Lot No. 249

Now, I haven't read the Conan Doyle story, but I am familiar with the story from "Tales from the Darkside: The Movie" anthology. And thus, of course I had to sit down and watch this 2023 take on the story and see what writer and directors Mark Gatiss had to offer here with this short film.

Again, while I am not familiar with the original Conan Doyle story, I don't know how true Mark Gatiss stayed to the source material, or how much liberty of rewriting he took here. Regardless, sitting down to watch "Lot No. 249" for the purpose of being entertained, I will say that writer and director Mark Gatiss succeeded in doing so.

I was only familiar with Kit Harington on the cast list in "Lot No. 249", but I have to say that the entire cast ensemble put on good performances. It was a small cast ensemble, but they carried the film well. I was also particularly impressed with actor Colin Ryan's performance.

Visually then "Lot No. 249" was good. The special effects were simplistic, but to the point and very functional. And that certainly spoke well in favor of the overall impression of the short film.

My rating of "Lot No. 249" lands on a six out of ten stars.

I prefer ghost stories to horror films, there again, I have a soft spot for Frankenstein and Dracula, they'd have made a great gay couple, had there been different social mores and literary convergence when they were written.

This relatively short piece, from the pen and lens of Mark Gatiss is suitably dark and scary, it contains significant Sherlock Holmes associations and unsurprisingly originated from the quill pen of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Kit Harrington (Smith) a very Victorian pre-Raiders of the Lost Ark hero, with no significant buckle to swash, bangs on the door (supposedly of Holmes before Baker Street), scared stiff, having apparently been followed by an Egyptian Mummy - Lot 249 in an auction - which Bellingham, a foppish student played by Freddie Fox as well as a modest suburb in Lewisham, London, seems intent on bringing to life.

We see the prequel from several weeks before, depicting how this arose.

The scaredy-cat student living in adjacent rooms in the Hallowed Courtyards of Oxford almost drowned, apparently pushed into the river by the Mummy, who does seem intent on causing havoc - primarily at the instigation of Bellingham. Why he should be so obsessed by Egyptology or wish to bring a 40 century old Mummy to life is not made clear, but Conan Doyle was writing at a time of heightened interest in Sphinxes, Pyramids and Mummies.

Gatiss creates a great atmosphere with several dark (both visual and narrative) scenes.

My one objection is the lack of character in the Mummy. King Kong - as different to this as chalk and cheese - nevertheless, a figure who caused fear and panic, did show emotion, bathos, pathos - even affection. With the long history of Egypt, this Mummy might have shown some character, not necessarily doing The Times crossword, but at least discovering the intricacies of Rubik's cube. Why he wanted to terrorise upstanding students in Oxford is unclear.

Ghosts do not have to be bad, although, like politicians and realtors, they generally get a bad press.

This was a charming, scary enjoyable vignette - but I suggest Mummy's form a Union to protect their reputations. They can't all be bad.

Another of Gatiss's flaccid christmas chills from a bygone age. Here you have Conan Doyle's short story about a mummy's curse and stretched out to half an hour it definitely feels like a case of "more is less". There's even a clumsy nod to one of Doyle's more obscure characters. Some... detective chap... which feels rum and misjudged. Up there with his "Thomas Thomas" reference from Doctor Who. These specials are only really worth a hoot because of the casting and the strange plummy dialogue. Always period accurate, but rather stiff sounding. Perhaps he should go back into the old comedy or do a Lucifer Box show instead.

Mark Gatiss should be applauded for keeping the BBC Christmas ghost story tradition going in a time of budget cuts. I fear that this might be the last for some years by the BBC.

At least Gatiss has skated around the low budget by gathering a classy guest cast in this short story by Arthur Conan Doyle.

Medical student Smith (Kit Harington) gets involved with unearthly happenings at his Oxford college.

A foreign student Monkhouse Lee nearly ended up dead. He had fallen out with fellow student Bellingham (Freddie Fox.) The louche Bellingham is an expert on Egyptology. He is in possession of a creepy mummified body and a strange Egyptian manuscript that he obtained from an auction.

Smith decides to confront Bellingham and get him to end his revenge on those who have crossed him.

It is not quite a mummy story, although a shadowy mummy coming to life is heavily implied.

It really harks back to the 1970s BBC ghost stories strand. There is plenty of atmosphere, although Gatiss cannot avoid putty a naughty easter egg with a teasing Sherlock Holmes mash up.

I'm a bit of a devotee to the Christmas horror story, that is somewhat a BBC tradition. I've certainly seen and reviewed the contributions that Mark Gatiss has made to this run, though I'd be the first to say that I haven't liked all of them. I'm afraid that, for me "Lot no. 249" is another one for the disappointment file.

Abercrombie Smith (Kit Harington) appears at the house of his friend (John Heffeman) terrified and recounts a story about a fellow student at Oxford. Smith is training as a doctor and was called to the chamber of Edward Bellingham (Freddie Fox) an Egyptologist, as he has passed out. Whilst reviving him, he notices a sarcophagus and mummified occupant. Later, Smith hears strange noises coming from Bellingham's room and, in an incident that evening, another student, with whom Bellingham has a longstanding grudge is attacked. Smith comes to believe that the Mummy is the perpetrator of the attacks.

I think maybe some of the issue with this is with me and my expectations. As I've got older, the alure of Christmas TV has waned and these horror specials are one of the few things I look out for. So, I don't think that this is "bad" - it's just lacking in the sort of surprising or clever elements that I was after. I do think the decision to stray away from Conan Doyle's even more anticlimactical ending was a good one, but even this version I found lacking.

I think perhaps this one suffers from being a bit too explicit, in the sense there's never really another plausible explanation offered for the attacks. The reason for them too, feels like a bit of a stretch, though maybe that half an hour run time meant that further exploration of that wasn't possible.

Again, I don't think this was bad, and I'll be back in twelve months for the next one, but something a little more genuinely scary, or clever, would be welcome.