To 3D Or Not To 3D: Buy The Right The Mummy Ticket

Sofia Boutella is The Mummy

Because of the fact that they have 3D at their disposal, Alex Kurtzman and Tom Cruise's take on The Mummy immediately has a leg up on its 1932 and 1999 predecessors. But incorporating this technology into a film in a compelling manner is easier said than done. That being said, the world of Gods and Monsters, Tom Cruise's usually array of stunts, and the all-out pandemonium that Sofia Boutella's titular creature is capable of creating, especially when she is unleashed on modern-day London, means that The Mummy is perfect for the 3D treatment.

But does it use it properly? If you're not bothered in the slightest about that answer, then you can read our real review for The Mummy here. But if you are, you can find it below, as CinemaBlend once again ponders whether to 3D or not to 3D?

Absolutely. The Mummy mixes Egyptian mythology and all of the iconography that involves, English crusaders, and a contemporary setting, all of which bounces along to an action beat, meaning that there's plenty to delve into and explore so that its audience can be pulled in closer. Plus, The Mummy herself is capable of unleashing sandstorms, causing birds to crash through windows, and all other kinds of curses. All of which means that the world of The Mummy is ripe for 3D. It's just unfortunate, then, that the film fails to take advantage of it.

While it's a slight exaggeration that you can take off your 3D glasses and the film won't change a jolt, The Mummy is about as close as any film has ever been to this being true. I've never seen a 3D film with so little 3D, and any that's actually used only makes the slightest adjustment. I can't even say it's an improvement, because you literally barely notice it, and the 3D seems to be used less and less as it goes on. The most frustrating thing is that The Mummy has enough action set-pieces for 3D to be utilized. Alas, it feels as though there wasn't enough forward planning and the use of 3D seems to have merely been an after-thought, which means that the shots just weren't there to take advantage of it.

I literally can't remember a single incidence when the Before The Window was used. Maybe it did so when the flock of birds flew straight through the plane's window, but even if it did it was barely noticeable. Other than that, there wasn't really any opportunity for the Before The Window, which again just highlights the poor planning for the film's 3D use. Since the film has more than enough action set pieces in which the 3D could have been used, it's a shame it doesn't. Especially when you consider that this is when you feel the full thwack of the technology, and it usually makes paying the extra amount worthwhile.

It's there, but you won't feel the full effect. There are certainly moments when you can see the depth of field in action, but not enough is done with the extra amount of screen. There's one instance where, in the background, you can see a Mummy making their way towards an unsuspecting character, while the unveiling and then the initial exploration of The Mummy's burial site is sharper because of it. But that's about it. And as the film progresses, you can feel its usage of 3D dwindling.

This element is not really compatible since The Mummy's characters spend most of the film in dark and dingy places. They are either excavating a tomb, inside a huge plane, or pub, or church or forest, or are inside Dr. Henry Jekyll's headquarters, or, for its final scene, underneath London. Even when it is outside, the Big Smoke is hardly regarded as the sunniest of cities, and considering the dark arts that The Mummy is famous for, and the fact this is the beginning of the Dark Universe, you can see why there's not a lot of brightness to the film. Except when it's in the desert, then the 3D actually creates a sand swept and picturesque image. That's not what you're really there to see.

When you watch a 3D movie you're generally encouraged to keep your glasses on, but when you take them off the amount of blur you see reveals how many extra dimensions are at play. For those of us that love 3D, it is a case of the more the better. Which is what makes it frustrating that on the numerous occasions that I lifted up my glasses while watching The Mummy I saw barely any 3D. I might have just timed it poorly, but considering how non-existent the 3D was throughout the film, it instead seems symptomatic.

To paraphrase Ralph Wiggum, this is where The Mummy is a Viking. I mean, how can you feel sick or unhealthy when there's hardly any 3D to unsettle? The only injury that you're likely to get watching The Mummy is to your wrists as you constantly take off your glasses to see if there is actually any difference. You might also find yourself caught up in a stampede as you and your fellow moviegoers rush to exit once the movie finally comes to an end. But that may not be because of the 3D.

Should you pay for The Mummy in 3D? No. Definitely not. If you can't resist seeing Tom Cruise glisten on the big screen, please buy a regular 2D ticket. The 3D doesn't enhance the film. Do yourself a favor and put the extra pennies towards a copy of Brendan Fraser's The Mummy instead.

Gregory Wakeman