blackbriar246

First of all, I was expecting this movie to be total garbage.

Second, this is definitely intended as the first of several Universal monster movie remakes, which will all take place in the same universe and have some degree of crossover. Some not too subtle nods to Jekyll and Hyde, Dracula, and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Could have been more that I missed.

Third, this film strays quite a bit from the original Mummy film and Fraser's Mummy movies.

I was very worried about this movie. I'm a big fan of the original Universal monster films, and I was afraid that this would be another 2010 Wolfman. Thankfully, this time, the filmmakers hit the sweet spot - the movie fits well with modern audiences but pays homage to the original Universal monsters. It's not a fantastic movie, but it excels at what it is: an action monster romp and the introduction to the monster cinematic universe.

The film differs quite a bit from the original: it is set in modern day, and the mummy is female. The mummy being female doesn't change things that much, although the back story is changed quite a bit. I enjoyed the new back story and found it more interesting than the one in the original film and in Fraser's. The modern day setting added something fresh: let's not forget that we have seen 3 mummy films set back several decades in Egypt.

Tom Cruise plays the same sort of character that he always does, but it wasn't offensive here. Sofia is great as the mummy. Jake Johnson is enjoyable and funny, but thankfully doesn't overshadow the darker tones of the film. Russell Crowe is a treat. The other characters are serviceable.

Without getting too into spoilers, this new cinematic universe seems off to a great start. The concept of monsters in the modern age is handled mostly seriously, but with the occasional humor - this topic can't be taken completely seriously after all. It isn't as dim and grim and depressing as the DC universe seems to be headed, but it is more serious and gritty than the Marvel films.

A pleasant surprise. Don't expect it to hold to the original film or the Fraser movies and you'll enjoy it. And with any amount of success, there will be more monster movies to follow.

The Walking Dead at least had a strong first season, even if it went back and forth from awful to mediocre from season 2 on. But Fear the Walking Dead stutters and stalls as soon as the light turns green. Everything moved so slowly; after an hour and a half still not much has happened. It could be called character building, but the characters are thin and boring. It could be called drawing out suspense, but we've had multiple seasons of what will be the aftermath of Fear the Walking Dead, so we already know, in a sense, what will happen. There is no tension to draw out. Almost every single plot point in this pilot event was predictable. It felt like it was written by a middle schooler. Boring and predictable. Like The Walking Dead but without any of the beloved characters like Rick or Michonne or Daryl. Doubt I'll be tuning in again.

To start, if you're torn between reading the book first or seeing the movie first, read the book. Then go see the movie knowing that it's changed some things around and is an overall lesser experience. If you HAVE TO SEE THE MOVIE RIGHT NOW, then give the book a whirl if you don't absolutely hate the movie.

If you read the book, you'll probably be a bit disappointed. The more I think about it, the more things I remember were left out. I'd say that overall the movie kept about 55% of the content from the book.

A lot of stuff was either compressed or completely cut. A lot of things were changed around too. Characters act and/or look different, some key elements from the plot are shortened or absent, etc. The movie isn't an incoherent, awful mess like Eragon was, but it isn't as faithful an adaption as the Harry Potter movies were.

To give some examples without spoiling anything:

• the relationships between the characters are shadows of what they are in the book, especially Thomas/Theresa

• the 'rules' of the Maze are different and thus key events unfold differently

• the whole story moves much quicker and things happen pretty fast. It's very action-driven and things sort of happen to the characters rather than them figuring things out. I also think that the movie takes place over a shorter period of time than the book.

• the whole thing is less violent and dark, probably to appeal to the tween girls that cling to leading man Dylan O'Brien's ankles

But as I said, not a disaster. Visually, the movie looks pretty decent. The CGI isn't bad and the sets for the Glade, Maze, etc were cool. The acting was all on point, especially Dylan O'Brien and whoever did Chuck and Newt. I remember seeing the Newt dude in Doctor Who a while back. Hopefully they move on to bigger and better things, especially Dylan. the dude's the one bright spot in Teen Wolf and he was also the person who brought this movie up from a 4/10 to a 5. Guy's a good actor. And yea I'll admit, I went into this movie already a fan of his.

ANYWAY

I'm a bit torn on how I feel about all the changes made.... on the one hand, it grinds my gears a bit because I feel like the book's version of events is better. On the other hand, it keeps things fresh for people who have already read the book. But you know what, if you go to see a movie based on a book you've read, you aren't going for a new experience. You're going to see the story that you read on paper and acted out in your head played out on the big screen. So in that regard, the movie fails.

Go into the theater knowing the experience will be different, and you might not hate it. You might even enjoy it a little bit.

But on its own, it's a 'meh' movie, and as an adaption, it doesn't do the best job. So if I had to sum up my feelings about this movie in one sentence, it would be:

Not the worst thing ever.

How's that for advertising. Stick it on the posters and trailers.

THE MAZE RUNNER Not the worst thing ever. - blackbriar246