For the short and sweet: it has unsettling and creepy elements, but the movie is essentially Evil Dead Rise with an Egyptian skin suit thrown in.
Wokeness: there’s a main female cop who isn’t some Mary sue badass, the main family is white/hispanic from New Mexico and the dad isn’t a pushover, plus is instrumental to the plot. No gay/trans/whatever casting. The cast is fairly “diverse” but realistic to the regions.
Overall I wanted to like this movie but it just wasn’t Mummy, it was a supernatural demon possession movie with minor Egyptian elements. There’s plenty of gore, grossness, and grotesque which will satiate Evil Dead fans, but not anything to really make it a Mummy movie.
So if you just want a gruesome ride with a family trying to save their daughter it’s a solid 6-7 movie, but if you want actual Mummy with Ancient Egyptian lore, esotericism, and iconography you’re going to be left wanting.
I'm assuming the producers were very careful not to lean too heavily into traditional mummy iconography for fear of appearing "culturally insensitive".
Which is ironic when you think about it. Because they only ever worry about offending non-white cultures, but the only reason people think of ancient Egypt as non-white is progressive revisionist history.
I have a theory that any region that israel wants to destroy is usually race swapped or covered over in western films. It started around 2000.
Any people that jews hate are race swapped and humiliated in jew created media. It's accurate.
I think Mummy stories tend to work better as action/quest movies than horror films. Even the Chaney movies weren't straight up horror.
I've noticed in a lot of recent horror movie reviews many monsters are referred to as "basically deadites." Which I guess means sentient zombies that like to rip people apart for funsies.
Mummy stories work because they used the awe factor I posted about before with space. Using the awe factor of an ancient civilization and their mythos to create an adventure/horror story. This was another generational awe factor, the greatest generation was absolutely overwhelmed with ancient civilization Egypt and archeology the same way the boomers were awed by space and that frontier. Hollywood doesn’t try to instill awe because their writers are inspired by money and politics so their work becomes slop.
And what what is our "awe factor"?
For the left? trannies and surrogate babies.
Remigration
I kind of agree, the monsters like Mummy's and to some extent named ones like Frankenstein's monster and Dracula lend themselves to either be action/theatre and possibly a bit comedy and corny.
Compare this with zombies who have, forgive the language, more diversity from the classic shuffling corpse, the 'are they actually zombies' RAGE virus of 28 Days later to the 'WTF IS THAT!' of Last of Us or Dead Space Necromorphs which lend themselves more into horror.
When I was in my teens/early 20's, I thought this was all the rage. Now, decades later, I wouldn't touch this stuff with a 10' pole, as I know it's done to de-sensitize you to violence. Sorry, I'm just done and burned out on graphic, senseless horror and violence.
Then again, I haven't been to a movie in damn near 20 years, and seeing what pedo-wood has become, I'm not the slightest surprised this trash keep getting peddled.
Very much in the same boat.
Most of today's films think violence equates to visceral gore for the sake of it. Someone gets ripped apart or guts go flying because "look how edge we are!".
This isn't to say that older films weren't trying to be edgy, but they had to be edgy within context and within the manageable restraints of the production and budget.
A good example is that older action films used squibs for all their bullet effects, so every time they had to film someone getting shot with a squib, and every take they took, cost money. This meant each take had to count and mean something to the plot, otherwise they were just burning film, effects costs, and daylight.
Both John Woo and Chad Stahelski have talked about the costliness and time consumption of using squibs, and how much cheaper digital squibbing is.
But with that cheapness also comes a lack of creativity -- you no longer have to think about contextual violence and its relativity to story framing. Who cares? Just add more gore, more blood, more guts -- just use some red corn syrup as reference material for lighting and go hog wild with the CGI gore.
Deaths mean less because they cost less, and as a result, gives audience members less reason to care.
Also, this isn't to say all CGI is bad -- I think Robert Rodriguez still found the best balance for it, using physical squibs on people and the environment as reference and then adding more via CGI in post. You get the best of both worlds, as you get the physical squibbing so it actually looks good, and CGI squibbing for the added bullet/blood effects without the added costs.
But today's filmmakers don't actually think about that because most of them push violence for either shock value or for irony, but rarely ever to help flesh out and contextualise the story.
I watched the outrageously bad Jurassic Park film that WS made recently. Pirated of course. And the way that Hispanic father was cucked out while his daughter fucked her BF on their small boat almost made me turn it off.
Good to know this Mummy film is just a gorefest, I have little interest in shat shit.
I recently watched 2 horror films with Christoph Waltz, Frankenstein (2025) and Dracula (2026). Both of them are better.