The Mummy 3D Blu-ray (2017) [Region Free]

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Jbug

Thanks to Fandango's policy, I didn't see this in 3D but as for the movie, I thought the Fraser version was more entertaining by a long shot. I didn't find the new movie to be spooky at all nor have any intensity going on like I hoped it would. The Dark Universe is off to a dark beginning. Did anyone notice the reference to the Fraser movie

[Show spoiler]the book of the dead with space for the key

? It was brief and if you blinked you missed it.

I liked the film, enjoyed the two hours. There were quite a few nods to the 1999 film. The one you are talking about was a very nice touch indeed. I didn't miss it. It actually links the two franchises into one continuity. This is very much possible seeing as O'Connell's adventures were in the 1920s and the new film is set in 2017.

[film11]

It will probably follow The Great Wall

[agoofykindasuperman]

Saw this Friday night in LieMAX 3D.

Gotta say, I enjoyed the movie, but the 3D was not necessary. Only one scene with birds that I noticed any 3D. What's worse, is you have to keep your vision perfectly leveled with the screen, as even the slightest tilt to either side resulted in ghosting around everything in the image. It was awful. At least with IMAX 3D, you don't pay any more than you do for an IMAX 2D, so no money was wasted. Just brightness was.

[gazadams]

really enjoyed the film and thought the 3d was ok . Could of been a lot stronger and noticed some ghosting in the long distant shots

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by agoofykindasuperman

Saw this Friday night in LieMAX 3D.

Was the aspect ratio any larger than 2.39:1, like 2.20:1?

[whippet]

Caught a showing of this in imax tonight. The sound stage was rocking but 3D fell flat, pun intended. As others pointed out, creating realistic depth was clearly an after thought.

Thor Ragnarok 3D preview looked amazing!

[MercurySeven]

Completely uninspired effort. The dialogue was awful, truly awful, and that's coming from someone who usually defends dumb blockbusters if they're at least fun. The attempts at humour here were just embarrassing for all concerned. Even Cruise, who can be great at comedy, couldn't do anything with this stuff. Jake Johnson was appalling.

I did like some of the action and horror set pieces. The plane crash was very well done. The crawling mummies were good, icky fun. I quite liked the variety of English settings, but I think these classic horror characters are far, far better in period settings (see Hammer horror). The 3-D perked up now and again to give the occasional impressive shot, but otherwise it was tame. An afterthought. I went in really wanting to like this film. I came out wishing I hadn't bothered.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by MercurySeven

I did like some of the action and horror set pieces. The plane crash was very well done. The crawling mummies were good, icky fun. I quite liked the variety of English settings, but I think these classic horror characters are far, far better in period settings (see Hammer horror).

Agree with all of these points. It looked like some of the plane crash footage was filmed in an actual simulated zero-gravity situation. Stuff like that makes me wish there'd been a way to film in native 3D.

[Interdimensional]

I saw it earlier tonight. Wanted to like it, and for much of the first two-thirds, I did. But I felt I was giving them a pass on a number of things, things that didn't add up for me, or were of questionable taste... but I was prepared to overlook these for the sake of entertainment value. I think a lot of the film does work quite well.

But towards the end of the film, I was just getting so fed up with the cinematography, of all things, and the complete lack of awareness of how to film for 3D. I really don't like to criticize, but it's frustrating to be confronted with so much wasted potential.

The conversion house did a decent job most of the time, but they were given a lot of in my opinion awful footage to work on, and there's only so much you can do. Saw it Imax 3D. Don't think it benefited from the large format presentation in the slightest, or the 3D.

It's not a total loss, and I hope they still go ahead with at least Bride of Frankenstein and Creature from the Black Lagoon.

[MercurySeven]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

It's not a total loss, and I hope they still go ahead with at least Bride of Frankenstein and Creature from the Black Lagoon.

I'm curious to see how they approach these other monsters. Bill Condon directing Bride of Frankenstein is a smart move. But the shared universe thing didn't feel promising to me at all in The Mummy. It felt contrived. If they're going to use Tom Cruise's character as some sort of lynchpin to tie the stories together then they got off to a terrible start because he practically has no character. It's one of the worst written hero roles I've ever seen.

I'm rooting for all Universal's monsters. Loved Joe Johnston's The Wolfman, and I didn't hate Dracula Untold. They just need to make these next instalments stand out in ways we haven't seen before. Strong 3-D would have been one, but they botched it here. And with the memory of the sublime Penny Dreadful so fresh in people's minds, Universal really has to up its game in terms of writing, storylines, and atmosphere. They certainly didn't bring their A-game to The Mummy.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by MercurySeven

I'm curious to see how they approach these other monsters. Bill Condon directing Bride of Frankenstein is a smart move. But the shared universe thing didn't feel promising to me at all in The Mummy. It felt contrived. If they're going to use Tom Cruise's character as some sort of lynchpin to tie the stories together then they got off to a terrible start because he practically has no character. It's one of the worst written hero roles I've ever seen.

I'm rooting for all Universal's monsters. Loved Joe Johnston's The Wolfman, and I didn't hate Dracula Untold. They just need to make these next instalments stand out in ways we haven't seen before. Strong 3-D would have been one, but they botched it here. And with the memory of the sublime Penny Dreadful so fresh in people's minds, Universal really has to up its game in terms of writing, storylines, and atmosphere. They certainly didn't bring their A-game to The Mummy.

I was very happy with the Del Toro Wolfman, the wolf makeup was perfect, and overall art direction was about as good as I'd dare hope for from a modern studio production. It also wasn't overwhelmed by the need to expand everything into a massive vfx driven blockbuster.

Not holding out as much hope for the Dark Universe version of the Wolfman, assuming reported casting turns out to be correct, should it be made. Sometimes the big commercial actor isn't always the right choice for the movie. I feel that may have been where the Mummy went wrong. By the end I was rooting for the mummy Ahmanet rather than Cruise or his human love interest. I don't usually do that.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by levcore

Glad you enjoyed the movie too Zivouhr, I thought you might. It's got a lot going for it and the ending leaves things with a lot of great potential with

[Show spoiler]Cruise being the reincarnation of Set. There's so many cool places it could go.

Thanks Levcore. There is a lot of fun action in this film IMO. It didn't take itself too seriously, even though the evil princess often did. I was interested in seeing more of what Russell Crowe would do, but

[Show spoiler]they cut it short.

Originally Posted by Movielovr88

Do you know Rahul? He sells a lot of 3d steelbooks. He will have this one, Wonder Woman, and the new transformers movie. He usually lists the pre orders about a month ahead of time or so.

Yes, thanks.

Originally Posted by MercurySeven

Completely uninspired effort. The dialogue was awful, truly awful, and that's coming from someone who usually defends dumb blockbusters if they're at least fun. The attempts at humour here were just embarrassing for all concerned. Even Cruise, who can be great at comedy, couldn't do anything with this stuff. Jake Johnson was appalling.

I did like some of the action and horror set pieces. The plane crash was very well done. The crawling mummies were good, icky fun. I quite liked the variety of English settings, but I think these classic horror characters are far, far better in period settings (see Hammer horror). The 3-D perked up now and again to give the occasional impressive shot, but otherwise it was tame. An afterthought. I went in really wanting to like this film. I came out wishing I hadn't bothered.

Yes, the zombie mummies were cool.
A few good 3D shots, but I agree, nothing amazing. Average 3D.

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

I was very happy with the Del Toro Wolfman, the wolf makeup was perfect, and overall art direction was about as good as I'd dare hope for from a modern studio production. It also wasn't overwhelmed by the need to expand everything into a massive vfx driven blockbuster.

Not holding out as much hope for the Dark Universe version of the Wolfman, assuming reported casting turns out to be correct, should it be made. Sometimes the big commercial actor isn't always the right choice for the movie. I feel that may have been where the Mummy went wrong. By the end I was rooting for the mummy Ahmanet rather than Cruise or his human love interest. I don't usually do that.

I enjoyed Wolfman also. The ending was a little over the top and lost some of the horror, but still a good horror style film with a lot of new ideas instead of being a direct remake.

I do agree about the framing in this one, which was not often focused on framing it with 3d layers in mind. Too often we got a close up of a person and then blurry background. There's not much you can do with that in 3D.

[Riddhi2011]

I saw it in 3D for the second time last week and was surprised to find a lot more depth into the screen than in my first viewing. Maybe the theatre made a difference. The 3D was realistic.

[jtchance]

I saw THE MUMMY today in a somewhat unique presentation. Showcase Cinemas has this new innovation called MX4D. It combined RealD 3D,Sensurround, Strobe effects and something akin to Smellovision. It turned what was a passable movie with mild 3D into a two hour theme park ride.

[gerdsen]

universal messing with their customers again

https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=21671

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I saw your post on the last page. Is the 3d similar in quality to the 3d trailer online? If so I think i'm going to be happy with it.

Really odd how the film in 2d at least had this nice rich film grain, whereas that 3d trailer has essentially none, but also no artefacts from dnr etc. I do suspect some of it was added in post to give the movie a more filmic look.

Yes, if you don't mind medium 3D layering, as I know you don't, this is a mostly consistent 3D film. It is similar to the trailer, yes. I wish it took more chances, with pop outs too.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Yes, if you don't mind medium 3D layering, as I know you don't, this is a mostly consistent 3D film. It is similar to the trailer, yes. I wish it took more chances, with pop outs too.

I remember a few shoots seemed strong in the trailer (the zombies/mummy thing reaching down upside down at Tom Cruises character, and the shoot of the plane crashing). It'll be interesting if people impressions are better at home, especially as this is quite a dark film, and that is one are where home setups typically are far better then cinema setups (especially in 3d).

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I agree, it's generally entertaining, and the 3D is watchable. Low medium to medium 3D. Not much more than that though unfortunately.

Shame, I don't mind medium, some films I would argue don't call for strong use of 3d. But this one in 2d seemed to have several sequences that would look great in strong 3d or at least upper medium. At the very least i'm glad it isn't a waste of time in 3d mild experience like the recent underworld and finding dory.

[Riddhi2011]

IMAX is gradually pulling out of 3D too, saying American audiences prefer 2D

Originally Posted by antovolk

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...medium=twitter

This is really bad. I hope the Asian scene remains unchanged, with "clear preference" for 3D.

[bud_brigman]

Is there a breakdown somewhere for what percentage of ticket sales are IMAX? (Does lIe-MAX count?)

[reewinder]

Originally Posted by gerdsen

universal messing with their customers again

https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=21671

??? Is this in reference to the lack of a 3D blu ray in the US?
It will be available everywhere else.