I don't even know where to start. I was looking forward to seeing this, but I was terribly disappointed. Pretty much everything about it is either wrong (like casting Jason Scott Lee in the main role) or simply bad (abysmal writing). Laughably wooden acting and cheap CGI. And worst of all, this movie takes itself so seriously. It's two hours long, it has Christopher Lee and it takes about 30 minutes to establish the story. If they had gone for B-movie cheese-fest, it would have been great. But this approach killed the film. And what was with the ending? Were they really hoping for a sequel? I found it boring and will not watch it again.
75 Reviews
Excellent, average and poor all at once.
elektra337 September 2000
I wasn't expecting much from this film, especially with the title "Talos the Mummy", to be honest I was quite surprised at how enjoyable the first 20mins or so were. Christopher Lee was as good as always and the rest of the cast fine. When the story went to England, things kind of lost focus a little and the story underwent a radical change. Unfortunately though it was the last 10 minutes that ruined the film completely. Do we really want to watch a film where every single character who utters one line is killed ? - Just what was the deal with the ending anyway, I couldn't half understand it at the pace the ending went!!!
It started strong, then became average and ended poorly. Sadly it's usually the ending of the films you remember most.
3/10
It started strong, then became average and ended poorly. Sadly it's usually the ending of the films you remember most.
3/10
Good cast, curious script
BijouBob8mm23 March 2004
I took a chance on this, based on the cast (Christopher Lee, Honor Blackman, Sean Pertwee, Lysette Anthony, etc.) and because I liked some of the director's previous films (HIGHLANDER, THE SHADOW). But this was definitely a film where the parts were greater than the whole. It had some good moments (and, like many mummy movies, the early scenes in Egypt were among the highlights), but overall the film's plot unraveled faster than the mummy's wrappings. (I would recommend one of Hammer's classics, be it the 1959 MUMMY or 1971's BLOOD FROM THE MUMMY'S TOMB, over this.) I have to admit I have only seen the version released here in the U.S., which is 88 minutes compared to other running times of 115 and even 122 minutes, so maybe the longer cut would help. Would like to point out something, however: Throughout many of the reviewer comments made about the film on IMDB, it is repeatedly stated that writer/director Russell Mulcahy must be an American because of all the mistakes the movie made when it comes to London lifestyles...sorry, folks, but Mulcahy is from Melbourne, Australia.
Poor Version of a Classic Horror Tale
ksj8709 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
*This review definitely contains spoilers.* I had high hopes for Tale of the Mummy, and for awhile it looked like those hopes might be fulfilled. The movie gets off to a good start with a strong prologue featuring the great Christopher Lee, who of course once played one of the most impressive mummies in movie history during the heyday of Hammer Films. From there, the movie goes on to establish an interesting variation on the basic idea of the usual mummy's curse. The eponymous Mummy itself doesn't merely shamble about strangling unwary victims, but is a mini-maelstrom of bandages and wrappings which only assumes a more tangible form at the right moment.
The cast is impressive, as well. Not only do we have a brief but important turn by Christopher Lee, but there's also Lysette Anthony, Shelly Duvall, Sean Pertwee, Jason Scott Lee, and even Gerard Butler (though Mr. Butler's character meets his demise just a few minutes into the proceedings).
Though nothing really breaks with established mummy-movie formula at first, at least the first act of the film lays what appears to be a solid foundation for things to come. Sadly, in the second and third acts the film gets progressively worse and worse. The filmmakers try to play around with viewer expectations and then try to subvert the same with a number of unforeseen twists, but those twists are so far out of left field that they all fail, without exception. One of the problems is that for things to work out the way they do, certain characters simply cannot do and say some of the things that occur as the movie progresses. The big reveals that happen--and there are a lot of them--blatantly contradict plot points that have already been established within the dramatic progression. The ultimate revelations regarding the identify of the Mummy, his Princess, and his followers aren't merely unexpected, but thematically impossible given what has already happened. In short, the script is a cheat and in the end everything unravels like a badly embalmed corpse. Which, I suppose, is appropriate.
In other respects, the production is generally hit or miss. A few of the on screen murders are creatively handled, but others are painfully ridiculous. An example of the latter occurs in a men's bathroom stall, where the Mummy wraps its prey up in its fluttering folds and...jumps into the toilet with him, resulting in a fountain of blood as the victim is pulled bodily through the works. I don't remember if the poor guy screamed in his death throes or not, as it would have been drowned out by my own laughter anyway. I mean, death by toilet? That's sure not how Christopher Lee did it back in the day. Thankfully.
Special effects don't always work out, either. The Mummy eventually emerges as a rather pitiful unfinished humanoid which, for some reason, the other characters find so impressive they want to fall down on their knees and worship. The climactic action scenes are weak and unconvincing in the extreme, and the movie's only real strong point--interesting characters played by well-known performers--fails in the end because so many of the characters inexplicably become entirely different people and also because one of them happens to be an extremely annoying psychic who I dearly wish had gotten killed much earlier.
Ultimately, Tale of the Mummy is a tale of futility. The story falls apart the closer it gets to the finale and in the end nothing of value is left. Even worse, Evil triumphs...the heroine sacrifices herself for nothing and the hero turns out to be an avatar for the Mummy, who attains immortality and walks out into the world to do as he will with his rejuvenated powers. Perhaps there was supposed to be a sequel. If so, somebody must have severely overestimated this particular Mummy's powers of telepathic influence because to my knowledge no such follow-up ever appeared. Either way, it's a poor finish that is totally unsatisfying on any level whatsoever.
There have been a number of good films in the Mummy sub-genre, but this isn't even close to being one of them. Tale of the Mummy starts off well enough and has a good cast, but one poor storytelling decision after another, coupled with a poor FX budget, means the overall production is doomed to failure.
The cast is impressive, as well. Not only do we have a brief but important turn by Christopher Lee, but there's also Lysette Anthony, Shelly Duvall, Sean Pertwee, Jason Scott Lee, and even Gerard Butler (though Mr. Butler's character meets his demise just a few minutes into the proceedings).
Though nothing really breaks with established mummy-movie formula at first, at least the first act of the film lays what appears to be a solid foundation for things to come. Sadly, in the second and third acts the film gets progressively worse and worse. The filmmakers try to play around with viewer expectations and then try to subvert the same with a number of unforeseen twists, but those twists are so far out of left field that they all fail, without exception. One of the problems is that for things to work out the way they do, certain characters simply cannot do and say some of the things that occur as the movie progresses. The big reveals that happen--and there are a lot of them--blatantly contradict plot points that have already been established within the dramatic progression. The ultimate revelations regarding the identify of the Mummy, his Princess, and his followers aren't merely unexpected, but thematically impossible given what has already happened. In short, the script is a cheat and in the end everything unravels like a badly embalmed corpse. Which, I suppose, is appropriate.
In other respects, the production is generally hit or miss. A few of the on screen murders are creatively handled, but others are painfully ridiculous. An example of the latter occurs in a men's bathroom stall, where the Mummy wraps its prey up in its fluttering folds and...jumps into the toilet with him, resulting in a fountain of blood as the victim is pulled bodily through the works. I don't remember if the poor guy screamed in his death throes or not, as it would have been drowned out by my own laughter anyway. I mean, death by toilet? That's sure not how Christopher Lee did it back in the day. Thankfully.
Special effects don't always work out, either. The Mummy eventually emerges as a rather pitiful unfinished humanoid which, for some reason, the other characters find so impressive they want to fall down on their knees and worship. The climactic action scenes are weak and unconvincing in the extreme, and the movie's only real strong point--interesting characters played by well-known performers--fails in the end because so many of the characters inexplicably become entirely different people and also because one of them happens to be an extremely annoying psychic who I dearly wish had gotten killed much earlier.
Ultimately, Tale of the Mummy is a tale of futility. The story falls apart the closer it gets to the finale and in the end nothing of value is left. Even worse, Evil triumphs...the heroine sacrifices herself for nothing and the hero turns out to be an avatar for the Mummy, who attains immortality and walks out into the world to do as he will with his rejuvenated powers. Perhaps there was supposed to be a sequel. If so, somebody must have severely overestimated this particular Mummy's powers of telepathic influence because to my knowledge no such follow-up ever appeared. Either way, it's a poor finish that is totally unsatisfying on any level whatsoever.
There have been a number of good films in the Mummy sub-genre, but this isn't even close to being one of them. Tale of the Mummy starts off well enough and has a good cast, but one poor storytelling decision after another, coupled with a poor FX budget, means the overall production is doomed to failure.
A poor relation to The Mummy
dave-96927 November 2000
This movie follows the old mummy formula of "archaeologist unearths cursed tomb whose occupant proceeds to emerge to slaughter many horribly".
Its largely British cast fails to rise to the major movie performance required and the most brilliant star amongst them, master of the horror genre Christopher Lee, plays too small a role to support them through the action. That being said, Sean Pertwee and Louise Lombard produce solid performances as psychotic and English rose respectively.
My major criticism goes to the lead actor whose Chinese-American accent renders a good half of his character's dialogue inaudible to all but the keenest ears.
If credulity is a feature of horror films, then it is stretched by the profusion of firearms - even a newspaper vendor has his own 9mm automatic!
Special effects vary from the laughable (parcel tape as "mummy wrappings"?!) to competent but lack the competence of those we see in The Mummy to which Talos has the misfortune to be compared. We might look on this latter venture with kinder and less critical eyes if it was a sole attempt to bring to the screen something horrible, gripping and terrifying.
Don't look for impressive scenery or outdoor camera work - when not in the studios, the director chose uninspiring London sets such as a tube station.
It has minor entertainment value - if watching on DVD however ensure you have subtitles switched on!
Its largely British cast fails to rise to the major movie performance required and the most brilliant star amongst them, master of the horror genre Christopher Lee, plays too small a role to support them through the action. That being said, Sean Pertwee and Louise Lombard produce solid performances as psychotic and English rose respectively.
My major criticism goes to the lead actor whose Chinese-American accent renders a good half of his character's dialogue inaudible to all but the keenest ears.
If credulity is a feature of horror films, then it is stretched by the profusion of firearms - even a newspaper vendor has his own 9mm automatic!
Special effects vary from the laughable (parcel tape as "mummy wrappings"?!) to competent but lack the competence of those we see in The Mummy to which Talos has the misfortune to be compared. We might look on this latter venture with kinder and less critical eyes if it was a sole attempt to bring to the screen something horrible, gripping and terrifying.
Don't look for impressive scenery or outdoor camera work - when not in the studios, the director chose uninspiring London sets such as a tube station.
It has minor entertainment value - if watching on DVD however ensure you have subtitles switched on!
Stupid, boring, lame.
wierzbowskisteedman17 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, so I first saw this film about six years ago. I still haven't forgotten just how badly this film stunk. It's a fact Russell Mulcahy's career has been in a tailspin for the last twenty years since "Highlander", this film only reinforces that idea. So, the cast was okay, despite Christopher Lee being killed off about five seconds into the film but still managing to get his name above the title. He is probably the only reason a horror fan would watch this; too bad the film nosedives after he dies and the opening credits come up. So, essentially, worth watching, if it wasn't for the last 115 minutes. Oh, and the ending is painfully stupid and annoying, making the two hours you sat through seem pointless, with no closure but too stupid and annoying to be called tragic.
AVOID, just watch Sommers' "The Mummy" instead, although his career now seems to be in the same situation as Mulcahy's, only he has big budgets.
AVOID, just watch Sommers' "The Mummy" instead, although his career now seems to be in the same situation as Mulcahy's, only he has big budgets.
Meh
rivertam2630 March 2020
Russell Mulcahy (Resident Evil Extinction) of the criminally underrated Razorback wrote and directed this big dud. Packed with alot of silly late 90s CGI. Basically it's a simple setup as an Ancient Egyptian Princes tomb is opened and his curse begins. Most of which involves him flying around as goofy mummy wraps attacking people. It's a very dumb movie but it's somewhat fun and funny in an unintentional way. In the end it's not really worth your time but if you must you should at least know what you're in for. Jason Scott Lee (Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story), Lysette Anthony (Krull), Sean Pertwee (Event Horizon), Jack Davenport (Pirates of the Caribbean), Michael Lerner (Elf), Christopher Lee (Howling II), Shelley Duvall (Shining) and Gerard Butler (Dracula 2000/300) star.
Budget: $8m
2.5/5
Budget: $8m
2.5/5
Talos is one mean & naughty mummy!!
Coventry3 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
For some reason I cannot seem to comprehend, truly great mummy-movies are extremely rare. The only really brilliant mummy film is the one from 1932 starring Boris Karloff, but all the others go from decent (Hammer's "The Mummy", dated 1959) over mediocre ("The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb", dated 1964) to downright lousy ("Dawn of the Mummy", dated 1981). The absolute low point was Stephen Sommers boisterous reworking of "The Mummy" in 1999, but that film regretfully became a huge success due to the irritating computer effects. "Talos the Mummy" is slightly better than Sommer's film, but that really isn't saying much. This surely isn't a terrible mummy-flick, but a little more coherence and logic would have been welcome! The story starts out promising enough, with a guest appearance from the almighty Christopher Lee who's up until his neck in filthy wrappings, ominous amulets and mysterious tombs again! He and some other greedy archaeologists open the grave of the ancient prince Talos and hereby unleash an unspeakable evil upon the world. This atmospheric intro is unquestionably the best part of the entire movie and the quality-level goes straight down right after the credits. Besides, don't consider watching it exclusively to see Christopher Lee, as his share is very limited...
The story then moves to present day, England, where the relics of Talos are exhibited in the fancy British Museum. Pretty soon, his "wrapping" escape and go on a killing spree in the streets of London. Talos' goal is to collect organs and body parts from foreigners, so that he can resurrect on the meteorological day when four planets are on one line...or something like that. Jason Scott Lee is the badly cast copper who has to protect princes-by-bloodline Louise Lombard from the extremely mean mummy... The whole legend and history behind the Talos character is quite interesting well thought out. He's a relentless and very malicious mummy and the aggressive murders he commits are fairly amusing. Too bad the film's structure is all messy and completely without tension. The computer-engineered special effects aren't very impressive, neither. The ending is truly horrible and swipes away that last bit of sympathy you still had for cast and crew. I could hardly even finish watching the finale....this has got to be one of the worst endings in horror-history. You've been warned...
The story then moves to present day, England, where the relics of Talos are exhibited in the fancy British Museum. Pretty soon, his "wrapping" escape and go on a killing spree in the streets of London. Talos' goal is to collect organs and body parts from foreigners, so that he can resurrect on the meteorological day when four planets are on one line...or something like that. Jason Scott Lee is the badly cast copper who has to protect princes-by-bloodline Louise Lombard from the extremely mean mummy... The whole legend and history behind the Talos character is quite interesting well thought out. He's a relentless and very malicious mummy and the aggressive murders he commits are fairly amusing. Too bad the film's structure is all messy and completely without tension. The computer-engineered special effects aren't very impressive, neither. The ending is truly horrible and swipes away that last bit of sympathy you still had for cast and crew. I could hardly even finish watching the finale....this has got to be one of the worst endings in horror-history. You've been warned...
A Mediocre Mummy
sherlock-3421 November 2000
Great opening sequences featuring Christopher Lee, quickly fade to standard gore and over used CGI effects. Mediocre performances abound and drag what might have been a good idea into a simply dull routine affair. The worst offender is the usually interesting Jason Scott Lee. He was simply miss-cast for this film and seemed eager to move onto something else. Don't waste your time on this flick, instead go back and watch Hammer's Mummy or the recent remake of Universal's classic Mummy with Brendan Fraser.
A confusing mess of a mummy film with an all-star cast
Leofwine_draca5 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
A US production, filmed in the UK for a change and with a UK cast, this still isn't very good. Basically it's a variation on the old mummy story, with the idea now that the killer mummy isn't actually human-shaped - instead, it's a pile of old bandages which can animated itself and strangle or crush people to death. The CGI effects used for the bandages aren't bad, but in the end it all seems a bit pointless anyway as the bandages take the form of a proper mummy after all.
Things look cheesily promising in the opening scenes, of a tomb excavation in Egypt. This time around, Christopher Lee is one of the archaeologists (back in '59, he starred in the title role in THE MUMMY). After a gust of wind comes out of the tomb, the three men are turned into clay (I don't know why either) and die, with Lee managing to blow up the cave as he does so. The sight of Lee disintegrating on the ground brings back pleasant memories of Dracula, but sadly this is to be the film's finest moment. It all goes downhill from there.
Things return to London, where the bandages escape and begin to kill people, extracting various organs (liver, heart, eyes) from each of the victims - like we haven't seen that one before. So what we have as the main plot structure is a series of gruesome deaths and a look at the police investigation into them. A typical kind of plot, but it's kept alive through the interesting supporting cast and the brave - yet not exactly realistic - special effects work. However, things fall totally apart at the end of the movie, when Talos is reincarnated as a being that looks like an alien (but which is still pretty cool, I have to say) and people run around a dark and gloomy factory (déjà vu perhaps?). Sadly by this time I didn't have a clue as to what was going on, making this one of the most disjointed, confusing endings ever.
Imported American lead Jason Scott Lee (more at home as a bad guy in SOLDIER, I feel) seems stiff and unsuited to this type of film, especially in his growing romance with Louise Lombard. Lombard herself is fine as the gorgeous archaeologist, but you get the feeling that somehow she's better than all this and doesn't deserve to be in it. Sean Pertwee plays a skinhead psychopath who's into astrology, and his over-the-top performance would no doubt make his dad spin in the grave. Frankly, it's pretty embarrassing, especially when Pertwee tries to act scary.
Lysette Anthony has a nothing role as a doctor, who ends up getting possessed by the spirit at the end of the film - like we could care. Jack Davenport - a familiar face to British television fans - is an investigating copper, and his death comes as one of the film's few real surprises. Honor Blackman has a bit part as Lee's superior, while a surprisingly ageless Shelley Duvall is a mystic who helps the cops out. One more item of note to British readers : watch carefully and you'll be rewarded by the sight of Bill Treacher - Arthur from EASTENDERS - getting his neck snapped by the mummy.
At the end of this film, you can sort of see what they were aiming for with the plot, but all that is spoiled by dodgy editing and confusing narrative. It's like a good idea is hiding inside the film and struggling to get out. It's a shame that this movie is a failure, because there aren't a lot of UK-based movies around these days. Russell Mulcahy proves again that HIGHLANDER was a fluke. Still, even after all this, it would appear that we lucky Europeans are better off than the Americans, who had half an hour chopped out of this before the film was released over there! I hate to think what the finished movie looked like, especially when this full version is pretty confusing as it is.
Things look cheesily promising in the opening scenes, of a tomb excavation in Egypt. This time around, Christopher Lee is one of the archaeologists (back in '59, he starred in the title role in THE MUMMY). After a gust of wind comes out of the tomb, the three men are turned into clay (I don't know why either) and die, with Lee managing to blow up the cave as he does so. The sight of Lee disintegrating on the ground brings back pleasant memories of Dracula, but sadly this is to be the film's finest moment. It all goes downhill from there.
Things return to London, where the bandages escape and begin to kill people, extracting various organs (liver, heart, eyes) from each of the victims - like we haven't seen that one before. So what we have as the main plot structure is a series of gruesome deaths and a look at the police investigation into them. A typical kind of plot, but it's kept alive through the interesting supporting cast and the brave - yet not exactly realistic - special effects work. However, things fall totally apart at the end of the movie, when Talos is reincarnated as a being that looks like an alien (but which is still pretty cool, I have to say) and people run around a dark and gloomy factory (déjà vu perhaps?). Sadly by this time I didn't have a clue as to what was going on, making this one of the most disjointed, confusing endings ever.
Imported American lead Jason Scott Lee (more at home as a bad guy in SOLDIER, I feel) seems stiff and unsuited to this type of film, especially in his growing romance with Louise Lombard. Lombard herself is fine as the gorgeous archaeologist, but you get the feeling that somehow she's better than all this and doesn't deserve to be in it. Sean Pertwee plays a skinhead psychopath who's into astrology, and his over-the-top performance would no doubt make his dad spin in the grave. Frankly, it's pretty embarrassing, especially when Pertwee tries to act scary.
Lysette Anthony has a nothing role as a doctor, who ends up getting possessed by the spirit at the end of the film - like we could care. Jack Davenport - a familiar face to British television fans - is an investigating copper, and his death comes as one of the film's few real surprises. Honor Blackman has a bit part as Lee's superior, while a surprisingly ageless Shelley Duvall is a mystic who helps the cops out. One more item of note to British readers : watch carefully and you'll be rewarded by the sight of Bill Treacher - Arthur from EASTENDERS - getting his neck snapped by the mummy.
At the end of this film, you can sort of see what they were aiming for with the plot, but all that is spoiled by dodgy editing and confusing narrative. It's like a good idea is hiding inside the film and struggling to get out. It's a shame that this movie is a failure, because there aren't a lot of UK-based movies around these days. Russell Mulcahy proves again that HIGHLANDER was a fluke. Still, even after all this, it would appear that we lucky Europeans are better off than the Americans, who had half an hour chopped out of this before the film was released over there! I hate to think what the finished movie looked like, especially when this full version is pretty confusing as it is.
very unique mummy movie!
olantern12 November 2009
this is a very good and unique mummy movie. why so many put it down is beyond me. the thing that makes this so good is that the mummy is mainly his wrappings that come and kill people etc. i find that very different and refreshing from all the other mummy films that are basically the same. its time for a change from the old mummy moving sludgishly about and in reality could never catch anyone, more or less kill them. ohhh thats so scary! lol. anyway i rate this an 8 for the originality and the movie in general is good and not to mention Lysette Anthony. she is one piece of eye candy! for those who have not seen it do not go by most of the reviews here. give it a try. i have seen tons of movies in my life and i am 60 years old and i know my movies. :-)
Talos The Mummy (Tale of the Mummy) (1998)
Boromir00726 October 2005
This somewhat unknown mummy movie starts excellent, with a great mysterious touch and some nice special effects. There is also some wonderful acting by Christopher Lee (as usual). But after the main titles (with a strong piece of music by Stefano Mainetti) this movie fails to maintain the great atmosphere. Some locations just aren't interesting. That is the biggest problem of the film. The rest of the cast isn't bad at all (Jack Davenport does a great job). Talos is not your usual mummy, but he's quiet original. The film has a great plot with some surprising moments. Do not confuse this with The Mummy (1999) by Stephen Sommers, while that one is more adventure than thriller, this one is more thriller than adventure. Overall an entertaining film, the prologue is really worth the effort. I strongly recommend this film to fans of the Hammer horror films.
Talos the Mummy is not a masterpiece
Radziwill17 August 1998
"Talos the Mummy" isn't a masterpiece but it's OK if you want a good entertainment. Of course I can't compare it with "Star Gate" or other similar movies but still "Talos" is for fans of Russell Mulcahy who directed it. Russell Mulcahy also directed "The Shadow" and "The Ricochet" and this movie isn't his best one (I think "The Shadow" is his best). But if you want to spend 2 hours of your free time with a good special effects, action and sometimes horror you should see "Talos the Mummy"
as negative as possible
Flex-726 July 1999
I thought Talos the Mummy was awful. The special effects were terrible, the acting was bad and above all the end was ridiculous: All the good guys died and the mummy survived. Who thought of that?! I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, even if I hated them. I really never want to see a movie as bad as this one again.
Talos the "Dummy"
yachiru-chan10 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
We watched this film having being recommended to it by a friend. She said it was "really scary". It was not.
Terrible acting from Jason Scott Lee, as usual. The running joke of the film is the very last moment, when he turned around and gave a sexy roar. Oh, what a twist. Not to mention his 80s looking sunglasses.
If there is a sequel, don't watch it! Oh yeah, the storyline was rubbish. Christopher Lee died within like 1 minute into the film. Obviously they couldn't afford a good actor. The so called tag line should have been "The terror is legend; the poor acting is real". Russell Mulcahy should not be a director.
(PS. Is his upcoming film "Russell" based on his life of mystery and being turned into a koala? Because a koala can direct just as well as he does.)
Terrible acting from Jason Scott Lee, as usual. The running joke of the film is the very last moment, when he turned around and gave a sexy roar. Oh, what a twist. Not to mention his 80s looking sunglasses.
If there is a sequel, don't watch it! Oh yeah, the storyline was rubbish. Christopher Lee died within like 1 minute into the film. Obviously they couldn't afford a good actor. The so called tag line should have been "The terror is legend; the poor acting is real". Russell Mulcahy should not be a director.
(PS. Is his upcoming film "Russell" based on his life of mystery and being turned into a koala? Because a koala can direct just as well as he does.)
dreadful
salty12345 April 2005
this is one of the worst films that i have had the misfortune to see,apparently the film is only 119 minutes long, I'm sure that i must have seen an extended version because it seemed to last at least 5 hours!it also had some of the more cheesier moments that i have seen in film, which is evidence of a director having the budget to use some cgi but really shouldn't as they don't know how to use it to its full effect and just ends up looking terrible. Sorry that i haven't mentioned anything about the actual storyline but as far as i could tell there wasn't much to start with! anyway I've had my rant, hope this was useful in warning you not too watch this film!
Absolute pap.
Ben-1805 July 1999
Well, it started quite well (although the special effects are clearly computer generated from the start) but, as others have said, quickly went downhill. You can find no compassion for any of the characters and rapidly give up trying to follow a plot which, you suspect, is being made up as it goes along. All the bit-part characters seem ludicrous and unbelievable - take the London newspaper salesman who carries a handgun in his jacket for an example!
And back to the 'special' effects. The mummy at the end looks like a man in a rubber-suit - that's when he doesn't look like a badly-drawn computer image. Unfortunately, the film's attempt to use lots of effects is to it's detriment - rather it should have put some more time into plotting a coherent story.
Oh, and there are at least two scenes blatantly ripped out of Aliens...
Miss it.
And back to the 'special' effects. The mummy at the end looks like a man in a rubber-suit - that's when he doesn't look like a badly-drawn computer image. Unfortunately, the film's attempt to use lots of effects is to it's detriment - rather it should have put some more time into plotting a coherent story.
Oh, and there are at least two scenes blatantly ripped out of Aliens...
Miss it.
Don't waste your time with this one!
sarah-1609 July 2000
This movie started off bad and just got really worse. The acting was terrible the special effects appalling and the chemistry between Louise Lombard and Jason Scott Lee was so not there at all. Please don't waste nearly an hour and a quarter of your life watching this piece of trash as believe me you'll end up regretting it. And if your waiting to see Lee in the buff then only watch the last 5 mins, even so it's not worth it.
Tale of the Mummy
CinemaSerf17 July 2023
Ok, straight to the point.... Why? What on earth was Russell Mulcahy thinking when he decided that this was ever going to work? Aside from an all too brief appearance from Christopher Lee (though easy enough to explain if he'd actually been sent the entire screenplay) the thing is an ensemble of some seriously C-rated British bit-part actors who support eye-candy Jason Scott Lee as the visiting detective "Riley" on a desperate mission to thwart a curse that will release "Talos" (a Greek bronze man, methinks - but, hey ho!) and bring devastation to all mankind. The special effects seem to consist of lots of bits of bandage blowing about in an attempt to create some semblance of peril, or menace - or maybe just a draft? The dialogue is just silly and what Honor Blackman is doing here is anyone's guess. Sorry this is just dross - and fans of mummy films (that's me, too) ought to consign this to a place where even the book of the dead can't help it.
Lacking in Both Horror and Suspense
Uriah4329 March 2022
This film begins in 1948 at the Valley of the Kings in Egypt with an archeologist named "Sir Richard Turkel" (Christopher Lee) discovering a chamber leading to the sarcophagus of an ancient Greek sorcerer by the name of "Talos" (played by Roger W. Morrissey). Unfortunately, all of the people on this team die within minutes after viewing the sarcophagus and the tomb is hastily sealed once again. The scene then shifts to 1999 with the granddaughter of Sir Richard Turkel, "Sam Turkel" (Louise Lombard) heading another team and managing to retrieve an amulet just before the spirit of Talos is unleashed which subsequently causes a temporary madness to affect members of the expedition. However, it isn't until they return to London seven months later that the spirit of Talos begins to take form-and they begin to die. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this movie certainly had potential but, rather than relying on tried-and-true ingredients like horror or suspense, the director (Russell Mulcahy) chose to use action and special effects as substitutes instead. Throw in some weak acting and an awful ending and the result speaks for itself. Below average.
Great intelligent mummy movie!
Movie Nuttball8 May 2003
This is My second comment on the film.
Tale of the Mummy is really decent and yet one of the most different of all mummy films.Christopher Lee has a short but very good part in the film.He actually shows a side of himself that is rarely seen on screen.Jason Scott Lee performed well and his relationship with Louise Lombard was good but it didn't go to the distance it could have because of the situation.Sean Pertwee put on a very act in the film.A very troubled but serious character.Shelley Duvall,Michael Lerner,007's Honor Blackman,Jon Polito,and Gerard Butler was in this as well!As for the movie itself it is very interesting from start to finish.The Mummy is very different and I like the way he changed into many forms in the film and when he came into formation at the end it is really scary.The music in the film is excellent.I really don't know what else to say.Tale of the Mummy is a good mummy movie that doesn't disappoint and if you have a chance check it out!
Tale of the Mummy is really decent and yet one of the most different of all mummy films.Christopher Lee has a short but very good part in the film.He actually shows a side of himself that is rarely seen on screen.Jason Scott Lee performed well and his relationship with Louise Lombard was good but it didn't go to the distance it could have because of the situation.Sean Pertwee put on a very act in the film.A very troubled but serious character.Shelley Duvall,Michael Lerner,007's Honor Blackman,Jon Polito,and Gerard Butler was in this as well!As for the movie itself it is very interesting from start to finish.The Mummy is very different and I like the way he changed into many forms in the film and when he came into formation at the end it is really scary.The music in the film is excellent.I really don't know what else to say.Tale of the Mummy is a good mummy movie that doesn't disappoint and if you have a chance check it out!
Enjoyed it
martincooper22 December 2002
I actually erm....well eh....enjoyed this movie. I was suprised to find all of the negativity about it here on imdb. I agree some of the voice audio was difficult to hear but that's about the only criticism I agree with. Story was fairly typical of this genre but the ending was brave - not copping out to another 'all is well' happy ending. If I have a problem with the ending it would be that it is not all that clear what actually happens - but I think I got the gist. I score it 7.5 out of 10.
The director should be Mummyfied
CharltonBoy3 September 2000
This really was a poor film , full of corny lines , bad acting and dull special effects. You could tell the director is not English as all the characters were because of some stupid steriotypical moments such as red phone boxes in ever street scene,lemon tea being drunk by bobby's and whats with everyone carrying a gun??? This was not New York!.Apart from that the film was dull. Dont confuse this film with THE MUMMY because although the mummy wasnt a masterpiece it was far better than this fair. If you wanna be scared dont bother with this tripe. 4 out of 10.
Not to be confused with an actual movie.
moviejay-22 October 2000
"Tale of the Mummy" is one wickedly bad movie. It starts off okay, with the always impressive Christopher Lee, but then it just tails off a bit, wanders around lost for a while and just goes to pot from there. It's poorly conceived and written, so poorly that I was wondering if the screenplay was written by someone who had never heard English, let alone spoke it. The incredible thing about this mess is that it actually got released, usually when a company makes a movie this bad they hide it on the shelf for a few years and then melt it down to make ash trays. I suppose that they figured that some idiot (Like me) would watch it because it has a Mummy in the title. He's not actually a mummy, per se, he's more of a bandage delivery system. I saw the box, read the title, it was a rent one, get one free situation, and I thought to myself, "How bad can it be?" Well, that question was answered alright, and I will never subject myself to this kind of deep, deep pain again. If you do watch this film and it does cause you to feel great discomfort in your head, don't worry, it's just your brain leaving in disgust.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
