Talos, die Mumie

I don't even know where to start. I was looking forward to seeing this, but I was terribly disappointed. Pretty much everything about it is either wrong (like casting Jason Scott Lee in the main role) or simply bad (abysmal writing). Laughably wooden acting and cheap CGI. And worst of all, this movie takes itself so seriously. It's two hours long, it has Christopher Lee and it takes about 30 minutes to establish the story. If they had gone for B-movie cheese-fest, it would have been great. But this approach killed the film. And what was with the ending? Were they really hoping for a sequel? I found it boring and will not watch it again.

"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"

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.

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.

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