Tale of 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'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 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.

I wasn't expecting much from this film, especially with the title "Talos the Mummy", to be honest I was quite surprised at how enjoyable the first 20mins or so were. Christopher Lee was as good as always and the rest of the cast fine. When the story went to England, things kind of lost focus a little and the story underwent a radical change. Unfortunately though it was the last 10 minutes that ruined the film completely. Do we really want to watch a film where every single character who utters one line is killed ? - Just what was the deal with the ending anyway, I couldn't half understand it at the pace the ending went!!!

It started strong, then became average and ended poorly. Sadly it's usually the ending of the films you remember most.

3/10

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