Tale of the Mummy

It has been well publicized in specialty magazines that Russell Mulcahy had trouble finding a producer for this pet project of his, which would finally show on screen a startling effect that the classic Hammer film THE MUMMY (1959), due to technical limitations, could only show on its poster -- a walking mummy with a light beam going through a hole in his chest. Well, no wonder potential backers were not that much interested: no matter how interesting that effect could be, Mulcahy's plot idea is simply the most ridiculous notion ever proposed for a mummy flick. Here the BANDAGES that wrap the mummy are the monster! Those pieces of Egyptian gauze fly, kill people, extract selected organs from their victims (how?) and carry them along (how again?) to some arbitrarily defined spot in order to fulfill your standard prophetic destiny. A good cast is wasted in comic-book roles and situations that make no sense (Why would an American cop take charge of a Scotland Yard investigation? What's in it for the "surprise" villain for his/her commitment?) and the single most laughable closing shot in a genre movie. (Schrader's version of CAT PEOPLE at least justified having its main characters howl and growl, but would a reincarnated mummy behave the same way?) Worse of all is the incoherent script, which caps an elaborate (if unconvincing) buildup of situations, motives and circumstances with an idiotic, cheap-shot "shock" ending that contradicts and denies everything that happened so far.

One usually is compelled to root for maverick filmmakers who are willing not to compromise their vision and push their projects over the stubborn narrow-mindedness of conservative producers. This time, however, the latter were right: TALOS THE MUMMY was a rotten idea and a complete waste of resources.

"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.

Well. The reason that I saw this was I like the director's previous work, and the movie sounded cool on the box. Plus I was renting it from my library for free so I wouldn't lose anything. The movie wasn't that bad. I wouldn't say that it was a waste of time. The movie had some good points; the story kept me interested and the movie as a whole was good until the end. The end made sense, but it didn't seem right. Now I think that many people didn't like the movie, because they have seen the US version. From what I see on this site is that there are two versions of this movie; the international version and the US version. the US version is 88 minutes while the international version is almost 120 minutes! That is a little over 30 minutes of movie that is gone. I am sure that the international version is much better, because it probably explains more. I would really like to see this version. Does anyone know how to get it? If so, e-mail me at Dvdmrp@aol.com. Anyway, if you are a fan of the director or if you like these kind of movies then go see it. Just don't pay too much or expect too much. It is not great, but it doesn't suck either. It is in between. 5/10

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.

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.