3 / 10
Official trailer
The Mummy is Alex Kurtzman’s 2017 American action horror film and the failed launch of Universal Pictures’ Dark Universe shared monster cinematic franchise.
Tom Cruise plays Nick Morton, an Army sergeant turned antiquities looter who awakens ancient Egyptian princess Ahmanet. Sofia Boutella plays Ahmanet. Russell Crowe plays Dr. Henry Jekyll, who was supposed to lead the wider Dark Universe franchise. Annabelle Wallis plays archaeologist Jenny Halsey. David Koepp, Christopher McQuarrie, and Dylan Kussman wrote the screenplay.
Universal Pictures produced the film on a budget of approximately 195 million dollars, and it grossed approximately 410 million dollars worldwide.
Most bad blockbusters irritate me less than The Mummy does, because the pieces for a fun monster movie are all on the table. Instead Universal made a two-hour trailer for films it never got to make, with Russell Crowe parked in the middle explaining an institution nobody cares about. Sofia Boutella deserved a real movie.
The work is the rare Cruise film that fails on most measures, and it fails in the dullest way possible.
The screenplay attempts to launch a shared cinematic universe while telling a single story and accomplishes neither. The horror is toothless. The action is the same chase-and-crash routine you’ve seen a hundred times. The Tom Cruise star vehicle elements conflict with the franchise launcher elements. The Russell Crowe Dr. Jekyll subplot exists almost entirely to advertise potential future Dark Universe films that the work’s commercial failure prevented from being made. The result is incoherent commercial product that satisfies no audience.
The Franchise Launcher Problem
Universal Pictures intended The Mummy as the launching production for a shared cinematic universe modeled on Marvel Studios’ approach. The Dark Universe was to include Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolfman, the Bride of Frankenstein, and other Universal monster properties developed through interconnected films. The Mummy required serious franchise foundation work that competed with its single-film storytelling requirements.
The franchise foundation work damages the film’s specific story.
The Russell Crowe Dr. Jekyll character occupies considerable runtime without contributing to the immediate Mummy narrative. The character’s scenes establish Dark Universe institutional structure instead of serving the depicted Mummy story. The screenplay can support either the single film or the franchise launcher but not both. The completed film attempts both and accomplishes neither. The Dark Universe was abandoned after The Mummy’s commercial underperformance.
Every Jekyll scene had me wanting to check my watch. Crowe is a capable actor, and here he’s a walking advertisement, reciting the franchise brochure while the story the title promised grinds to a halt.
For Writers
Franchise foundation work and single-work storytelling require different structural priorities that single productions struggle to satisfy at once. Apply this to creative work broadly. Consider whether your work serves immediate story or builds broader infrastructure. Both functions are legitimate but often conflict within single productions.
The Cruise Vehicle Problem
Tom Cruise’s star vehicle requirements conflict with the franchise launcher requirements that the production also demanded. Cruise productions typically center the star’s specific character through accumulated dramatic situations. The franchise launcher requirements demanded that other characters receive major development to support potential continuing productions. The completed film can’t serve both functions.
The Cruise performance maintains the actor’s typical commitment despite the screenplay problems. The depicted action sequences, the underwater zero-gravity moments, and the supernatural confrontations all reflect heavy actor preparation. The performance isn’t the problem. The screenplay doesn’t support the actor’s typical strength because the work’s structural requirements pull in multiple directions.
Cruise does his job. He runs and fights as hard as ever, and the zero-gravity sequence is the one stretch that woke me up. The blame belongs to a script and a studio that wanted one film to do the job of six.
For Writers
Strong individual contributions can’t save work whose structural requirements pull in conflicting directions. Apply this to creative work broadly. Consider whether your work’s structural requirements align or conflict with each other.
The Boutella Performance
Sofia Boutella’s performance as Princess Ahmanet works at a higher level than the surrounding work. The character requires sustained physical performance, specific atmospheric authority, and committed supernatural presence. Boutella delivers all three despite the screenplay’s failure to develop the character’s specific motivations beyond generic villain template. The performance suggests what the work could have been with stronger structural foundation.
The performance engages with real practical effects and physical preparation. Boutella performed serious creature movements personally including the gravity-defying sequences. The committed practical approach distinguishes the performance from purely CGI-heavy alternatives. The film shows how committed individual performance can survive surrounding structural problems but can’t redeem the film.
Boutella is the reason this gets a 3 from me. She’s eerie, physical and fully committed, and the film keeps shoving her aside for men in suits talking about sequels.
For Writers
Committed individual performances can survive surrounding structural problems but can’t redeem film. Apply this to creative work broadly. Consider whether your work’s strengths can get it past structural problems or whether the structural problems will overwhelm the strengths.
Craft Note
Kurtzman’s structural decision to launch the Dark Universe through the Mummy production required preparation that the completed film doesn’t adequately support. Franchise launchers typically work better when they tell single complete stories that incidentally support future possibilities instead of when they explicitly build franchise infrastructure at the cost of immediate storytelling.
Should you skip The Mummy?
As a franchise launcher, The Mummy is a failure, and it’s one of the rare Cruise films that fails on most measures. The franchise launcher problem damages the immediate story. The Cruise vehicle problem conflicts with the franchise launcher requirements. The Boutella performance suggests what the work could have been with stronger foundation. Watch it only for completion of Cruise’s filmography or for understanding the Dark Universe collapse. Audiences seeking effective mummy cinema should engage with the 1932 Karloff original or the 1999 Brendan Fraser adventure version.
A 3 is about right, and Boutella earns most of it by herself. The rest is a studio mistaking a franchise plan for a story, bolting a Jekyll subplot onto a monster movie and wasting a star who’ll do anything for a stunt. The 1932 Karloff film and the 1999 Fraser romp are both sitting right there, and either one is more fun than this mess.
