Ah, The Mummy... sacred, ancient, cinema-treasure of a bygone childhood. While I doubt anyone who saw Tom Cruise's effort at the property when they were nine years old will look back with the same level of nostalgia upon the 2017 version as we do the 1999 edition, we’re pleased to say this effort wasn't a total loss!

We went into this expecting that watching it would be like going to the video store to rent Transformers and ending up popping the crappy knock-off Transmorphers into the DVD player instead. Yes, we're in our thirties and remember things like "DVDs" and "video stores." And yes, Transmorphers was a legit movie.

Save for the down-your-throat exposition, the late-to-the-game character reveal that will confuse the uninitiated, and the fact that 48% of this movie’s script was allocated to the ambition of a cinematic universe that never went anywhere—this movie is not a complete and utter waste of time. What you get is a crappy Tom Cruise film... but in the same way that “there’s no such thing as bad pizza,” there’s something oddly satisfying about getting “Cruisified”, no matter how low on the list it is.

Perhaps the one big criticism we did agree with is that the movie just... lacks a little heart. Maybe they should’ve left that organ intact when they mummified this project, am I right?!?

chroniclesofcriticpod@gmail.com

Not sure if this should be called Notting Hill or Nodding Off... I kid — though it does run a bit long — because honestly, it’s hard to fault another Curtis classic brimming with snappy dialogue, charming meet-cutes, and... manic emotional blowouts?

Thankfully, Hugh’s signature floppy-haired aloofness, paired with an outstanding turn from “Spike” in the co-pilot seat, brings enough charm and hilarity to smooth over the film’s more noticeable cracks — like the runtime, the vague mechanics of how this romance even lifts off the runway, and, oh right, the small matter of white-washing London.

That said, the stellar acting, familiar supporting cast, and warm ’90s rom-com fuzzies are exactly what most people come for — and this movie delivers in spades. What’s not to love?

Little did we know that it would actually be the "Disney Live-Action Remake-a-verse", rather than the MCU, that would end up being the bane of our existence when we started this project. But alas, here we are.

Why, oh why, did someone decide that this movie needed to be "Part of Our World", when truly, the ideas for this meandering sea slug should have been left "Under the Sea" with the rest of the bottom-feeders? And by that, I mean among actual aquatic animals, not the grumbling execs over at Disney scraping the bottom of the barrel for their next unoriginal remake.

Yes, Halle Bailey does a rippin’ job with the songs, but watching her act opposite an eerily photorealistic crab and a male lead who hasn’t figured out he’s not doing actual musical theatre makes me want to impale myself on the bow of a wrecked ship.

And even more egregious than somehow managing to add 52 minutes of runtime to a children’s movie is the fact that they yanked my boy René Auberjonois clean out of this movie like the guts of one of his famous hors d’oeuvres.

Ursula, grab your quill—I'm ready to sign away my soul to avoid seeing this movie ever again.

chroniclesofcriticpod@gmail.com