The Mummy (2017)

Not rated yet!
Director
Alex Kurtzman
Runtime
1 h 50 min
Release Date
6 June 2017
Genres
Fantasy, Thriller, Action, Adventure, Horror
Overview
Though safely entombed in a crypt deep beneath the unforgiving desert, an ancient queen whose destiny was unjustly taken from her is awakened in our current day, bringing with her malevolence grown over millennia, and terrors that defy human comprehension.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
The Weekly Substandard Podcast2
The Weekly Standard



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Substandard on 'The Mummy,' Tennis, and Avocado Toast
    On this latest episode, the Substandard unravels The Mummy and questions the feasibility of a Dark Universe. But what other Extended Universes would we like to see? A Garry Marshall Universe, of course! JVL praises Rafa Nadal, Vic enjoys Virgin America, and Sonny rants against avocado toast, all on this week's Substandard. The Substandard is sponsored by the Dollar Shave Club. Try their $5 starter box (a $15 value!) with free shipping by visiting dollarshaveclub.com/substandard . This
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Substandard on 'The Mummy,' Tennis, and Avocado Toast

    On this latest episode, the Substandard unravels The Mummy and questions the feasibility of a Dark Universe. But what other Extended Universes would we like to see? A Garry Marshall Universe, of course! JVL praises Rafa Nadal, Vic enjoys Virgin America, and Sonny rants against avocado toast, all on this week’s Substandard.

    ...
    (Review Source)

John Hanlon2
John Hanlon Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Mummy
    Universal Studios was once well-known for its monster movies. Long before superheroes dominated the big screen, theaters were playing movies like Frankenstein (1931), The Mummy (1932) and Son of Dracula (1943). Each of these films focused on...
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • "The Mummy" Review

    Oh my.

    ...
    (Review Source)

Crosswalk2
Cross Walk



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Mummy Cruises into Mediocrity
    Movies They probably should have left this one in the crypt. Despite the mummy of the title—plus zombies, a mysterious top-secret agency, and mayhem on planes, trains (or their tunnels), and automobiles—The Mummy is not as much fun as it should be. 2.5 out of 5.   Synopsis It’s just another day at the office when "liberator of precious antiquities" (aka "grave robber") Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and his buddy (Jake Johnson) accidentally uncover a heretofore hidden Egyptian tomb. Unfortunately for Nick, that tomb holds a mummified Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who's been holding a grudge for millennia… and she thinks he's just the man to help her wreak vengeance on an unsuspecting world.   What Works? The Mummy has its fair share of "gotcha" moments, some rather lovely scenery, and entertaining fights—especially the ones involving zombies. The mummy herself is interesting to watch, especially her slow transformation from dried husk to almost human. The humor is rarely all that funny, but at least they tried. Universal Pictures' Dark Universe is reviving classic monster characters for a new generation; The Mummy is their first offering. It's a fine idea, but...   googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-1'); }); What Doesn't? Cruise's character. Tom squares his jaw and flashes his grin for all he's worth, but Nick is an empty shell. There's no chemistry between Nick and his supposed love interest, archeologist Jenny (Annabelle Wallis), because Nick is too fond of himself to have any emotions left over. I'm not so sure his big "sacrifice" at the end really is one. It's all just 'meh.' The filmmakers tried to cram too much worldbuilding into this one movie, resulting in a hodgepodge of tropes. Not only do we have the mummy of the title, there are zombies. Okay, fine, but would devout Crusaders leave their tombs at the behest of an Egyptian princess? Doubtful. Then there's Russel Crowe's character, the leader of the mysterious Prodigium, Dr. Jekyll. Yes, that Dr. Jekyll. Again, okay, but there's an unnecessary scene when Mr. Hyde comes out to play that feels like filler. And on and on it goes. The princess basically sells her soul to the devil in order to achieve ultimate power, but then she spends most of the movie trying to create an immortal boyfriend. Call me sensitive, but that feels lame, and a tad sexist to boot. Then Jenny, a supposedly competent historian, is portrayed as a useless bit of screaming fluff who constantly needs rescuing. Dark Universe may be reviving old monsters but the outdated stereotype of the helpless female needs a sarcophagus.   Christian Worldview Elements / Spiritual Themes At its core, The Mummy is about greed. The princess was power-hungry; when she was cast aside she made a deal with the devil to get her position back. Nick is so determined to steal precious objects for personal gain that he puts everyone in danger. Dr. Jekyll claims he's trying to contain evil, but he'll stop at nothing to control it. The doctor also explains that "the god of death and destruction" who Ahmanet is so eager to rouse is known as Satan in the Bible.   CAUTIONS (may contain spoilers) MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence, action and scary images, and for some suggestive content and partial nudity Language/Profanity: SOB (not abbreviated), bloody he**, da**, sh**, bas**rd, as*. Sexuality/Nudity: There are several veiled discussions about a sexual encounter between a man and woman. A woman is shown nude while engaging in an unholy ritual but she's in the shadows. A man unexpectedly wakes up nude and is surprised by visitors, but we don't see anything explicit. Ahmanet's power has sexual overtones. Violence/Frightening/Intense: Multiple murders, mostly by stabbing; a baby is one of the (offstage) victims. Bugs, rats, and birds swarm in a creepy-crawly kind of way. There’s a lot of fighting that includes stabbings, gunshots, and slamming people into stone things that should have killed them but somehow doesn't. Ahmanet gives the kiss of (un)death to turn people into zombies, who then chase and try to kill people. Some of the hand-to-hand fights are quite vicious. Drugs/Alcohol: One scene shows a character in a bar downing drink after drink.   The Bottom Line RECOMMENDED FOR: Monster movie buffs and diehard Tom Cruise fans. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR: Anyone who doesn’t like monsters or characters with powers purportedly derived from the devil. The Mummy, directed by Alex Kurtzman, opens in theaters June 9, 2017. It runs 110 minutes and stars Tom Cruise, Sofia Boutella, Annabelle Wallis, and Russel Crowe. Watch the trailer for The Mummy here.   Susan Ellingburg spends most days helping to create amazing live events and most nights at the movies, at rehearsals, or performing with vocal ensembles in the Dallas area. This leaves very little time for cleaning house. A natural-born Texan, Susan loves all things British, Sunday afternoon naps, cozy mysteries, traveling with friends, and cooking like a Food Network star (minus the camera crew). Publication date: June 9, 2017 googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-2'); }); if (gptClientWidth >= 992 && gptClientWidth <= 1000000) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-3'); }); Image courtesy: ©Universal ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Aimless Mummy 3 Never Comes to Life
    Movies DVD Release Date:  December 16, 2008Theatrical Release Date:  August 1, 2008Rating:  PG-13 (for adventure action and violence)Genre:  Action AdventureRun Time:  112 min.Director:  Rob CohenActors:  Brendan Fraser, Maria Bello, Luke Ford, Jet Li, Michelle Yeoh, John Hannah, Isabella LeongThe Mummy series, starring Brendan Fraser, has never been a critics’ favorite. The first film in the series, The Mummy, was released in 1999 and registered a 53 percent “fresh” rating (the percentage of positive reviews) at the online ratings site Rotten Tomatoes. A sequel, The Mummy Returns which released in 2001, fared a bit worse, coming in at just 47 percent “fresh.” Those summertime blockbusters, full of ghostly special effects, didn’t need positive reviews: The first Mummy movie grossed $155 million at the North American box office ($415 million worldwide), while its sequel, with slightly worse reviews, brought in slightly more money—$202 million in North America ($430 worldwide). If it follows that worse reviews correspond to higher grosses, then look for the new Mummy sequel, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, to far surpass its two predecessors at the box office. A mess in terms of story, character and execution, this is a sequel that is not only critic-proof, it’s almost review-proof. Where to begin? Fraser returns as Rick O’Connell, now settled into married life with his wife, Evelyn (Maria Bello, taking over for Rachel Weisz). Their outward appearance and stately life signal that they’ve put their past adventures behind them, but when asked to get back in the game, they throw off all pretense and dive in, eager for one more adventure. Over in China, their son, Alex (Luke Ford), has discovered a major archaeological find. What Alex doesn’t know, however, is that the army of preserved mummies he’s found is at the service of the Dragon King (Jet Li), an emperor “of all under heaven” whose quest to “defeat his last enemy—death itself” was thwarted in 200 B.C. by Zi Juan, a witch (Michelle Yeoh) with a score to settle. The emperor is cursed, but if the curse is lifted, all mankind will die. Once unleashed, the Dragon Emperor shifts into the shape of various creatures, including a three-headed dragon, as he uses his mastery of the five elements to take on anyone who would thwart his quest for domination. It’s up to Alex, Rick and Evelyn to stop him. Evelyn’s brother (John Hannah) pitches in for comic relief, while Alex gets a girlfriend (Isabella Leong), and they all try to get close enough to the emperor to pierce his heart—the only way to kill him, they’re told. Did I mention the abominable snowmen (called “yeti”) who help out? The action scenes are difficult to follow and the dialogue is little more than a parade of dumb jokes (“the yak yakked”) and exclamations (“avalanche!”) Fraser, saddled with a series of one-liners that fall flat, is even weaker in his third stab at Mummy work than he was earlier this summer in his less-than-inspired performance in Journey to the Center of the Earth. Will he ever make another serious film, or is The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor the sort of work for which he wants to be remembered? The other actors fare no better. Fans of Jet Li will be disappointed to see how sorely underused he is here, while the radiant Michelle Yeoh just barely escapes this train wreck of a film with her dignity intact. Writers Alfred Gough and Miles Millar have given these performers very little to work with, and director Rob Cohen (who made the abysmal Stealth) is more interested in CGI armies of the undead than he is in his flesh-and-blood actors. For the Mummy series, the third time offers no charm. Neither darkly compelling like The Dark Knight nor thoughtfully entertaining like Wall•E, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is an also-ran in the summer sweepstakes. Best skip it and enjoy one of those other films, or a DVD at home, instead. Or better yet, read a good old-fashioned adventure story, like Treasure Island, The Count of Monte Cristo or The Three Musketeers.   Questions? Comments? Contact the writer at [email protected]/* = 992 && gptClientWidth <= 1000000) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-2'); }); CAUTIONS: Language/Profanity:  A sexual joke; a few crude anatomical references. Drugs/Alcohol:  A few scenes of drinking; a comment that “drinking is mandatory.” Sex/Nudity:  Passionate kissing while in bed; a couple of other brief kissing scenes; wife strips to a nightie and makes suggestive comments toward husband; man’s bare chest is shown. Violence:  An assassination attempt; a man hooks himself while fly fishing; body parts fall off mummified corpses; a man’s face melts; arrows and other death devices triggered by booby-traps; people jump from a moving vehicle; the emperor takes the form of different creatures and then attacks; a suicide; stabbings; a jeep with people inside is bombed; a man and woman are crushed between water wheels; attempts to pierce a heart; gunfire. Religion:  The king seeks the secret of immortality and has been taught by mystics; curses are central to the story; ancient creatures are called on to defeat “evil” soldiers; a reference to ruling “in hell.”   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Cranky T-Rex1
The Flyby



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Mummy (2017) Makes Me Cranky (Movie Review)
    ...
    (Review Source)

Society Reviews1
Society Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Hollywood is wondering why no one is going to the movie theater now and tickets sales are way down. This film answers that question because the only things they can seem to do now is Remake, Reboot…
    ...
    (Review Source)

Plugged In3
Focus on the Family



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Mummy
    Sci-Fi/FantasyAction/AdventureHorrorDrama We hope this review was both interesting and useful. Please share it with family and friends who would benefit from it as well.Movie ReviewMan, those ancient Egyptians sure make a big deal out of one teensy-weensy murder spree. Some might say Ahmanet had every right to be peeved. (Well, Ahmanet would say so, at any rate.) She was next in line to be the queen of Egypt, after all. That's right, queen—a gig that comes with perks, like servants to feed you grapes, statues that look like you and all the sand you could ever want. But then the current Pharaoh fathered a son—a wholly inconsiderate act on his part—which left Ahmanet with just two options. One, to swallow the disappointment and content herself with being a well-fed, well-heeled member of Egyptian royalty; or two, make an unholy pact with ultimate evil and paint the palace red with her family's blood. Naturally, Ahmanet chooses the latter. She kills the Pharaoh, his wife and their son. But she's not done yet. To finalize her deal with Set, the Egyptian god of death, she has to kill her lover, too—freeing the guy's body for Set to, um, set up shop in it. Then he and Ahmanet can partner up and plunge the world into darkness and death. But before Ahmanet can strike that final blow, Egyptian guards capture her. Death, they decide, is too good for her. And given the fact that her deal with Set turned her into a tatted-up half-demon-thing, they figure some extra precautions are in order. First, they mummify her alive. Then they throw her in a heavy metal sarcophagus and ship her to Mesopotamia a thousand miles away. They dig a huuuge hole for her, fill her tomb with mercury (said to weaken demonic power) and then cover the whole works in dirt, hoping no one will ever find it again. Talk about overkill. Well, clearly, Ahmanet's in a pickle. It's hard to plunge the world into darkness and death when you're stuck in a— Wait, wait just a minute. What's that? Did Ahmanet just hear a huge explosion above her? Has it been 5,000 years already? Hey, look: daylight. Oh, and wow: Three people are rapelling into Ahmanet's uber-creepy tomb?! Surely, when they notice all the mercury, they'll put on gas masks, right? No? Well, perhaps when the lone archeologist in the bunch reads all the warning signs—like, literally, signs posted everywhere warning people not to disturb this terrible, terrible tomb—these folks'll take some additional precautions. Or maybe the legions of giant, biting spiders might deter them. No? Well, at least they won't dare to loose those ancient ropes and—oh, never mind. One of the explorers just loosed them. They say that patience is a virtue. And it seems that Ahmanet's 5,000 years of patience is just about to pay off. Great. Great for her, that is. Everyone else … not so much.Positive ElementsNick Morton is Ahmanet's official rope-looser. The mummy appreciates the gesture so much that she selects Nick as her next "beloved"—that is, the guy she's going to kill to introduce Set to the world. And because of Ahmanet's ability to weasel into his mind, Nick sometimes seems just fine with that. He's described as a perfect vessel for Set, given his lack of morals and his dearth of consideration for anyone but himself. But Jenny, the archaeologist, believes that underneath his rough exterior, Nick's an OK guy. "I knew there was more to you than money," she says. No, no, sorry. That's Princess Leia in Star Wars. (Wrong notes.) No, Jenny says, "Somewhere, fighting to get out, is a good man." And turns out, she's right: Nick turns from a selfish treasure-hunter into a self-sacrificing do-gooder. And he eventually shows a willingness to sacrifice pretty much everything—body, soul and spirit—for Jenny when the Egyptian chips are down. There are a few others who'd like to prevent the end of the world, too, if possible. Dr. Henry Jekyll is especially keen to do so, even though he knows it means making some uncomfortable sacrifices himself. Spiritual ContentTake a load off and set a spell, while I talk about Set and spells. Set, as mentioned, is the Egyptian god of death. (Or god of the desert, war, storms, chaos, wind, war, darkness, disorder, violence, etc., etc., depending on which source you look at.) Jekyll calls him out as evil and says that Christians call the very same guy Satan and Lucifer. But rather than follow the Christian idea that Satan and evil are already actively influencing our world, Jekyll characterizes evil as lurking just outside it, looking for a way to come in. Set has found a way into this realm through Ahmanet, who prays to the god and performs rites in his honor, and is thus rewarded with supernatural power. Her body is magically riddled with black, unreadable glyphs, and she's apparently granted immortality as well (though the years do take a toll on her eventually). Some animals (birds, rats, spiders) seem to do her bidding, and she has the ability to control certain minds (sometimes through spider bites). She's also able to call on the sand itself—including, apparently, sand grains of it that have been melted into glass. But perhaps her most fearsome ability is her knack for raising folks from the dead, who subsequently serve her as her shambling, zombie-like minions. We also learn that hundreds of years earlier, some Christian Crusaders found Ahmanet's crypt and spirited away her magic dagger (given to her by Set), hiding the blade in the statue of an angel (called a reliquary by Jenny) and a magic gem from its pommel in a Crusader grave. We assume that the Crusaders did this because they understood Ahmenet's nature and wanted to keep a critical source of her power away from her. Elsewhere, presumably Islamic fighters shoot up and deface ancient artifacts, mimicking the destruction we've seen from ISIS fighters. We hear that pharaohs were worshiped as "living gods." Some scenes take place in old Christian churches and tombs. There's talk about "angering the gods." [Spoiler Warning] Nick eventually gets stabbed by Ahmanet's magical dagger, which infects him with the spirit of Set. His human side seems to keep the Set side of him at bay while still allowing Nick to use Set's powers, including resurrecting a couple of people close to him. Sexual ContentBack in ancient Egypt, Ahmanet prays to Set naked: We see her nude form from the back and side in a handful of flashbacks. Even when she wears clothes back then, the robes are fairly gauzy and revealing. A lot of her skin (and sometimes bone and muscle) is visible after she's mummified, too: When she looks like her younger self, the bandages are wrapped tightly around her in strategic areas, accentuating her figure rather than hiding it. She sometimes straddles her lovers/victims, running her hands down their chests suggestively. She both kisses and licks men. Nick wakes up in a morgue, naked. (We see him from the side, but his genitals are obscured either by his hands or strategically placed tables.) Nick and Jenny also have a history. They banter suggestively about a the details of a one-night-stand they had in Bagdad. When Jenny accidentally reveals her midriff, Nick ogles her.Recommended ResourceA Chicken's Guide to Talking Turkey With Your Kids About SexKevin LemanEven the bravest parents feel timid about discussing sex with their 8- to 14-year-olds! This resource offers reassuring, humorous, real-life anecdotes along with reliable information to help you with this challenging task.Buy NowViolent ContentAhmanet wasn't a gentle woman even when she was just a mortal woman. We see her skirmish with others in the Egyptian desert, knocking men down painfully with poles. She holds a knife to the Pharaoh's throat (though we don't see her make the cut that comes next). A baby dies by her hand, too: Again, we don't see the deed itself, but dark blood sprays tellingly across her contorted face. She's just about to plunge a dagger into her lover when she's caught; several darts puncture her neck, and hooks connected to cords pierce her body (though not in a particularly bloody fashion). Once freed from her coffin, Ahmanet rejuvenates by pressing her lips to the mouths of innocents and literally sucking the life out of them. Her victims morph into mummy-like husks, which then rise and follow her. These creatures—as well as other dead bodies that Ahmanet raises—battle Nick and others. They fling themselves through car windows and swim after folks in water. They're stubborn opponents, and even dismembering them doesn't stop their attack. Nick sometimes thwacks off arms or heads or most of their bodies, and they still come. Nick sometimes kicks through their bodies or crushes their heads into billowing dust. Ahmanet still rumbles, too. Blessed (cursed?) with superhuman strength, she can literally throw people around and smash massive tree limbs into splinters. At one point, she practically breaks Nick's leg, too. (Nick, perhaps through supernatural means, seems physically fine afterwards.) A plane crashes. Several people are either sucked out or die in the crash, and we see their bodies in a morgue later. Someone's stabbed to death. Another man gets shot three times. Still another character, perhaps in an hallucigenic state, is attacked by writhing hordes of rats that cover his body. Someone drowns. Nick has an extended melee with another character. Dr. Jekyll imprisons Ahmanet for a time: She's again darted with hooks attached to cords and chained in a large room, where workers apparently inject her body with freezing mercury. "It hurts!" she complains loudly. Soldiers shoot Ahmanet without effect. Nick and his friend Chris get pinned down during a gunfight. A sandstorm sends cars and busses flying and people scurrying for safety. Explosions go boom. Birds crash through plane windows; one leaves a bloody mark.Crude or Profane LanguageOne s-word and a few other profanities, including "a--," "b--ch," "b--tard," "d--n," "h---," "p-ss" and the British profanity "bloody." God's name is misused seven times. Drug and Alcohol ContentJenny and Nick spend time in a pub. Nick downs shots and chases them with beer. Other folks are shown drinking beer and other alcoholic beverages. Other Negative ElementsNick and Chris are not archaeologists, but treasure hunters who raid ancient tombs and sell what they find there on the black market. Nick learns about Ahmanet's tomb, actually, only after stealing a letter from Jenny. Ahmanet vomits mercury.ConclusionOn one level, you could say that The Mummy is about Nick—a wayward, moral-free treasure hunter who finds, in the end, a certain level of compassion, humanity, love and redemption. He's asked to make sacrifices. And in time, he develops a willingness to answer that call. And that's all great … as far as it goes. On another level, though—and this is really the level that counts—The Mummy is a mindless exercise in CGI wonder and PG-13 horror. It delivers action sequences strung together with just the barest thread of a plot or even reason. While it presents itself as a standard summer blockbuster (and, indeed, Universal has planned The Mummy as the first of a new franchise of classic monster reboots), it's both surprisingly sexual and surprisingly frightening. The movie's muddy spirituality should give many families pause, as well. Mostly, though, this movie just felt confused. Its internal logic is inconsistent. Scenes show up for really no real reason at all—feeling about as stuffed in there as a walrus in spandex. There's no compelling reason why The Mummy should exist at all, really, other than to line Universal's pockets. Sure, the same could be said for lots of would-be blockbusters, but most still want to tell a reasonably good, or at least sensible, story. You'll find precious little sense in this flick. Perhaps it should've been kept under wraps.Pro-social ContentObjectionable ContentSummary AdvisoryPlot SummaryChristian BeliefsOther Belief SystemsAuthority RolesProfanity/ViolenceKissing/Sex/HomosexualityDiscussion TopicsAdditional Comments/NotesEpisode Reviews]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Nun Better, Except the Predator
    (”The Mummy (2017)” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    A win is a win, even if it’s an ugly one. But some are uglier than others. On the surface, The Predator did just fine. More than 30 years after the original Predator spent a whole movie hunting future California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, its cinematic progeny returned to Earth, invaded more than 4,000 movie theaters […]

    The post Nun Better, Except the Predator appeared first on Plugged In Blog.

    ...
    (Review Source)

Riley Fowler1
The Blaze



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Film Review: ‘The Mummy’
    ...
    (Review Source)

Christian Toto1
Hollywood In Toto



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The 5 Worst Movies of 2017 (No. 1 May Be Worst Ever!)
    transformers-the-last-knight-review

    Here’s betting industry insiders pray the 2018 year in film is nothing like the last 12 months.

    It’s hard to pick the very worst revelation from 2017, even with welcome

    The post The 5 Worst Movies of 2017 (No. 1 May Be Worst Ever!) appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

    ...
    (Review Source)

Armond White1
The National Review / OUT



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Mummy Unwrapped: American Guilt and Masochism
    Tom Cruise is a product of the ’80s, the period when American movies gave up that mesmerizing 1970s spirit of self-examination and became fatally “high-concept.” Cruise’s recent string of action movies showcasing his bantam intrepidness have all been frenetically “high-concept,” including his new remake of The Mummy. Unlike classically introspective 1970s movies such as The Godfather, The Long Goodbye, Hard Times, Sisters, or Invasion of the Body Snatchers — films of various genres whose narrative revisions (and emotional depth) were based in the era’s social restlessness -- Cruise’s The Mummy merely updates the horror genre to fit a meaningless, diversionary paradigm.
    Read More ...
    ...
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff1
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Put the Tom Cruise Mummy Back in Its Tomb
    LifestyleCultureMoviesreviews2017 Universal's The Mummy (2017) is a pale shadow of the 1999 hit of the same name. That movie, starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz, is a fun family adventure flick that well deserved its 2001 sequel. (It did not deserve the Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, but that's another story.) The new film, with Tom Cruise and Russell Crowe, squanders its actors and subject matter to deliver a cheap horror feel with a shallow message. Early reports suggest it will fail at the box office, and it deserves to do so. In keeping with the original films, the Tom Cruise version centers around an ancient evil being resurrected and sucking the life out of other people to live again. The stunning success of the original films was to take this grotesque premise and turn it into lighthearted fun. The new movie focuses on the darkness and the horror, straining to say something about the human condition. Also in keeping with the original movies, the main character, Nick Morton (Tom Cruise), is a treasure hunter who dives for ancient artifacts to sell on the black market. Morton is racing to stay ahead of the Islamic State (ISIS), as they destroy priceless ancient artifacts. Morton sleeps with and steals from Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis), and together they investigate an ancient tomb. The creepy Egyptian princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella) speaks to Morton, convincing him to set her free. From there, she wreaks havoc and threatens to unleash an even more dangerous ancient evil. Morton and Halsey, hopelessly outmatched, must be saved by the mysterious Dr. Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe), of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde fame. He reveals a hidden truth and allows Morton to find the secret to defeating Ahmanet. The story is intriguing, but the delivery falls flat. Morton and Halsey's romance is at the center of the plot, but the chemistry between Tom Cruise and Annabelle Wallis is nonexistent. The introduction of Dr. Jekyll is a fascinating idea, but it only serves to justify a deeply unsatisfying ending which is almost screaming for a sequel. The evil power-hungry princess is underdeveloped — there is no explanation for why she would want to unleash the evil god Set just because she was denied the chance to succeed her father as pharaoh. Why the Christian "Faith-Based Films" Audience Should Watch Wonder Woman As the villain is weak, so the hero has little character development. Morton carries out acts of heroism, but his character never fundamentally changes. His moral darkness remains, and even in a victory made possible by love, he leaves his girlfriend alone. This may seem deep, but the film does not earn the message it is trying to convey. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/06/09/put-the-tom-cruise-mummy-back-in-its-tomb/ load more ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

John Podhoretz1
Commentary Magazine



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Other Tom
    So, The Mummy. The question that bedevils me as I begin this review is how I can get to the end of it. Like Lucy in Peanuts , I am now counting words to see how quickly I can get to 700, which fills my slot here at The Weekly Standard. That was 53 words. I'm 8 percent of the way there. Can I make it? If this were Twitter, I'd put up a poll. On the one hand, there's the fact that I have nothing to say about this movie except that it's dreadful, so maybe I should just give up. On the other ha
    ...
    (Review Source)

Michael Medved1



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Mummy
    ...
    (Review Source)

Debbie Schlussel1
The New York Post



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Wknd Box Office: Megan Leavey, The Mummy, Paris Can Wait, It Comes At Night, My Cousin Rachel
    Blog Posts Movie Reviews The Mummy – Rated PG-13: I never saw the original “The Mummy” movie, but as with most other reboots, I’m not sure why this was and is necessary (other than to earn Hollywood types, including star Tom Cruise, a big paycheck). If the original Mummy movie was anything like this, I’m glad I missed it. This is a mess. About the first 25% of the movie is fine, but then it just becomes a totally ridiculous mess and never recovers. I mean, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Russell Crowe, who famously attacked Jewish circumcision but not the Muslim kind)? Really? That needed to be inserted into this movie? Only because the scriptwriters wrote such a weak, awful cyclone of a story. The tornado of a script picks everything up in ts whirlwind and then throws it to the ground, severely damaged. In the original Mummy movie, the mummy is male. In this one, it’s a woman–an Egyptian princess (Moroccan actress, Sofia Boutella), who is robbed of her birthright when her father, the Pharoah, has a male heir. Yup, somehow this faux-feminist story is a justification for the chick mummy’s evil . . . or something. It’s hard to tell which way the movie is rooting, since it’s all over the place. The movie begins with the mummy-ette’s story, then fast forwards to contemporary times when American troops are still in Iraq (this is the second movie like that this week). Cruise and a fellow former soldier are dealers in stolen antiquities looted from the Middle East (there’s Hollywood’s anti-Western, evil-White-man-takes-from-the-Muslims narrative again). They are in the mountains, scoping out the ancient Iraqi city of Nineveh (which was Assyrian, back in the day). The city is now in the control of insurgents and they end up in the crossfire. Soon the insurgents are vanquished and leave, as a sinkhole swallows everything and reveals an ancient Egyptian tomb–that of the aforementioned Egyptian princess. Cruise, the other guy, and a sexy female archeologist enter the tomb and Cruise ends up freeing the princess’ tomb from a bath of mercury, allowing her spirit to come back to life. On the way back to the West, the princess’ evil spirit causes an air disaster over the UK. Then, the story starts moving and gets very stupid very quickly. Cruise, who should be dead, is miraculously alive and constantly sees the possessed ghost of his fellow antiquities robber. Cruise learns that the sexy archeologist is really evil and an acolyte of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But then he is allied with her against the mummy. It doesn’t make sense, nor does most of this movie. The rest of the movie revolves around the mummy trying to get a sword re-united with a magical jewel that will complete the restoration of her powers and ability to destroy humanity. Or something. It’s kinda confusing. And apparently the sword is buried in an old (but newly discovered) Crusader burial ground under the London subway. HUH? Yeah, I know. It’s absurd. And not worth your ten-bucks-plus or nearly two hours of your life you’ll never get back. ONE MARX ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Counter Currents Staff1
Counter Currents Publishing



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • The War on Whites in Advertising: A Follow-Up
    (”The Mummy (2017)” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    1,916 words [1]

    Shortly after publishing the article discussing “The War Against Whites in Advertising [2],”I received a lot of comments, messages, and social media posts – the support for the article was tremendous, thank you. One message we received was in regards to the “Banned German oral sex Sprite commercial.” The reader wrote us and asked us to look into the commercial. What I found was far more interesting than even the reader might have known. The video is below. It depicts a white, blonde woman on her knees in front of a black man, and we hear her thinking, “I could really go for a Sprite right now” as she performs oral sex on him, and at the end she has Sprite foam sprayed all over her face while she thinks, “I love Sprite!”

    The first thing I found when researching this one was that the advertisement was not one that the Coca-Cola Company (which own Sprite) ran in Germany or elsewhere. The commercial was, in fact, a speculative advertisement, or “spec ad [3].”

    Spec ads are independently-produced advertisements that have not been commissioned or requested by a company. They are a way for those working in the advertising industry to boost their portfolio or win contracts with prospective employers by showcasing their skills. Spec ads are the equivalent of a “writing sample” in some ways, but can serve as a way to shift advertising trends while pushing social norms. Popular spec ads generate attention, and advertisers often take notice [4]. This particular spec ad hit over a million views within days after first being published online, and has since been viewed millions more times as it has been re-uploaded and shared on social media and Websites.

    The ad being “fake” is one thing which I immediately found interesting, but this goes much deeper into the woods. The Huffington Post article that discussed the ad mentioned that the name of the producer and director was Max Isaacson . . . Isaacson? Interesting last name. I searched for the name on Twitter and found an account matching that name, listing a Website in its bio section. The Website is for BroSis Pictures, and provides a short bio [5] of Max:

    He took that incredible eye for visuals, and moved into the director’s chair, shooting a number of music videos, and commercials for campaigns such as HBO’s True Blood, as well as an unlicensed “Banned German Sprite Ad” which became a huge viral hit, breaking 1.2 million views in two days.

    [6]

    Max Isaacson’s Twitter account links to the site, confirming that I had the correct Max Isaacson. I quickly searched through his posts, assuming I might confirm my conceit that there was a noticeable Jewish influence in race-mixing propaganda, which I discussed in my previous article, in the “Purveyors” section. Here is what I found:

    School Ties was the first movie to make me proud of hiding my Jewish heritage.

    — Max Isaacson (@Brosismovies) August 3, 2016 [7]

    …and these [11].

    [12]

    The ad was not created or paid for by Sprite, nor was it even created in Germany. Instead it was financed and directed independently by Max Isaacson, a New York Jew. The significance of this cannot be overstated. There was no financial incentive. Nobody requested that this commercial be produced. It is not as if Sprite had this idea, and that Max was merely the person who brought their vision to fruition. The entire project, from start to finish, was a Jewish expression of ethnic hatred towards whites, again using blacks as their pets, to send a message – in German, no less. The commercial was “fake” only in the sense that it was not produced or endorsed by Sprite. Its message, however, was very real.

    [13]
     

    How fitting that Max uses a rat as his Twitter profile photo. I have little doubt that if rats could communicate with us, they would be deeply offended by being associated with such vermin.

    It’s Not About the Money

    There is a legitimate argument to be made pertaining to media companies using “diversity” in advertising and other content: It is that the free market dictates everything, from the ethnic makeup of ads to the political themes in films. On its face, this idea seems plausible. After all, companies exist to sell products and services, and it logically follows that any action taken by companies should be carried out as part of an effort to maximize sales and profits. This outlook, although reasonable, is myopic and lacks several key factors in its analysis: Primarily that the goals of individuals within organizations, and the stated goals of these organizations themselves, are not always what they seem.

    Mainstream news organizations do not exist to uncover and disseminate the truth; they exist as the propaganda wing of the international Left. This should not be a controversial statement by any means. If one was not already aware of the lying and manipulative nature of the press, the 2016 election coverage should have been sufficient for nearly everyone to have noticed its incredible bias. CNN, for example, is negative towards President Trump ninety-three percent of the time, and their ratings continue to drop [14]. Taken together, the primary US news sources, including FOX, average eighty percent negative coverage of Trump [15], in a country where half of the voters supported Trump, at least as a rejection of Clinton.

    If gaining viewers and making money were the highest priorities for these news organizations, would they be so openly biased? And so openly engaging in political activism that they must know would alienate half of their potential viewers? To them, it’s not about the money. Sure, the money is necessary, certainly a goal somewhere, but they have clearly demonstrated that they will sacrifice profits in order to shape a narrative, control the flow of information, and warp political discourse. It is also necessary to note that a mere six corporations control ninety percent of the media in America. Television stations, radio stations, newspapers, films, social media, video games, comic books – virtually all media produced [16] is filtered through the small, international clique of the media conglomerates.

    Marvel comic book sales have also been declining following an effort to introduce “diversity” into their character line-up. These new characters include females and black teens, as well as biracial and Muslim heroes. The move towards a more “diverse” comic book industry was not a reaction to demands from the fans, but was the result of the efforts of organizations such as Women in Comics Collective International [17], an organization that promotes women and non-whites in the comic book industry.

    When asked about declining sales, Marvel VP David Gabriel said, “What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity.” The feedback from fans [18] was clear: They were alienating their core demographic and abandoning classic characters to make way for their new, “diverse” iterations. Gabriel’s honest comments sparked outrage and were called a “public relations nightmare for Marvel’s diversity initiative.” Gabriel then, of course, “clarified” his comments [19] and backstepped a bit, but the statement was already made, and it coincides with the evidence of sales numbers and readership demographics.

    This past summer saw the lowest number of summer ticket sales Hollywood has seen in the past twenty-five years. As one article [20] on this put it, “What is clear: This summer was marred with multiple high-profile films that flopped stateside, including The Mummy, Baywatch, The Dark Tower, and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.”

    [21]

    Sir Bedivere from King Arthur.

    The NFL has lost twenty to twenty-five percent of its viewers [22] over the past two years. Despite widespread opposition to the players who were kneeling during the national anthem, as well as declining viewers and ticket sales, the League continued on. Nike, Under Amour, and Ford all expressed support [23] for the NFL players’ “protest” and freedom of expression.

    People tune in to sporting events, read comic books, watch TV, and go to the cinema to be entertained, not to be lectured, derided, and thrust into the political arena. If it was simply about the money, CNN, Hollywood, Marvel, the NFL, and all those others who are currently experiencing losses due to their political meanderings would surely alter course to mitigate further damages. The “free market,” in a sense, has spoken. The argument is correct in that manner. However, what some fail to understand is that companies are not always responsive to free-market demands for several reasons. Many are simply in positions where their customer base can decline, and they can still make enough money. Others simply decide that the utility of political activism – be it taking a knee, or promoting miscegenation – is more valuable than high profits. The hostile elite in positions to make those decisions might have such a deep-seated and atavistic ethnic hatred for us that they will gleefully lose money in the short term if it helps to usher in our long-term demise as a civilization. No matter what is really the case, one thing is clear: It’s not about the money, it’s about sending a message.

    The Other Side of the Coin

    In my previous article, I wrote about the incessant use of interracial couples in advertising, particularly the depiction of white women with black men as the most common. Recently it occurred to me that there are indeed times when white women, white couples, and white children are used in propaganda without any hint of miscegenation or mongrelization. In a very subtle, yet sinister, ploy, white people are often used in a culturally and psychologically damaging way. When the press wants to tell us to stay single, not have children, and fight “overpopulation,” they direct the message solely to a white audience.

    There are several articles that make this point perfectly clear. To cite only two examples, according to NBC News [24], “[s]cience proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.”

    [25]

    And The Guardian says [26], Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children.”

    [27]

    These articles argue that extra people on Earth contribute to climate change; therefore to fight climate change, we must not have so many kids. The photos they use are all of white children. This is very curious considering global pollution, fertility trends, and population projections. In light of the data, the photos should depict only non-white children. After all, they are worried about overpopulation [28], right?

    [29]

    In articles that discuss the “science” of happiness, urging people to stay single, or not to have kids, suddenly “diversity and inclusion” are no longer of any concern. The only time white women are seen without black men in the media appears to be when the articles are telling women to remain single and childless – a rather unsettling discovery, as can be seen in three examples, here [30], here [31], and here [32].

    [33]

     

    [34]

    [35]

    When a nice white couple is depicted in the media, this is how: without children. On one side of the coin, the enemies of our civilization promote constant dysgenics and social chaos through race-mixing, and on the other, they encourage white Europeans to spend time alone – atomized, deracinated, and childless. This is propaganda with the sole intent of creating a world without us.

    [36]
     

     

     

    ...
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff4
The Federalist



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • God's On Trial In 'Exodus: Gods And Kings'
    (”The Mummy (2017)” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    “The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man, the roles are quite reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock.”—C.S. Lewis Director Ridley Scott acts as lead prosecutor in “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” putting God on trial using one of the Bible’s most famous stories. The accused stands charged with capriciousness, meanness, petty jealousy, and simply being an all-around jerk. The film follows only the bare outlines of the Biblical story. An anachronistic title character leads the film, a modern skeptic scoffing at superstition plunked down in the Nile valley. Moses (Christian Bale) believes himself the Egyptian cousin to the future Pharaoh Ramses (Joel Edgerton). When Ramses ascends to the throne, he drives Moses away. Turns out, Moses is not Egyptian at all, but was adopted by a princess, and is truly the son of a lowly Hebrew slave. Fleeing into the wilderness, Moses meets a local girl (Maria Valverde), marries, and settles into a life of sheepherding. But one day—wouldn’t you know?—he gets knocked on the head. He sees first a burning bush, then a small, angry boy who chides him about his lack of concern for his suffering people. Moses is to return to Egypt and free his people, by force if necessary. Tellingly, Moses carries a sword, never a staff. Moses grudgingly obeys this petulant deity. He confronts his would-be cousin Ramses, but there’s a much more sinister force at work. Soon plagues start afflicting the people of Egypt, down to the precious son in Ramses’ castle. Weak Sauce from Rich Subject Matter It would be prohibitive to chronicle all the ways the movie changes the Biblical story, and unnecessary. Accuracy was never the point. Even God’s great moment of self-revelation that has launched a thousand M.Div. theses, “I AM THAT I AM” is reduced merely to “I Am,” for no apparent reason. The central conflict is not between Moses and Ramses, but between little-boy-God and Moses. More importantly, the film changes the tone and ideas of the story. The central conflict is not between Moses and Ramses, but between little-boy-God and Moses. They yell at each other, they snipe, they call each other nasty names and accuse each other of being heartless, uncaring meanies. The only thing they never do is listen to each other. At the end, as Moses chips painstakingly at some stone tablets, little-boy-God wonders that Moses “doesn’t agree with” Him, but sticks around. Moses concedes that he “doesn’t agree with” little-boy-God, but at least they’re still talking. It’s a fair point about wrestling with God, as far as it goes, but it’s weak sauce from such rich subject matter. The Egyptian setting seems lifted whole cloth from Cecile B. Mille’s “The Ten Commandments,” with better special effects. You can tell Ramses is Egyptian because he sports linen robes, a bald head, and heavy eye makeup. Moses, even though he thinks he’s Egyptian, insists on wearing furs and coarse cloth like a peasant. Plus, even though hair care products have clearly been invented—his wife’s hair is lovely—he refuses to so much as run a comb through his stringy Hebrew locks. So it goes, using old tropes instead of reinventing: a dissipated, vampish governor is straight out of “Caligula,” an Egyptian priestess could be from “The Mummy.” Little Sympathy With or Depiction of Ancient Cultures It’s just one symptom of Scott’s complete lack of interest in the ancient setting. Another is the dearth of dark-skinned Africans in this film set in Africa. It’s odd there are no people in Africa who look like they could actually be from Africa, except slaves or servants. As an added twist, Scott did an excellent job casting Middle-Eastern looking women as wives to Moses and Ramses, the only casting that seems intentional. Egyptian religion and culture, with its Book of the Dead, vast temples, and well-heeled mummies, is reduced to nothing. Great actors—Ben Kingsley, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul—are wasted in nothing but supporting roles. Some characters, like Moses’s sister Miriam, disappear without a trace. Action scenes are big and epic, but chaotic. Rated PG-13, the film has some disturbing and violent subject matter, but no language or sexuality. Egyptian religion and culture, with its Book of the Dead, vast temples, and well-heeled mummies, is reduced to nothing. It could have been so much more. To the people living at that time, the idea that Ramses was a god would have been a ridiculously obvious fact. The pyramids were already 1,500 years old at the time of Ramses. (Whether the Hebrews existed in Egypt at all, and if they left at the time of Ramses the Great are sources of great scholarly debate. Tradition links Exodus with Ramses.) The pharaoh-god controlled the forces of chaos. He made the Nile flow, the sun rise and set, the crops grow. To challenge that would be more than audacious. It would be madness. That a small, weak tribe of slaves was challenging it would have been unthinkable. But no new territory is explored in this rich area.  ‘Exodus’ Refuses to Consider the Real Story’s Central Questions Instead, the central question is the modern bewilderment of why God creates and allows pain for innocent Egyptians. The heartbreaking aspects of the plagues are clearly portrayed, especially when God takes the firstborn of each family. At points, the film sides with the Egyptians. Moses, apparently more moral than God, takes exception to this indiscriminating death. Ultimately, what makes the movie fatally flawed is that it fails to capture the emotion of the story. It’s a valid question, and one that has been talked about for centuries by the faithful and skeptical alike, but the movie never comes to a point past accusatory. The problem of pain is merely a beginning of the conversation, not final word. Ultimately, though, what makes the movie fatally flawed is that it fails to capture the emotion of the story. There’s a reason why African-American slaves named their babies Moses, why Martin Luther King Jr. evoked Moses in his most famous speeches, why Jews to this day celebrate Passover—the story of their deliverance from Egypt—as one of the most important points of memory, and why Christians consider Moses a foreshadowing of Christ. It’s the hope of the oppressed, enslaved, mistreated, and downtrodden that God knows, God sees, God cares, and God will deliver. The very essence of faith—that God is good and just and somehow present—is no less relevant in the age of Islamic State murders and Ebola than it was when Moses first lifted his staff. The movie that captures that desperate, audacious hope, even with the shadow of doubt—especially with the shadow of doubt—is the movie that will see “The Passion of the Christ” popularity. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 20 Films That Flopped, Flamed Out, Or Were Generally A Disaster In 2017
    (”The Mummy (2017)” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Forget the greats, let's take a look in the dumpster behind the 2017 theater for the failures and rejects.
    ...
    (Review Source)

Hugh Hewitt1
Salem Radio Network



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Press and "Game of Thrones"
    (”The Mummy (2017)” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    As I peruse the news this morning I note that it does not take long after the Congressional baseball game for the headlines to return to the new normal of constant administration intrigue and unnamed sources mongering.  I felt a bit of bile start to rise and then I thought to myself, “Nah, they are just doing what they are supposed to do.” There job is to tell stories.  Sure they are supposed to be reported, not made up, but stories involve conflict and if you want people to read your story you have to play up the conflict.  In my adult lifetime the news media have discovered that argument sells.  Whether its “Firing Line,”  “McLaughlin,” “Point Counterpoint,” “Crossfire,” or now every panel on every show on cable news, the idea is to spark up a fight.  (Notice that’s a bit of an historical progression and as you go through time the rhetoric heats up.)  Let’s be honest, we like “Game of Thrones,” so if they want viewers/readers for their advertisers they are going to tell us what is going on in a Game of Thrones fashion.  They are just doing their job. My point is that the problem is, at a minimum, as much about us as it is about them.  We drink up this conflict-laden nonsense like thirsty desert travelers at an oasis.  What is it about us that desires conflict and intrigue?  Why do we enjoy that which tears down rather than that which builds up?  Like I said yesterday, we have a cultural problem, not a political problem and not really a press problem either The solution is also very much the same one I offered yesterday.  As the Apostle Paul closes his letter to the church in Phillipi he urges them: Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. Take that out of “biblese” and read it in everyday language – it says simply, “Stop filling yourself with ugly things are start filling yourself with good stuff.”  In other words, turn off the cable news. What if we consumed news like we consume movies?  “Wonder Woman,” a movie about genuine heroism, goodness and overcoming adversity, is beating the pants off “The Mummy,” which everybody tells me is dark and dreary and about ugly things.  If we chose our news like we choose our movies I am fairly certain what we see in the news would change pretty rapidly. We can solve this problem, but by changing our habits, not demanding they change theirs. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Sonny Bunch1

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️ Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻  Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail