which will be the potion that will turn him into Hyde.
Here's another thing: how often does he take the Potion to hold back Hyde?
He takes it when Cruise gets there and needs to take it again in like, what, 2 hours?
If they set up the idea that the Mummy made him transform, fine. They don't.
You're name is ironic you waffle on
They did show the book of life during that scene though and that was dope
They had so much set up. Can you imagine a GOOD mummy movie that takes place in the middle east?
Can you imagine the powerful imagery that could come from Soldiers vs Terrorists, fighting to take control of the mummy and having the power spiral out of control? A firefight erupting between the two forces, soldiers helping evacuate civilians, children and adults screaming while mortars go off, and a sandstorm sweeping in. The horrific quiet as the sand dies down, desiccated bodies frozen in place still clinging weapons as the mummy walks through the town, reaching down and picking up an artifact. The eerie scene of the mummy leaving the town, a legion of soldiers, terrorists, and civilians following behind... Can you imagine how creepy it would be to see a marching child, clinging to a teddy bear with a gunshot hole? The horror of war in a horror movie?
...that is terrifying, shut up and take my money.
You just wrote a very good plot for a mummy movie. Hollywood should hire you
That’s So Awesome! Holy Shit!
*gets blasted by Super Mecha Death Christ*
“WATCH THAT FUCKIN’ LANGUAGE!!!”
*Claps hands*
You have a better story and plot idea compared to this movie 😂 well done
Wag the Director: Variety's expose revealed that Tom Cruise had a lot of control over the film and these include:
-Early drafts of the script gave about 50/50 screentime to Nick Morton and Ahmanet. But Cruise brought in writers he was more familiar with (David Koepp, Christopher McQuarrie, and Dylan Kussman) to make changes to the script, including (but not limited to) increasing Nick's screentime at the expense of Ahmanet's screentime and development. Given that this was one of the most heavily-criticised aspects of the film (see They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot on the YMMV page) this could qualify as one of the most-destructive examples of this trope in recent history.
-Alex Kurtzman was director in-name only, as it was essentially Cruise who was the actual director of the movie. In all fairness to Cruise, Kurtzman's inexperience in directing big-budgeted action blockbusters was showing through, giving even more incentive for Cruise, who's worked on these type of films for a good portion of his career and knows the ins and outs of them, to take the reins.
-The whole production team basically falling in line with whatever Cruise said, going as far as overseeing the editing of the movie with his preferred editor, Andrew Mondshein.
as someone who served in the military for 9 years, Tim Cruise's performance is actually pretty accurate
I WILL NEVER GET TRIED OF THE NEW NOSTALGIA-WEEN LOGO!!
Dexter The Nostalgia Toonster Tired*
NOT ME!
At first I thought he was going to review the Ghost in the Shell movie and I thought
"Oh God no, he's going to hate it."
Then I saw what he's actually reviewing and OH GOD THIS IS EVEN WORSE!!
I was first not sure if it would be Ghost in the shell or Death note but when he showed Dragon ball Evolution I gave away a little scream. I am going to enjoy that review more than I should.
The Ghost in the Shell movie wasn't even that bad...
Agreed. I mean, when it comes to Hollywood anime adaptations, GITS is the most watchable
Bryan Williams SAME
Ghost in the Shell wasn't bad, it just wasn't great, which is what anime to movie adaptations need right now. It died in it's own mediocrity. I think the the key to adapting anime to a movie is to not let anyone know about it. Look at Edge of Tomorrow, it was based off a manga but no one knew that until after they loved the movie.
I knew 'The Mummy: 2017' was going to suck the first time I ever saw a trailer of it...
When this movie was released, a friend of mine who knew how much I loved the Brendan Frazier version made me promise not to go see this. But to my everlasting shame, I broke that promise.
NC - Shows the DVD for Dragonball Evolution
Me - Run for cover.. he's gonna get really really disappointed!
Disappointed doesn't even begin to describe of how will Critic react to the movie.
I think I know precisely how he would react. You remember NC’s look of pure rage in the beginning of the monkey bone review?
Damn, this movie made the Brendan Fraser movie look Oscar worthy, lol! (I actually enjoyed the first 2 Fraser Mummy flicks)!
You know they made a 3rd Fraser Mummy movie, right? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mummy%3A_Tomb_of_the_Dragon_Emperor)
@@macroplanet maybe he does but just didn't enjoyed it
@@macroplanet yup, and they did The Mummy dirty in that 3rd one. This movie line was supposed to be a mix of horror and action (with comedy of course). But that movie was as scary as Disney's Snow White.
@The Eyes Of A True Demon oh yeah
Instead of a god awful remake, THAT movie got multiple god-awful direct-to-video sequels
It makes Brendan Fraser one like masterpiece in comparison
I’m new to your show, and going through your entire back catalogue. Just had to stop and say, thanks for the great content.
Doug is a bit bias against magic. And conveniently leaves out scenes that would complicate his review.
You're gonna be here awhile.
@@forrestgump6065 he shows scenes that support his ideas and show his point of view. Hes not up loading the whole movie/show
This review made me realize I actually saw this in theaters and completely forgot all about it.
😂😂😂😂😂😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣🤣
Maybe they should upload a second version of this without music or sound effects, just like the first trailer for the movie.
and half of the voices?
Movie Man or maybe you could just enjoy what they put out. they obviously don't care about youtube guidelines. i dont either. fuck youtube guidelines.
MikeyxStyles lolwut
FilmGeek Studios fuck the system mannn.
MikeyxStyles but your reply had nothing to do with the original comment
This is something I have not been able to understand when it comes to these other movies trying to create a cinematic universe. They keep wanting to rush it. Marvel succeeded because Iron Man, the first in the Marvel cinematic universe was almost completely shock of all shocks completely about Iron Man. there was one other character during most of the movie that had a part that ended up having to pay off of him being part of S.H.E.I.L.D. And there was the reveal of Nick fury at the end credits but other than that Tony Stark did not create the suit escape his captors and then spend a half hour looking up stuff on Captain America, Thor, and the Hulk.
Nazo- kage Yeah it was one of the flaws of why DC with its new universe St ugglea at times and other people just go rush in like idiots to get on the cinematic universe craze before it all runs out... Which it has at this point.
In a sense, the Fox X-Men films could also be considered a shared cinematic universe, since it revolves around the interweaving stories of multiple main characters over many decades of history/lore (plus in two different timelines, with "Days of Future Past"). Wolverine and Deadpool even have their own movies within that universe.
While I think the MCU method works as a good model for world-building (as it also seems to work for the Legendary's recent Monsterverse starring Kaiju like Godzilla and Universal's original gothic horror flicks starring Dracula/Wolfman/Frankenstein's Creature), I am hesitant to say that it is the only way to make one, since X-Men did the exact opposite: starting out with the team-up movies and then making solo films. Then again, X-Men might have worked so easily that way because all of the characters had similar origins (since they were all mutants, as oppose to the Avengers that were each different) and it was easy to portray those multiple characters naturally fighting for a common cause (since the main movies revolved heavily around the Xavier/Magneto conflict, which had implications for all mutants).
And i don't get why try rush their universe. They have so much time and can create good selling movies to set up the universe, why rushing it?
plus if they wouldn't rush and just take it slow they would have a lot more movies to profit off of. You'd think that alone would give them a reason to do it right.
because now movie execs are getting involved cause they see dollar signs... when they can look up from snorting Coke.
That ending... Oooooh that ending... I hope the Critic appreciates Speed Racer after watching THAT masterpiece-of-s***...
It's kind of a dead horse, but it'd be nice seeing him review it
It sure is, but here's the thing, the Critic isn't an anime fan... Could that mean a fresh perspective?
He actually did. You just have to find it on Bennett the Sage's channel.
Yeah, I've seen it, and that's why I've commented this... The Critic didn't like the movie, but here's hoping that watching this turd will make him grow a little more respect for that fine adaptation...
Michirin9801 I hear you have to be high to appreciate it. :p
The only thing I like about the movie is how hot the villain is
Lol 😆
Sofia Boutella deserves better
The thing that bugs me the most is that Set is not the god of death. He is the god of storms, the desert, evil, chaos, war, violence and foreigners.
Any other Egyptian mythology nuts cringe at this movie
Kechem 123 yes, but it happens almost every time I see a trailer of the movie based on ancient myths.
I did. You'd have a hard time finding anyone who didn't cringe.
Yeah, though still not as much cringing as when I saw the trailer for Gods of Egypt (a movie which I will never ever ever watch)
Gods of Egypt is a surprisingly decent film. It has a nice story pacing, and the actions is entertaining enough. If you can just pretend its a Transformers Egyptian spinoff. AFAIK it follows the mythology much closer than other Hollywood movies
Lai SY Yeah, minotaurs in Ancient Egypt, follows mythology much closer, sure.
Remember Dracula Untold. That was supposed to be the start of the dark universe. It told a self contained story with only a hint of a future franchise
That movie actually wasn't that bad...I'm sorry they didn't use it as the beginning.
It wasn't great, but it was definitely better than this confusing trainwreck.
Same with Green Lantern
Still disappointed that never continued, it was a better constructed piece to this "film"
Dont forget about the wolfman with anthony hopkins and benecio del toro
"They're not even poisonous!"
At least they got that right.
The actual term is "venomous". Venom is injected into you via bites and stings from insects and reptiles. Plants, foods and drinks can be poisonous because you can consume them.
@@kristofgriffin384 I know the difference. Camel spiders aren't venomous.
But it bit me!
It would be more entertainment a darker cinematic universe made with Brendan Fraser Mummy and Hugh Jackman Van Helsing than this...
tiger don't forget Bram Stockers Dracula with Keanue Reeves
indeed
tiger I would watch the shit out of that no joke
At least those movies had fun being corny. This didn't know what it wanted to be.
I really liked Dracula Untold. Can't understand why it flopped, wasn't it supposed to be the original start to the Dark Universe?
Look at the end of Kong Skull Island now thats how you build a monster universe
Scarygermanguy I KNOW!!!
Scarygermanguy no!!
Well, the way I see it, that worked because they save the shared universe until the very last minute, and the rest of the movie acted as a single story for us to enjoy.
That's interesting to see these monster movie universe since Godzilla, King Kong, Megalodon, etc. Well, it could be interesting if there's also a monster universe from classic monsters like Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, Invinsible Man, Werewolf, The Mummy, etc. They should have stick to the classic since they don't make it anymore. The classic monster universe should have re-made into CGI if necessary or stick to the traditional/practical effect.
12:52 - Thank you, Nerd. I'm not even a huge horror buff and I immediately thought of American Werewolf, mainly because that's one of my favorite parts of that movie. This piece of shit just flat-out stole it. Way to ruin the mystery of your antagonist and make your story more convoluted, Hollywood! Also, setting up a film universe is fine, but you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot if you're already trying to cram several movies' worth of lore INTO THE INTRODUCTORY FILM.
Also Russell Crowe is not a stand-in for Nick Fury. Whoever made that dumbass decision to have Javier in this role needs to be fired.
Well, they also had this good Monster Universe movie. It was called "Monster Squad".
Fucking right bro.
Also Frankenstein meets the wolf man was great to.
And Hotel Transylvania
Set...
the god of... death?
did the people who wrote this bother looking at any egyptian mythology?!
(unless there is some obscure interpretation of set that portrays him as a god of death, instead of the desert god, in which case nevermind)
Seth has nothing to do with death! (other than being the father of Anubis and the brother of Osiris). I don't think they did any research on Egyptian culture. The Egyptians didn't vilify/fear death the way that Europeans did so making the god of death (Anubis I believe) the villein makes no sense anyways.
Set is the god of chaos right..? I knew it wasn’t the god of death!!
I thought that was Apophis, although they did kind of have similar domains, so it might just be semantics.
And Set killing Osiris was because Isis (Osiris's wife) banished Set's master. Set had no problem with Osiris, but he loathed Isis for what she did. He made sure to hurt her just as hard as she hurt him.
Like how Dragon ball evolution's writers had clearly not watch dragon ball
Okay, I really have a problem with the mummy's design.
She has big puppy eyes. She can be a big powerful undead monstrosity, but those big puppy eyes just kill it.
Those big double pupil puppy dog eyes. Seriously, what's up with that?
gotta show off those anime-ass double pupils.
for some reason the mummy had to be fuckable
+Eurotrash RC Well, to be honest, the one in the 1999 adaptation was pretty fuckable too for us girl-folk. But he didn't stay that way long. In fact, he was more often seen in his decayed-corpse form because, you know, he was supposed to be a MONSTER and all.
THIS! Thank you. I thought the same. She just stares at you with big puppy dog eyes. She is not scary.
You know what would make Ahmanet more badass?
Retractable leg blades.
Precision is the difference between a surgeon and a butcher, after all
21:25 Like when The Amazing Spider-Man 2 teased the Sinister Six at the end, you know they're next though it never actually happened.
Or when Doug picked up the Dragonball DVD at the end of The Mummy review.
Careful, Nostalgia Critic--too many Rick and Morty references and you might become an ironic meme on Reddit!
Matt Smith you mean those narcissist that just shout Pickle Rick
Matt Smith It's too bad that such a great show gets smeared by association with the most retarded members of its fan base
i hope he references xavier renegade angel
Eh, who really cares about reddit?
People already spam,"You need this high IQ to understand Rick and Morty."
The only Major thing they forgot to mention was Dracula Untold with how it was originally going to being the Dark Universe but it was also a better film.
Micshork Maybe that skull with teeth in the was supposed to be a hint that Dr. Jekyll and Prodigium took care of Dracula before they caught Amhenet?
Or maybe it was just lazy writing?
Or both?
Say what you like about Brendan Fraser mummy, but at least it had some colour! This film is all blue and grey. Easy on the filters guys...
tactictoe More original ideas too.
about that...
Why do people (most notably, producers and, possibly, directors) think that is a popular thing?? I believe many, many people have already proclaimed how incredibly tired these bland colourschemes are!
Really, what movie made that 'filter' popular? What movie was praised for it's boring colours??
Well it is the DARK Universe. I guess that means no colors allowed.
For some reason, A LOT of movies do this trend: "If the movie is going to get darker. then remove color from it and make everything grey."
Shaky cam CAN add to a sense of panic, but it's hardly ever used that way, it's almost always shaky cam plus EXTREME CLOSE UP on the action. Looking at you, most fight scenes from the past 15 years...