Film Name:新木乃伊 / The Mummy
[Warning: This article contains some spoilers, though I don’t think it matters much…]
Is change truly a good thing? Should we admire the courage to endure pain and strive for progress, or condemn the reckless abandonment of strengths for flawed compromises?
With this question in mind, I watched the newly released “The Mummy”… and concluded: The issue isn’t whether to change, but whether the change yields positive or negative results.
As the ambitious flagship of Universal’s “Monster Movie Universe,” The Mummy’s makeover is immediately apparent—it’s not just a new coat of paint, but an entirely different formula. The result? It would have been better to stick with the original recipe.
Similar in appearance
Since we’re talking about “The Mummy,” we must first discuss the classic “Old Mummy.”
Setting aside the 1932 original, most of us remember the two “The Mummy” films from 1999 and 2001. Without exaggeration, these two movies largely shaped my foundational understanding and benchmark for fantasy adventure blockbusters. As a young kid back then, I marveled, “Wow! “Movies can be this good!” I watched them countless times without getting bored (What? A third one?)…
Times have changed. Setting aside the inevitable “era gap,” for 21st-century audiences bombarded by blockbusters, revisiting the classic “The Mummy” can only be described as decent—it’s hard to overlook the disappointment of its formulaic feel.
Thus, rebooting a classic is inherently risky.
Returning to this film, the opening scenes initially seem plausible enough: protagonist Nick Morton and his team accidentally discover the tomb where Egyptian princess Amunet is imprisoned while in Iraq.
But when Jenny points out, “This isn’t a tomb—it’s a prison,” and Nick still casually ‘releases’ the coffin without a second thought, I knew there was no point in taking the plot seriously anymore (even Nick’s later excuse, “I know what you’re thinking,” doesn’t save it).
“The Mummy” ostensibly retains many classic elements of the original series: a core trio of protagonists, a physically formidable leading man capable of single-handedly taking on hordes, a brilliantly intelligent and stunningly beautiful leading lady, and a comedic sidekick prone to causing chaos—
The film seems to have them all: Tom Cruise as Nick, the male lead whose looks are undeniable, flexing muscles that are enough to make anyone envious; his partner Will, timid, cowardly, and always looking for a bargain, whose clumsy antics perfectly fit the role of the third wheel; and Annabelle Wallis as Jenny, the heroine who combines smarts and beauty, making her a solid choice.
We’ve got the action hero, the beauty, and the comic relief—yet the chemistry just isn’t there. The reason? It’s all just surface-level.
The Mummy series owes its classic status largely to its historical setting: the early 20th century, when humanity entered a new era. Industrial civilization surged forward, the post-World War I world was in turmoil, and colonies worldwide erupted in independence movements. Ancient evil deities, dormant for millennia, awoke amidst this chaotic age. The clash and fusion of old and new civilizations unfolded against the sweeping backdrop of modern history—both familiar and alien. all of which inherently carried a potent aura of adventure and fantasy.
In the new film, however, the story is set in the present day. Technology has advanced significantly, and the protagonist is now a U.S. soldier. The mystique once cloaked in historical context has long been stripped away, naturally diminishing the romanticism. Not to mention that Weir, who should have provided comic relief, barely makes an appearance throughout…
Only a few elements remain well-preserved: Amunet, returned to Earth, continues wreaking havoc in the British Empire; the giant face opening its mouth in the sandstorm brings a warm sense of familiarity to longtime fans; and the summoning of Crusader skeletons as henchmen elicits a knowing smile—but that’s about it.
unrecognizable
Beyond the superficial pretense, the film’s core spirit has undergone sweeping alterations, evident first and foremost in the choice of leads.
Back then, Brandon Fraser and Rachel Weisz were newcomers, but both possessed exceptional charisma. The male lead, in particular, wasn’t just handsome—he was tall, muscular, and in his prime. Coupled with his ever-present firearms and ammunition, and his rugged, disheveled appearance, he was the perfect fit for an adventure film.
And Tom Cruise?
Looking at Tom Cruise’s filmography, his most memorable roles are largely confined to the “Mission: Impossible” franchise, along with sci-fi titles like “Minority Report,” “War of the Worlds,” and “Edge of Tomorrow”… In short, the characters Tom Cruise portrays or commands are mostly contemporary or futuristic, lacking a strong sense of traditional history—making him an ill-fit for the “Mummy” franchise.
Of course, the protagonist’s image might just make audiences feel a bit off. The film’s real fatal flaw lies in its fundamental shift in genre and focus: what was once action, adventure, fantasy, and comedy now feels more like fantasy, thriller, drama, and action. The lackluster comedy and adventure elements have drained much of the film’s vitality.
Not to mention the big boss, Princess Amunet, who gets tied up by the human members of the “Boh-Janbu”…
Huh? Aren’t you mummies supposed to be invulnerable and all-powerful? Even if you’re weakened right after awakening, getting thoroughly outmatched by human weapons and technology? What’s that supposed to mean?
Truthfully, I had a bad feeling right from the start when Jenny explained mercury’s properties: cramming excessive tech into a film meant to explore supernatural forces is never a good idea. I wasn’t thrilled at all by the idea that technological progress could counter curses and spirits—it just felt incongruous.
Even though Amunet later escaped using dark energy and wreaked havoc across London with her supreme magic, and even though “technology” proved utterly useless by the story’s end—with Nick relying on ancient folk remedies to complete the curse and defeat the formidable foe… the overall gloomy, chaotic narrative clearly pales in comparison to a straightforward, exhilarating battle between good and evil. That kind of showdown is far more satisfying, thrilling, and crowd-pleasing.
—I imagine everyone has noticed that the original two “The Mummy” films featured yellow and gold as their primary color schemes, while this “The Mummy” embraces the dark (gray) palette favored by many blockbusters in recent years.
Monster Universe?
After going to great lengths to tell a muddled tale of “an ancient battle and a princess’s romance,” they even dragged in a slightly bizarre yet all-powerful organization called the “Bojianbu,” complete with an awkwardly positioned yet mysteriously important Dr. Henry…
What on earth is Universal up to? It’s all about their so-called “Dark Universe,” aka the “Monster Movie Universe.” Next, Universal plans to bring Van Helsing, Dracula, Frankenstein, and a whole roster of monsters back to the big screen.
I think most people would react like this: Universal is jealous of Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe, and now Warner Bros. has set up its DC Extended Universe. They’re all building cinematic franchises. Sure, Universal’s cards aren’t the best, but they can try playing them too.
Original content is hard to come by, we all know that.
But constantly milking existing classic franchises inevitably wears thin. Not long ago, “Kong: Skull Island” kicked off Legendary and Warner Bros.’ “Godzilla vs. Kong” trilogy, and now “The Mummy” launches the “Dark Universe” monster series…
I really wish big-budget blockbusters would inject more fresh blood. Has all the talent in the States really gone to make TV shows? ┑(￣Д ￣)┍
Please specify：Anime Phone Cases » The Mummy 新木乃伊 2017 Film Review: Changing the soup also changed the medicine.