Lot No. 249

But honestly, aside from the decor and the resulting atmosphere, what a waste of half an hour! The story is downright simple-minded, like something a schoolboy horror fan would dream up, with no attempt to make it more believable or to explain why any of the characters behave as they do. And in the end you're left saying, "Wait. You mean, that's IT? That's all there IS?? Where's the story?"

I should add that "Oxford," as depicted in this little tale, seems to be -- even in an age before electricity -- a place badly in need of lights, since virtually all the rooms and corridors we see are shrouded in darkness.

A young college student buys a mummy that he brings to life to do his bidding.

I haven't read the short story, but I had seen this adapted before as a segment of "Tales from the Darkside: The Movie" with Christian Slater and then-unknowns Steve Buscemi and Julianne Moore. I'm guessing Hollywood took some creative liberties -- but the BBC version did too, dragging in Sherlock Holmes and making a lead character gay.

Harrington is way too old to be playing a college student (I thought he was a professor at first), the characters are all utterly one-dimensional, the motivation for the mummy-attacks are murky at best, and most importantly, there were zero scares. The performances weren't bad given what they had to work with, and there's a nice British atmosphere, but generally it was flat and unmemorable. Plus, the Holmes cameo was absolutely pointless. That's a shame, I really wanted to like this.

As soon as I finished, I rewatched the "Darkside" segment, which I hadn't seen in over 30 years (it left a lasting impression though). The story is a little different, being relocated to the USA circa 1990, but it has everything that this version is lacking: strong characterizations, a clear motive, tension, and scares. The twist ending is equally corny, but at least it's logical, and it even runs a few minutes shorter than the BBC's adaptation.

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.

This is my least favourite of the revival 21st century BBC 'Ghost Story for Christmas' TV specials with very few admirable qualities but a range of unsatisfactory elements.

Characters are boorishly two dimensional and played with an according simplicity by the small cast. The production fails to generate a sense of authenticity which leaves it unable to function as a ghost story of a personal experience of the intrusion into the world of a malignant "other" force.

It is written in a way that suggests that initial on paper cleverness did not translate to the finished screenplay with ideas that should have been jettisoned after writing them up to a complete script being retained into production.

The mangling of a Sherlock Holmes cameo where Holmes fails dreadfully, indeed completely, at aiding a friend in need, unable to meet this request in any way leaves an odd smell behind. This is due to writing that should have not gone past a first draft.

This series seems to be running out of steam and this installment was so close to unwatchable that I couldn't imagine ever making a repeat viewing whereas some of its stablemates could sustain a second watch.

There are signs to me that the BBC can only make drama by rote, or by checklist, and that it is now a defacto Sunday School whereby the plebs can receive positive reinforcement from their social betters in the form of social morality parables delivered as inane TV programming. There is little other explanation for the writing and production decisions made in this adaptation that I can fathom, or speculatively guess at.

Certainly there is no sign of a ghost story motif in this: no sufficient effort is made to establish the normal, or natural, tempo for the world on view, as such inauthentic invasions don't seem weird and unsettling, we are just told that they are by explicit character exclamatory expositional dialogue. Without this sense of creeping weirdness into a hitherto normalcy there is no sense of growing fear, threat, menace for the suffering characters to endure in their mental experiences until the monster is finally made manifest to them and causes their ultimate dred and possibly expiry.

There is however sign aplenty that this has been put together to satisfy production criterias instigated in order to create a morally satisfactory cumulative effect on the audience: cognitive reinforcement of good and bad values. Sunday Schooling by TV drama.

As such it is both dim and dreary.

I rate at 2.5/10 because there were a handful of moments when the actors did enough with the dreck they were playing to hold my interest and suspend my disbelief enough to anticipate what will happen next in a scene. This seemed to me to be an occasional virtue of the actors rather than the writing or direction.

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.