It was supposed to be the start of something massive. Tom Cruise, a global superstar who rarely misses, standing in front of a sepia-toned poster, promising a world of gods and monsters. But honestly, when The Mummy 2017 hit theaters, the collective reaction wasn't awe—it was confusion. People wanted a spooky adventure. What they got was a frantic, $125 million setup for a franchise that evaporated almost instantly.
The film didn't just fail to live up to the 1999 Brendan Fraser classic; it struggled to find its own identity. Was it a horror movie? An action flick? A Tom Cruise vehicle? It tried to be all three and ended up being none.
The Dark Universe That Never Was
Before the first frame of The Mummy 2017 even flickered on screen, Universal Pictures was already planning the sequels. They released that now-infamous photo featuring Cruise, Sofia Boutella, Russell Crowe, Javier Bardem, and Johnny Depp. It was the "Dark Universe" Avengers-style lineup. It looked great on paper.
But movies aren't made on paper. They’re made of pacing and tone.
The biggest problem with The Mummy 2017 was that it felt like a two-hour commercial for other movies. Every time the plot started to get interesting, Russell Crowe’s Dr. Jekyll would show up to explain the "Prodigium" organization. It’s hard to care about a cursed princess when you’re being forced to listen to a lecture about a secret society of monster hunters. This is a classic mistake in modern filmmaking: prioritizing the "universe" over the actual story being told.
Tom Cruise vs. The Monster
Tom Cruise is an anomaly in Hollywood. He’s arguably the last true movie star who can guarantee a massive opening weekend based on his name alone. However, his persona actually worked against the tension of The Mummy 2017.
Think about it.
✨ Don't miss: Why Dark Places by Gillian Flynn Is Still the Darkest Mystery You’ll Ever Read
When you see Tom Cruise on screen, you expect a certain level of competence. You expect him to sprint, do his own stunts, and eventually win through sheer willpower. But horror requires vulnerability. It requires the protagonist to be genuinely outmatched. When Cruise’s character, Nick Morton, becomes "cursed," the stakes don't feel high because, well, he’s Tom Cruise. He just looks like he’s having a mildly stressful day at the office.
Sofia Boutella, on the other hand, was actually quite good. Her portrayal of Ahmanet brought a physical, dancer-like grace to the role that felt fresh. It's a shame the script didn't give her more to do than chase Cruise around London. She was the most interesting thing in the movie, yet she felt like a supporting character in her own origin story.
The Technical Mess: What Went Wrong Behind the Scenes?
Director Alex Kurtzman was under an immense amount of pressure. Reports from Variety and other trade publications at the time suggested that Cruise had an unprecedented amount of control over the production. From the script's direction to the editing room, his fingerprints were everywhere.
This led to a strange narrative shift.
💡 You might also like: Why the Lyrics to Hard Days Night by The Beatles Still Define the Working Class Grind
The original concept for the film was supposedly much more horror-centric. As the production evolved, it transformed into a high-octane action piece. You can see the remnants of the horror elements in the underwater tomb scenes and the creepy spider-crawling movements of the undead. But then, it cuts to a zero-gravity plane crash that feels like it belongs in Mission: Impossible. It’s jarring. The audience never gets a chance to feel unsettled because the movie keeps pivoting back to being a blockbuster.
Budget-wise, the film was a disaster. It grossed about $410 million worldwide, which sounds okay until you factor in the marketing costs and the fact that theaters take a massive cut. For a film intended to launch a multi-billion dollar franchise, those numbers were a death knell. Universal had to pivot, eventually leading to the much more successful, lower-budget approach seen in 2020’s The Invisible Man.
Why We Still Talk About It
Failure is often more interesting than success. The Mummy 2017 serves as a permanent case study in film schools and marketing offices about the dangers of "cinematic universe fever."
It’s the quintessential example of what happens when a studio tries to skip the "make a good movie" step and goes straight to the "make a franchise" step. Marvel spent years building up to The Avengers. Universal tried to do it in the first twenty minutes of a reboot.
Also, the plane crash scene is actually incredible. If you watch it as a standalone piece of stunt work, it’s top-tier Tom Cruise. The crew actually filmed in a "Vomit Comet" (a parabolic flight) to achieve real weightlessness. It’s a technical marvel trapped inside a narrative muddle.
The Brendan Fraser Comparison
You can't talk about this movie without mentioning the 1999 version. Fans were—and still are—fiercely protective of the Stephen Sommers film. That movie had heart. It was a swashbuckling adventure that didn't take itself too seriously.
The 2017 version took itself very seriously.
It lacked the humor and the chemistry that made the previous iteration a staple of 90s cinema. When you strip away the fun and replace it with "lore" and "setup," you lose the audience. People go to the movies to be entertained, not to be told they should come back in two years for a sequel featuring the Wolfman.
Lessons from the Dark Universe Collapse
If you're a filmmaker or a storyteller, there are a few blunt truths to take away from this.
First, characters need to be human before they are heroes. Nick Morton wasn't particularly likable, and he wasn't particularly relatable. He was just a guy who stole things and then got superpowers.
Second, tone consistency is everything. If you want to make a horror movie, make people scared. If you want to make an action movie, make it thrilling. Don't try to blend them so thinly that the audience doesn't know how to feel.
Finally, respect the source material by understanding why people liked it in the first place. People liked The Mummy because of the mystery of the ancient world and the thrill of the tomb. They didn't like it because of a secret government agency with jars of monster parts in the basement.
👉 See also: Why Tuyo and the Soy El Fuego Que Arde Tu Piel Lyrics Still Haunt Your Playlist
Actionable Insights for Movie Fans and Aspiring Writers:
- Watch for the "Universal Template": Next time you watch a big-budget reboot, look for how much time is spent on world-building versus character development. If the "lore" takes up more than 15% of the runtime, the movie is likely in trouble.
- Appreciate Practical Stunts: Despite the film's flaws, the zero-G plane sequence in The Mummy 2017 is a masterclass in practical effects. It’s worth a re-watch just to see the technical coordination involved.
- The "Small is Better" Rule: Notice how Universal succeeded with The Invisible Man (2020) by doing the exact opposite of this film. They lowered the budget, focused on one character, and prioritized suspense over spectacle.
- Analyze Character Stakes: Study the difference between Nick Morton (Cruise) and Rick O'Connell (Fraser). One feels invincible, the other feels like he’s barely surviving. Survival is almost always more compelling than invincibility.
- Research the "Vomit Comet": If you're interested in film production, look up the behind-the-scenes footage of the plane crash. It’s a fascinating look at the lengths Tom Cruise will go to for a shot, even in a project that isn't firing on all cylinders.