Lot No. 249

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.

Another failure from the unenterprising pen of Mark Gatiss, whose monopoly of the whole 'Ghost Stories for Christmas' brand has long outstayed its welcome. This one eschews the usual M. R. James for an adaptation of one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's horror stories about a marauding mummy. I've read the story and loved it, but this is a pitiful attempt at an adaptation: there's no atmosphere, no depth and no workable scares at all, just a guy in bandages popping up to go boo. You can't fault the cast members, who work really hard at giving it their all, but you can fault the man response for writing and directing this tiresome nonsense.

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.

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.

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.