Tale of the Mummy (1998) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
71 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
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.
19 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Somewhat of a disappointment, but still alright
slayrrr66617 September 2008
"Tale of the Mummy" is a better than expected though somewhat problematic entry.


Discovering a long-lost Egyptian tomb, Samantha Turkel, (Louise Lombard) and her team, Bradley Cortese, (Sean Pertwee) Burke, (Gerald Butler) and Claire Mulrooney, (Lysette Anthony) bring the contents back to the British Museum. Putting it on display, a strange series of deaths around London being in Detective Riley, (Jason Scott Lee) from the US Embassy to help solve the case, as each victim was found to have a specific organ removed after death. Discovering that it is the work of Prince Talos, (Enzo) claimed to be one of the most ravenous men in Egyptian history, trying to collect the body parts required to resurrect himself, they race to stop him and put an end to his plans.

The Good News: this wasn't all that bad and had some good moments to it. One of the good things here is that the mummy is pretty interesting. Rather than being the slowly lumbering type, as this one can move about fairly quickly, it has two additional powers that are fun and really sets him apart. This one can fly about, which is a clever concept and visually impressive since it's something new. The other new factor is the ability to use it's bandages as tentacles, using them to ensnare it's victims and trap them like a cocoon. Even more impressive is the ability to unravel itself and reform using the tentacles to do that. It's a fun trick that looks impressive and is a real treat to watch. Another big plus is that there's a couple of rather well-done attacks in here, as the sequence at the police station is really nice, a pretty decent chase comes out of an encounter in the motel as the mummy really shows off some nice powers and there's a couple kills as well. Even the encounters in the subway and parking garage are really good and much better than expected. The best, though, is the film's opening, with there being a couple great things about it. The atmosphere is great, the setting is perfect and creepy with the usual business about a curse and the decorations used around the chamber. Once the curse is mentioned, it's all pretty fun watching the brutality emerge. Then, segueing into the recovery scenes of the later expedition being just as creepy is a big plus. The last positive here is the rather sizable body count. While there's only a few that are worthwhile, there's a lot that actually do get knocked off, and it does deliver the gore nicely on some of them. These here are what make the film somewhat entertaining and enjoyable.

The Bad News: This one didn't have a whole lot of problems going for it. The main one here is that there's a decided lack of gore to many of the kills. Despite the big body count, not a whole lot of the kills are all that graphic, mainly by design since it oddly uses the off-screen method for a lot of the kills or just dragged the victim away and leaving the sounds as the only clue that something is happening. There's a few of them which are done on-screen, which is enough to get them over but it really could've had much more in here by simply using it's kills a little better. The other area that this doesn't work is the rather odd and confusing ending. There's hardly anything about it that makes any sense, between the twist that doesn't seem logical or even makes sense, to the actions of the ceremony and the specific guidelines which are required, the whole thing is just confusing and doesn't really have anything all that logical about it. These here are what lower the film and keep it down.

The Final Verdict: Some good stuff in here and a couple of somewhat troubling flaws lower this one somewhat but not all that much. Give it a shot if you're into the genre or have an interest in the film, while those who aren't that big on the genre will probably find this one to be more problematic.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Brief Nudity
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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. :-)
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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"
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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!
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Can a movie be so bad its good and still a good movie in the normal way?
moviesleuth25 December 2009
About a week ago, I said that I didn't believe that a movie could be "so bad it's good." Then I saw Russell Mulcahy's "Tale of the Mummy." The special effects are terrible, the lead actor is more wooden than a fencepost, and the movie is edited down so much that the storyline struggles to remain coherent. Yet, I still enjoyed it like I enjoy many movies; not because of it's badness (although that helped), but because it's still entertaining.

Admittedly, the storyline is not original at all (then again, this is a monster movie, and movies of this ilk generally have to follow a relatively rigid formula). An archaeologist, Sir Richard Turkel (Christopher Lee) has just discovered a mummy's tomb. Not heeding an ominous warning, he and his crew perish. Fifty years later, his grand daughter, Sam (Louise Lombard) follows in his footsteps, determined to find out what happened. Unwittingly, she and her associates unleash the spirit of an evil prince seeking to return to human form.

Like I said, the storyline isn't going to be associated with the word "original." But the details are different, which makes it less boring. In fact, it's actually moderately engaging.

When I put the DVD in the player, I was expecting a movie that I would regret watching, filled with bad acting and no plot coherency, and so on (I love Ancient Egypt, so I sort of had to see it). Actually, though, the acting is pretty good. Louise Lombard may have been a last minute casting replacement, but she's good in the role of Sam. She's comfortable in the role of the heroine, and makes a Sam in to a surprisingly believable character. Her co-star, Jason Scott Lee, isn't as successful. In fact, he's pretty bad. Riley is supposed to be the hard-boiled detective, but Lee is about as malleable as concrete. Fortunately, the actors with the smaller parts are better. Sean Pertwee is good as Sam's co-worker on the expedition, who after seeing visions when entering the tomb, is now on the edge of a nervous breakdown (you'll understand if you see the movie). Better known actors Michael Lerner, Shelly Duvall are solid as the modern day archaeologist and the fortune teller, respectively. Jack Davenport and Gerard Butler (who, sorry to his fans, is only on screen for about 5 minutes), are good as well. And Christopher Lee is good in the film's top-billed cameo.

However, the special effects are hideously bad. They are so bad that they make the graphics on my N64 look good. I realize that this was made eleven years ago, and I'm sure no one will disagree that special effects have improved by lightyears, but "The Matrix" was made only a year later. Still, the effects are so bad that they become unintentionally funny, and they turn the movie into a cheesily enjoyable experience. That being said, I have to admit, that there are a few mildly chilling moments in the film.

The only real problem that actually hurts the movie is that it's been edited down to its bare bones. The foreign versions have an additional 30 minutes, and that's obvious here. Many characters are undeveloped (one of the main characters had none at all), and some important plot points are missing, making the storyline (which, as I said, is somewhat interesting) borderline incoherent. And I never thought I'd say this, but for a movie that's rated R for "violence and gore," there's really no blood to speak of. A little more blood (and nudity, which was once a staple of these kinds of movies) could have given the movie a little more edge.

"Tale of the Mummy" surprised me. It's both entertaining because of its badness, and also because it's reasonably entertaining regardless. Do I recommend it? I liked it, although having a few beers in you before you start wouldn't hurt. It could be fun watch and laugh at the bad special effects (this could make a great drinking game), but it's also a decently made movie. It could be hard to find (I got it on Netflix), and although it's not for everyone (certainly if you're expecting something that's actually scary), it's worth a shot.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
not bad,terrific ending
disdressed1214 December 2007
this is a pretty good movie,with good performances all around.it's not the most exciting movie,but it is mysterious and suspenseful.i like Loise Lombard(CSI:Vegas)and Jason Scott Lee,the two romantic leads,but i didn't feel much chemistry between them.the special effects were all right,nothing spectacular.but then again,this is a relatively small scale movie.it does have some exciting moments during the last 30 minutes.one thing that i really liked about this movie is that it is unpredictable.it didn't end at all like i thought it would,and i mean that in a good way.i thought the ending was great.all in all,i'd give Tale of the Mummy a 6/10
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What the hell was this movie about?
bodie25 August 2000
I've seen lots of mummy movies and this one has the distinction of not having a mummy but instead a self-propelled bunch of bandages. The movie has a great beginning with Christopher Lee but then never delivers. About halfway through it looses steam and then craps out. I don't know what disturbs me most: the fact that this movie was made or that the ending left open the possibility of a sequel.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very Weird, Good Cast...kept me interested
asinyne7 February 2016
This is a decent horror flick. The special effects were very good and quite unusual. It was sorta the Mummy meets the Invisible Man for a large portion of the movie. The Mummy morphs from one form to another a number of times and it mostly worked. Lysette Anthony looked so darn cute, that little vixen. Christopher Lee was great as always, it would have been nice if he had gotten a few more scenes though. He looked cool too. The guy with the shaved head and tattoos stole a lot of the scenes. He was very good as a possessed maniac. The scene where they brought him back from the dead was pretty creepy, there are so scary moments in this flick unlike the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies, tho I generally liked them too. This movie is sort of a different take, an update on the more traditional Mummy films. I thought it was very unique and it kept me going despite the fact I thought it would probably be crappo based on how its rated here. It is very much better than its rating, overall the film has a lot of good ideas and it moves along well. I think most horror fans would get a couple of thrills from this epic. give it a try.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It never lets down
blackdragoon_1326 January 2015
I knew this movie back when I was a kid. Sincé then I enjoy it so much, mainly because of the ending, it was so different from what I seen until this movie arrived. Recently one friend of mine presented me with the DVD of this movie, immediately getting played on my TV. And yet again I loved it. I must admit that it has it's flaws (some aspects of the acting, maybe the sfx, which hadn't grow old well and the crappy sound, which is too low) but in general it's worth your money and time. The story is quite generic, but I have never seen again another movie that employs the same resources that this movie uses for fulfilling the return of Talos. Again, if you want to spend a quality time with some popcorn or other snacks, give it a try. You wont regret it. Also be merciful: it was made in the 90's, back when the quality standards were much different from today.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.

4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Better than Brandon Fraser's!
Tin Man-513 August 1999
I'm absolutely surprised at all the negativity that this film is getting. My question is, what are they basing it on? Dimension Films, you made a big, big mistake not releasing this to theaters. You guys probably thought that you could use this to cash in on the success of "The Mummy," with Brandon Fraser. Well, it would have been a good idea if this had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with that movie, but it's completely different and stands alone. You guys were acting foolishly.

I actually found this film to be much better than "The Mummy." While I immensely enjoyed the summer movie, I feel that it was more of an action/adventure than horror. This movie goes back to its roots: pure horror, and that's what really makes it work.

Set in London, the film follows an American detective and an assortment of other characters as they battle Talos, a banished Egyptian sorcerer who whose body was never found in the days of Pharaohs. His wrappings must collect body parts and the heart of his reincarnated love in order to create it's body and begin the Armageddon. He has to do it before the first five planets all align, and it's a desperate race to stop him before he can.

First of all, how can anyone say the special effects in this film is disappointing? They are absolutely incredible.... The wrappings come to life and attack people, shaping into humam form sometimes and other times crawling on the ceiling like an overgrown spider. They are some of the finest special effects I think I've ever seen in a horror thriller. How in the world can someone say that these fx are bad? They are absolutely real and astounding....much more real than in the Brandon Fraser flick. And, unlike the former film, this one doesn't use them to show them off, but they actually fit into the story and are not overused.

The storyline is great, too.... It manages to keep it down packed so it is easy to understand, and at the same time, it is very complex and it has many different angles to it. The ending is also a fine twist that nicely wraps the film up (no pun intended). Well anyway, I shuddered, and that doesn't happen much.

The cast and direction are also high-grade. Jason Scott Lee is good as the detective Riley, who's not sure whether or not to believe in Talos. Sean Pertwee is also fantastic as the odd cult-member who walks the thin line between paranoid and psychotic. I'm thinking Best Supporting Actor nomination for him. For the direction, while Fraser's "The Mummy" relied on heavy stunts and over-the-top action stunts, Russell Mulcahy focuses more on the dark style, so it is a slow-moving, moody thriller with slick timing. He winged this one much like he did "The Shadow," another greatly underrated film. Someone better keep their eyes on this guy....he's likely to hit something big one day and get a lot of recognition. But anyway, that's my prediction.

All in all, see "Tale of the Mummy." It is superb and much better then the Brandon Fraser film. And even if you might disagree....it's certainly worth spending 88 minutes of your life watching it.

***1/2 out of ****
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
aalex23 June 2000
Warning: Spoilers
The Tale of the mummy started out to be a good movie and then it had become more Science fiction than egyptian.

All the actors in the flim were good i liked them all in a way. The movie was good in a sense it could have been better if the mummy had been an alien or something. But it is a classic mummy movie and like any other mummy movie. Mummy movie fans would love this movie.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Take it from an American
dgs1 August 1999
Don't listen to the other reviewers - they're foreigners... Talos the Mummy (or Tale of the Mummy as the video says) was an awesome special-effects horror film that is in fact opposite of Stephen Sommers' excellent Mummy remake because it is a horror not an adventure as the box art claims it is. Sad story that Russel Mulcahy's best film to date has been tossed on the video shelf half a year too early from its supposed theater release just so Miramax/Dimension can shamefully cash in the success of the big-budgeted smash hit. All the other foreigner critics complained that this was boring its really interesting, dark, and an all new different story. They were so logic-driven, it's just a movie! Abandon all logics just to enjoy the few bucks you loose in an awesome film. So what if the cast ain't worth it...the mummy is. I give this sucker 7 out of 10 because its GOOD! The opening is awesome and if you expect the film to get worse - it actually just stays the same throughout - until the unexpected, yet disappointing ending with a last frame that will scare even the strongest of wills like me! Never had a film do that since the remade versions of Haunting or The Thing!
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
In some ways, better than The Mummy and certainly better than its rating
siderite20 May 2015
I don't understand why this movie has such a low rating on IMDb. It has a stellar cast (with a bit of an annoying bait and switch), it has an interesting story, characters that are actually developed and it is a UK coproduction, so you know it is better than a normal US movie from the start.

The film starts with an Egyptian dig (how else) where the likes of Christopher Lee are excavating the mysterious burial place of Talos, the cursed Greek who came to Egypt and learned forbidden magic. Then Lee dies. Several years later, his niece comes to check the dig out, accompanied by the likes of Gerard Butler and Sean Pertwee. Butler dies immediately and Pertwee continues to appear randomly as a slightly insane person. This is annoying if you started to watch the movie because of the cast, but I didn't so it didn't bother me.

Present time, stuff happens and two detectives, played by none others than Jason Scott Lee and Jack Davenport, need to investigate. Add to this the two British hotties Louise Lombard and Lysette Anthony and the movie is interesting on that alone.

The film lasts for almost two hours, which is a bit too long for the level of tension that the movie manages to maintain, but in no way is it a bad story. While the reasoning of the Talos mummy are not revealed until the end and seem stupid, they become believable at the end with the extra information.

Bottom line: a TV movie that appeared a year before The Mummy. If you take the special effects (which were not bad, but certainly were cheap in Talos) out of the equation, the only possible reason why The Mummy would be better is Arnold Vosloo and a slightly more fleshed out (pardon the pun) character for the mummy. While not really a horror film, it is a good paranormal thriller, even with the silly twist at the end.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
There Are No Breasts In This Film
sydney_greenstreet5 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
People are being altogether too hard on this film. I found it delightful, and only partly because I had been looking at pictures of Lysette Anthony's breasts five minutes beforehand. Unfortunately those breasts do not make even cameo appearances in this film, but Christopher Lee does, and he is equally magnetic. There is some fine acting and adept direction on display here, in a heady combination with all the apocalyptic terror that can be generated by a pile of bandages. The scene in which the pile of bandages hitchhikes a ride on a maid's cart and sneaks off an elevator is, in particular, an imaginative tour de force.

The most remarkable thing to me is that this film is called "Talos the Mummy", yet both IMDb and Wikipedia use a different title. It is as if there is a conspiracy to rewrite history so that this film never existed. Sublime.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A flaccid mummy movie...
paul_haakonsen30 August 2017
Oddly enough, then "Tale of the Mummy" had fully evaded me and slipped past my radar. And it wasn't before 2017 that I happened to find it as I was browsing through the horror section. Being a movie that includes a mummy and being a horror movie, I naturally found it interesting and immediately decided to give it a chance, without reading the synopsis or taking notice of who starred in it.

The movie does start out in an adequate pace, and does establish some characters pretty early on, which was good for the movie.

"Tale of the Mummy" has an adequate storyline, although parts of it seemed a bit forced. The storyline is simplistic and very easy to follow, making it feel like writers Keith Williams, John Esposito, Russell Mulcahy and writer/director Russell Mulcahy were followed a generic blueprint of 'how-to-make-a-mummy-movie'.

I must admit that I was more than genuinely impressed with the ensemble of cast that had been hired for this movie, because there are some rather good names on the cast list here. It was a nice surprise to see the likes of Christopher Lee, Gerard Butler, Lysette Anthony, Sean Pertwee, Shelley Duvall, Jon Polito, Jason Scott Lee and Michael Lerner in a movie such as this.

The effects in "Tale of the Mummy" were quite good and actually do, to some extend, still hold their ground even today. So thumbs up for the special effects team that worked on the movie.

It was kind of funny how adept the awakened mummy was at speaking English and speaking it flawlessly.

The movie does let off some of its momentum once it makes it past the halfway marker. Which is a bit of a shame. The movie in whole doesn't really stand out and is not a particularly memorable addition to the mummy movie genre.

And the ending of the movie? Wow, seriously? That had to be one of the most ridiculous endings in the history of mummy movies. It was so phenomenally bad that it has to be seen to believe.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Enjoyable but confusing ...
parry_na18 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Overshadowed by the wretched Steven Sommers comedies released only months afterwards, 'Talos the Mummy/Tale of the Mummy' is superbly directed, looks great, is competently acted and verges on the incomprehensible. It is such a shame because the idea offers something refreshingly new in the way the mummy intends to resurrect himself.

Having had his organs intentionally removed, his victims are therefore stalked by malevolent wrappings as he pursues rebirth, wrappings that take on a stronger physical form each time we witness them.

There's a wealth of familiar UK faces here. Lysette Anthony, Honor Blackman, Louise Lombard – mostly in underwritten parts. There's a cameo from actors Bill Treacher and Elizabeth Power. A few years earlier, they played characters in UK soap EastEnders who had an affair that scored very high ratings. It's difficult to imagine their brief inclusion in this film as (presumably) husband and wife is not unrelated to that notoriety. Edward Tudor-Pole, lead singer with the band Tenpole Tudor, also appears as a blind man.

The CGI Talos towards the end disappoints, but his almost spiritual influence throughout the film is impressive, particularly when it concerns Brad (Sean Pertwee) who is subject to a kind of exorcism to expel the creature. The ending further jumbles the narrative, with seemingly half the cast taking it in turns to be host to the spirit of the mummy. A flawed, frustrating ending to an enjoyable but confusing film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I want my mummy to get a wrap on it
bkoganbing31 July 2013
I'm agreeing with at least one reviewer who liked the small prologue with Christopher Lee who was an archaeologist who entered a cursed tomb on a dig. But after that prologue and after Lee's character dies off and the film flash forwards thirty years the rest of it is an awful let down.

Jason Scott Lee plays an American detective over in London where the mummy has gotten loose and he's trying to resurrect himself. Back when he was a living human being he was a Greek exile in the Pharoah's court who dabbled in black arts. He got killed and cursed at the same time and archaeologist Sean Pertwee's got a psychic pipeline to him.

What should be suspenseful gets downright laughable. Tale Of The Mummy has some elements of the classic Boris Karloff film, The Mummy, but it ain't a patch on the original.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed