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.
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.