The Mummy 4K 2017 Ultra HD 2160p

Story Movie

In the middle of the pitiless desert, the daughter of the Egyptian pharaoh is buried in a majestic sarcophagus, but the day will come when she will appear in our world to reclaim what belongs to her by right. From now on, the world is ruled by gods and monsters.

Review 4K Movie

It's a strange thing, the film was really exciting, interesting to watch, but returning my thoughts to it, I understand that there are many shortcomings that simply will not allow the film to be given a very high rating. On the other hand, entertainment cinema is designed to entertain, so it is entertaining.

There is one big surprise in this picture, bordering on bewilderment: the image of Tom Cruise. It so happened that we got used to him as a gallant hero, the winner of good over evil and the embodiment of all the good that can be imagined. Well, here he is not like that. His hero Nick is an ironic thief, smart, selfish enough and sometimes selfish. In this picture, he is busy saving his own skin from the clutches of evil. Tom plays well, but you don’t believe his character a single gram, well, it’s impossible to imagine for some reason that he is rather bad, but kind inside than just kind, so even the main character’s phrase about something like that looks fake. It's not that the actor can't cope with the role, it's just that this cliché is so strong that it is not so easy to overcome it. And not to say that Tom directly played an egoist hero, again no, ironic - quite, but selfish - no, he is drawn to heroism again, there is not even much to describe, in my opinion, a complete lack of character.

Something went wrong with the main villain of the picture. The beginning, I confess, is impressive: a beautiful Egyptian princess, you can just admire, almost a tragic story, somewhat unsaid. But the sequel ... This character suddenly becomes a soulless function from a living, without other aspirations and motives, except as the main one. The villain becomes almost a mechanism, and therefore loses its attractiveness to the viewer. And she wants to come up with something in her soul, some experiences and weaknesses, but they are not, and in this case, how does she differ from conventional zombies, which can be the main villains only in mass, because they are not individually interesting to anyone? The external contrast of the image of both the past and the present appearance is a little jarring: it was not an otherworldly charm that was added, but ... wear and tear, time spares no one, even takes grace. So it's not very interesting to look at a princess from a purely outward appearance in the present. She is, of course, a physically strong villain, but morally completely boring, so you don't even believe in her power, in the local - yes, in the global - no.

There are a few other things that are not very well played and filmed. First: the love line. We have a gallant handsome Nick, a lively explorer Jennifer. You need to play mutual attraction. But it doesn't work. Even the periodic squabbles of the heroes look not at all "cute scolds", but just quarrels, the desire of both to help each other also looks like a formula written in the plot, but not played by the actors. Why does Nick do this in the film and not otherwise? Why is Jennifer important to him? Nothing in his behavior, nor in hers, speaks of raging feelings, or even nascent ones. Love failed.

The second not very written and played: the otherworldly line. Since our villain is an otherworldly creature, then she must influence the actions of the heroes, even just by plot. And the influence is not played at all, neither at a distance, nor nearby. She controls insects, but people are not very much. Yes, just no connection has been played, the heroes would have to overcome its influence, show strength of character and everything like that, but they just mention it and its capabilities for granted, and they themselves seem to be completely independent. Here, the failure of the plot still takes place, it was worth paying more attention to the influence of Amanet on the heroes and on their reactions. To the same failure, we will attribute the relationship between Nick and his friend, who appears in the plot simply because it is necessary, and what is “necessary” for the plot is a mystery. These appearances on Nick psychologically do not have any effect at all, why then they should have been intertwined at all is not clear. Either it was not played, as it should, or it is not spelled out in the plot, as it should - it's hard to say for sure.

There is another strange character in this story - Dr. Jekyll, played by Russell Crowe. Probably the most mysterious hero, whose motives remain in the shadows both at the beginning of the film and in the ending. Is he good or bad? It is difficult to say, probably, and it is not necessary to judge unambiguously. But the mystery turned out to be kind of boring, the hero is not revealed either in words or in deeds, the mosaic does not add up, the legend does not develop. A kind of empty image turns out: without a background and without a future, why was the hero introduced? For check? Even a predictable plot twist with ... ahem ... transformation doesn't catch on. It was played, perhaps hard, but the changes do not shock, do not frighten, and also do not give answers (I recall "Split" as an example of a more shocking change). Why there was this episode at all and why there was this hero - the same mystery as why everyone else was.

I was not bored, the film has a certain dynamics, but problems with action are still observed. Everything is somehow too simple: it's too easy to chase the main villain, she's predictable for too long, there are too many really empty conversations and actions that ultimately do not affect anything. The final exit of Nick at first strikes him with his physical form, and then leaves him in disbelief after a kind of battle, where all possible clichés about villains and heroes and the actions of villains and heroes are mixed. In the finale, the main question "why" and "how so" arises, which remain unanswered.

With humor, the picture also did not work out, there were not a single "chemical" heroes who would dilute the plot with jokes. Tom Cruise traditionally tried to take over the function of an ironic character, but even he had few jokes, there was not much to laugh аbout: neither over words, nor over actions. There is a plot mistake in reducing the role of a potentially funny hero, which was not justified, but also led to the impossibility of maintaining the ironic mood of the picture.

But she's beautiful. Picture. Delightfully, excitingly filmed Egyptian scenes, very beautiful and airy in those days Amanet (only scenes constantly repeated for some reason), spectacular shots of excavations today. All this is really very impressive. Many scenes were filmed in an interesting, sometimes frightening way. Visual embodiment is an absolute plus of the picture.

A classic film at times. Not catchy, hastily prescribed heroes, strangely chosen actors for the main roles (albeit stars, but somehow not very suitable). The main conflict is shot very coldly, neither the film nor the audience lacks emotion. A very formal picture: removed as a show.