The Brennaissance is over

Adjust content blocking

mortuz

Channel: funny

Comment

The Brennaissance is over. . The Mummy 2 Hum rs ti it aim brake don' t fin‘. TL. neww-. madman VIEW SHOWTIMES CAST Quinn Sign Iedere L.. Ami I: Isml not ever: ,

The Mummy
2 Hum rs
ti it aim brake don' t fin‘. TL.
neww-.
madman
VIEW SHOWTIMES CAST
Quinn Sign Iedere
L.. Ami I: Isml not ever: , watching
any nu: -.' but yours, I have seen
them an times. I can run the lines. m:
Eii P.
Galler. lilili:
HE FUCKING POSTED IT

...

+2928

Views: 101185 Submitted: 06/19/2017

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (188)

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 188 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#1 - JGKingpin

Reply +620 123456789123345869

(06/19/2017) [-]

>#notmymummy

That got me good.

#4 - evilhomer

Reply +532 123456789123345869

(06/19/2017) [-]

#185 to #4 - dwarfman

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

#174 to #4 - samoaspider

Reply +10 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

this image is older than half the userbase accounts and still has that uncropped white space around it after paint editing

good times

#175 to #174 - evilhomer

Reply +5 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

"Hey userbase, we should finally crop out the white space"

#95 to #4 - itrinx

Reply +29 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

WHY IS THIS IN .GIF FORMAT

#161 to #95 - anon id: e339e38e

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

LE POISSON, LE PETIT POISSON!!!!!!

#167 to #161 - youraveragenormie

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

"THE FISH, THE SMALL FISH!!!!!!"

#97 to #95 - LOLerz

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

De quoi tu parles? It's just a .jpeg

#102 to #97 - itrinx

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Rly ? For some reason, i downloaded it as a .gif

#104 to #102 - jovanlisac

Reply +14 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

it is a gif, here is image

#158 to #104 - itrinx

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Aye thanks now i can zoom in

#181 to #158 - actofwar

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

LOL JK!!

#163 to #97 - starzero

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

En fait, il a raison. C'est un Gif.

#170 to #163 - LOLerz

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

**LOLerz used "*roll picture*"**
**LOLerz rolled image** pardonnez moi, vous avez raison.

#184 to #170 - starzero

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Vous êtes excusé.

#6 - thebeetlejuice

Reply +339 123456789123345869

(06/19/2017) [-]

the only reason i won't see that movie is because they didn't cast Brendan.

#10 to #6 - distortedflare

Reply -46 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

The mummy movie is not a remake of the 1999 movie. So why the **** would they cast him.
There have been 8 remakes of The mummy spanning back to the 30's. The movie remake is based on rebooting the old monster movies.

#17 to #10 - imnotkickthecat

Reply +155 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Because Brendan was the star of the trilogy.

#21 to #17 - anon id: cdd54617

Reply +43 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

This movie is set in 2017. Brendan Fraser's were set in 1920s-50s

#79 to #21 - steverambo

Reply +96 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

They could have took the Logan route and made an old man Rick movie

#112 to #79 - advice

Reply +37 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Make Brendan be the mummy in this one then.

#129 to #79 - loganmadder

Reply +14 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Oh yes the hundred fifty year old tomb Raiders

#131 to #129 - steverambo

Reply +19 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

#186 to #79 - topkekuser

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

#22 to #17 - distortedflare

Reply +7 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Of one adaptation of the mummy movies? and the third one sucked cock. The first two were ******* awesome though.

#48 to #22 - damiar

Reply +77 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

I just want him to be happy.

#52 to #48 - distortedflare

Reply +28 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

I do too. I love him as an actor. But two things. As i said "The Mummy" as a franchise was around before he was born. There have been around 9 movies with the title "The Mummy" about 20 sequels/ spin offs and series about "The Mummy"

Brendan Fraser appeared in a movie that took a spin on the movie and they were great. But here is the thing. Christopher Lee was the mummy in "The Mummy 1959" So why was he not offered the role to star as the mummy in the 1999. Why because you can't just give an actor the same role in reboots. Facing the fact the new mummy movie is unrelated to the old one. it is not a reboot it is not a sequel. it is a re-imagining of a very iconic horror genre and monster.

That and as a whole the actor is washed out. It breaks my heart to say that but he is not relevant. The point of a movie is not to be kind or charitable. it is to get as many arses in seats as possible when it is released at the movies and make as much profit as possible.

people can be tards and downvote me all they want. it does not change the harsh reality is that Brendan Fraser had his movie. he stared in my view the best Mummy movie. But that is it. he got his shot and now another actor is getting a shot at another re imagining of the mummy genre.

#106 to #52 - kettz

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Tbh, I feel that it would get a lot of people's arses in theatre seats if they had cast Brendan, maybe not as the protagonist, but as a camo or a side characters, but that's just my opinion.

But you're absolutely right about everything else.

#101 to #52 - darkjustifier

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

They could have cast hid kids

#93 to #22 - anon id: 71b45333

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Brendan's Mummy is more of an Indian Jones than a mummy reboot. That's why we loved it.
In an alternate reality Brendan's Mummy is Indian Jones 4, spearheading a fantastic new Brendan Jones trilogy, and the Crystal Skull never happened.
That is a much better reality than this.

#180 to #93 - distortedflare

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

You see I agree. "The Mummy 1999" was unique and I think trying to compare the new one to it is of course going to disappoint. Once again as I have said the new mummy movie has nothing to do with the 1999 one.

#119 to #93 - arreatface

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

****

yeah we're totally in the wrong timeline here

WE HAVE TO GO BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK

#100 to #22 - darkjustifier

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

I liked the third one

#146 to #10 - sayyeh

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

They're trying to reboot all the monster movies and make one cinematic universe like Marvel and DC. Which is something nobody is asking for quite frankly. Also, Brendan was the only thing that made those movies work hands down. The scripts were unworkable otherwise imo. The man is a legend.

#179 to #146 - distortedflare

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

I agree. Brendan made the "The Mummy 1999" what it was. His humor, witty remarks and general acting skills made those movies a delight to watch and they are my favorite monster movies. Apart from the third one which was no fault of Brendan Fraser

#136 to #10 - uratan

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

What would you do if a hugely popular movie was made years ago and you wanted to make a new movie based on the original premise? would you give it the exact same name and release it soon after the star of the old popular movie recently came back into the spotlight?

#88 to #10 - rassamdul

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Once again, a completely sane comment is getting thumbed down, because the basic fj'er cant debate.

#89 to #88 - distortedflare

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Because Funnyjunk is a tumblr knock off trying to be like 4chan. So all you get is all the racism and cuntishness but also the sheep mentality and echo chamber.

#61 to #10 - rodrighetto

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Totally agree

#103 to #10 - joekickingass

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

why are we red-thumbing the bitch???....bitch ddn't say **** red-thumbable!!
thumbed ya down anyway buddeh

#166 to #6 - anon id: 34a691a7

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

I mean, they could have cast him as a cameo character as a nod to the "original's" fans

But Tom Cruise in sci fi movies are the ******* best, why are you guys trying to ruin this

#159 to #6 - bioconstriculative

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

You're not missing much. Total crapshoot of a movie, sucks as both a 1999 reboot or an update of the Classic universal monsters. Complete waste of time.

#3 - herecomesmaverick

Reply +117 123456789123345869

(06/19/2017) [-]

This is pretty much the same thing with that Great Wall movie with Matt Damon. Movies that have a **** ton of advertising on both television and the internet are probably going to bomb the box office, so they try to get as much money on the opening weekend from unsuspecting viewers as possible.

#134 to #3 - drinpa

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

The problem is The Wall (and a lot of movies now) aren't being made primarily for US Audiences anymore. China is a bigger market. The Transformers movies had ads for Chinese banks (The card he used in one of the newer ones). Hollywood has found the Chinese pay a lot more and see our movies more, it doesn't matter if critics in the US pan it, China will still buy it and watch it in droves, especially if we do things that make the Chinese happy.

Here's an article that explains some of those points: www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-china-hol...

#137 to #134 - drinpa

Reply +11 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Extending deleted comment, to tack on what I said:

US opening weekend: $18,469,620
China Opening Weekend: $60,599,684

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $45,157,105 13.6%
+ Foreign: $286,800,000 86.4%

China was $170,962,106 of that.

So yeah, that movie wasn't made for US Audiences. That movie was made for China.

Source: www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grea...

#139 to #137 - herecomesmaverick

Reply +4 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Huh, that's something you typically don't hear that often.

Thanks for the info dude, it really gives good insight into the movie industry as a whole right now.

#135 to #134 - drinpa

0 123456789123345869

has deleted their comment [-]

#165 to #3 - donatelo

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

That...but i cant be the only one who thought it was stupid the second they saw tom cruise?

#14 to #3 - simulatedsim

Reply +18 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

I thought the Great Wall was pretty well executed, and though the plot was a bit dopey (this is my opinion at this point) I'll always be a fan of Alien invasion + Human victory stories.

#43 to #3 - thesinful

Reply +18 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Or Speed Racer? They had an ad literally every single commercial break on Cartoon Network for months. If memory serves, they spent over $100 million on advertising. The movie bombed

#110 to #43 - greatgranpapy

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

I loved that movie though...

#122 to #110 - mpghbombsaway

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

#7 to #3 - anon id: 86fdf001

Reply +34 123456789123345869

(06/19/2017) [-]

Click to show spoiler

#8 to #7 - herecomesmaverick

Reply +27 123456789123345869

(06/19/2017) [-]

I don't know who you are, but your comments have been surprisingly pleasant to see, since many anon comments I get are just disrespectful trash.

Thanks man.

#23 - IcRetoast

Reply +100 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Roger Ebert gave it a 1.5/4 ... Roger Ebert has been dead for four years, that means there is some website or magazine using this dead man's name as some sort of brand review.

#173 to #23 - Funnel

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

His company didn't die with him.

#121 to #23 - arreatface

Reply +3 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

I dont know who that guy is but im gonna assume he's some renowned critic who passed away 4 years ago

Agreed 100%, using a dead man's name to get more views out of **** content is really a shameful thing to do.

#37 to #23 - numerodos

Reply +9 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

Yeah, it gets my goat too. It wouldn't be so bad if the reviews showed up as Roger Ebert Fans or something but no, it's always Roger Ebert: 1.5 stars or what have you. Blatantly misleading to give this website more clout and visibility which it really doesn't deserve without him. His name is plastered on the reviews as if he had anything to do with these articles or would endorse the reviewers' opinions in them (especially since in many cases you can bet based on his past work he would feel quite oppositely to some of these dummies). I think it's mainly the presentation of the site and its reviews but it feels exploitative.

#25 to #23 - saltyfries

Reply +14 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

it is a website, dedicated to him, from The Mummy's Wiki page

Glen Kenny of RogerEbert.com gave the film 1.5/4 stars, writing: I found something almost admirable about the film's cheek. It's amazingly relentless in its naked borrowing from other, better horror and sci-fi movies that I was able to keep occupied making a checklist of the movies referenced.[57] Entertainment Weekly's Chis Nashawaty wrote that the film "feels derivative and unnecessary and like it was written by committee."[58]

#105 - knarlyfish

Reply +56 123456789123345869

(06/20/2017) [-]

After everything that's happened to him, he deserves to brag about what glory he does have