User reviews

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.

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

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.

This movie follows the old mummy formula of "archaeologist unearths cursed tomb whose occupant proceeds to emerge to slaughter many horribly".

Its largely British cast fails to rise to the major movie performance required and the most brilliant star amongst them, master of the horror genre Christopher Lee, plays too small a role to support them through the action. That being said, Sean Pertwee and Louise Lombard produce solid performances as psychotic and English rose respectively.

My major criticism goes to the lead actor whose Chinese-American accent renders a good half of his character's dialogue inaudible to all but the keenest ears.

If credulity is a feature of horror films, then it is stretched by the profusion of firearms - even a newspaper vendor has his own 9mm automatic!

Special effects vary from the laughable (parcel tape as "mummy wrappings"?!) to competent but lack the competence of those we see in The Mummy to which Talos has the misfortune to be compared. We might look on this latter venture with kinder and less critical eyes if it was a sole attempt to bring to the screen something horrible, gripping and terrifying.

Don't look for impressive scenery or outdoor camera work - when not in the studios, the director chose uninspiring London sets such as a tube station.

It has minor entertainment value - if watching on DVD however ensure you have subtitles switched on!

Russell Mulcahy (Resident Evil Extinction) of the criminally underrated Razorback wrote and directed this big dud. Packed with alot of silly late 90s CGI. Basically it's a simple setup as an Ancient Egyptian Princes tomb is opened and his curse begins. Most of which involves him flying around as goofy mummy wraps attacking people. It's a very dumb movie but it's somewhat fun and funny in an unintentional way. In the end it's not really worth your time but if you must you should at least know what you're in for. Jason Scott Lee (Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story), Lysette Anthony (Krull), Sean Pertwee (Event Horizon), Jack Davenport (Pirates of the Caribbean), Michael Lerner (Elf), Christopher Lee (Howling II), Shelley Duvall (Shining) and Gerard Butler (Dracula 2000/300) star.

Budget: $8m

2.5/5

Great opening sequences featuring Christopher Lee, quickly fade to standard gore and over used CGI effects. Mediocre performances abound and drag what might have been a good idea into a simply dull routine affair. The worst offender is the usually interesting Jason Scott Lee. He was simply miss-cast for this film and seemed eager to move onto something else. Don't waste your time on this flick, instead go back and watch Hammer's Mummy or the recent remake of Universal's classic Mummy with Brendan Fraser.

this is a very good and unique mummy movie. why so many put it down is beyond me. the thing that makes this so good is that the mummy is mainly his wrappings that come and kill people etc. i find that very different and refreshing from all the other mummy films that are basically the same. its time for a change from the old mummy moving sludgishly about and in reality could never catch anyone, more or less kill them. ohhh thats so scary! lol. anyway i rate this an 8 for the originality and the movie in general is good and not to mention Lysette Anthony. she is one piece of eye candy! for those who have not seen it do not go by most of the reviews here. give it a try. i have seen tons of movies in my life and i am 60 years old and i know my movies. :-)

This somewhat unknown mummy movie starts excellent, with a great mysterious touch and some nice special effects. There is also some wonderful acting by Christopher Lee (as usual). But after the main titles (with a strong piece of music by Stefano Mainetti) this movie fails to maintain the great atmosphere. Some locations just aren't interesting. That is the biggest problem of the film. The rest of the cast isn't bad at all (Jack Davenport does a great job). Talos is not your usual mummy, but he's quiet original. The film has a great plot with some surprising moments. Do not confuse this with The Mummy (1999) by Stephen Sommers, while that one is more adventure than thriller, this one is more thriller than adventure. Overall an entertaining film, the prologue is really worth the effort. I strongly recommend this film to fans of the Hammer horror films.

The only saving grace of this film is that the plot itself wasn't all that bad. The dialoge and acting could have used some help though. God...so bad. It was nice to see Jason Scott Lee again though. He doesn't get enough work.

"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 thought Talos the Mummy was awful. The special effects were terrible, the acting was bad and above all the end was ridiculous: All the good guys died and the mummy survived. Who thought of that?! I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, even if I hated them. I really never want to see a movie as bad as this one again.

this is one of the worst films that i have had the misfortune to see,apparently the film is only 119 minutes long, I'm sure that i must have seen an extended version because it seemed to last at least 5 hours!it also had some of the more cheesier moments that i have seen in film, which is evidence of a director having the budget to use some cgi but really shouldn't as they don't know how to use it to its full effect and just ends up looking terrible. Sorry that i haven't mentioned anything about the actual storyline but as far as i could tell there wasn't much to start with! anyway I've had my rant, hope this was useful in warning you not too watch this film!

Oddly enough, then "Tale of the Mummy" had fully evaded me and slipped past my radar. And it wasn't before 2017 that I happened to find it as I was browsing through the horror section. Being a movie that includes a mummy and being a horror movie, I naturally found it interesting and immediately decided to give it a chance, without reading the synopsis or taking notice of who starred in it.

The movie does start out in an adequate pace, and does establish some characters pretty early on, which was good for the movie.

"Tale of the Mummy" has an adequate storyline, although parts of it seemed a bit forced. The storyline is simplistic and very easy to follow, making it feel like writers Keith Williams, John Esposito, Russell Mulcahy and writer/director Russell Mulcahy were followed a generic blueprint of 'how-to-make-a-mummy-movie'.

I must admit that I was more than genuinely impressed with the ensemble of cast that had been hired for this movie, because there are some rather good names on the cast list here. It was a nice surprise to see the likes of Christopher Lee, Gerard Butler, Lysette Anthony, Sean Pertwee, Shelley Duvall, Jon Polito, Jason Scott Lee and Michael Lerner in a movie such as this.

The effects in "Tale of the Mummy" were quite good and actually do, to some extend, still hold their ground even today. So thumbs up for the special effects team that worked on the movie.

It was kind of funny how adept the awakened mummy was at speaking English and speaking it flawlessly.

The movie does let off some of its momentum once it makes it past the halfway marker. Which is a bit of a shame. The movie in whole doesn't really stand out and is not a particularly memorable addition to the mummy movie genre.

And the ending of the movie? Wow, seriously? That had to be one of the most ridiculous endings in the history of mummy movies. It was so phenomenally bad that it has to be seen to believe.

Tedious, boring, laughable... One of the worst films ever made and another evidence of the complete lack of talent of Mr. Mulcahy. The plot was ridiculous and the acting was bad beyond description. Inside the theater most people (including me) didn't believe what they were seeing and at the last scene all the audience roared with laughter; a nice end for a so-called horror film. I cannot believe that I paid to see this thing.

I'm agreeing with at least one reviewer who liked the small prologue with Christopher Lee who was an archaeologist who entered a cursed tomb on a dig. But after that prologue and after Lee's character dies off and the film flash forwards thirty years the rest of it is an awful let down.

Jason Scott Lee plays an American detective over in London where the mummy has gotten loose and he's trying to resurrect himself. Back when he was a living human being he was a Greek exile in the Pharoah's court who dabbled in black arts. He got killed and cursed at the same time and archaeologist Sean Pertwee's got a psychic pipeline to him.

What should be suspenseful gets downright laughable. Tale Of The Mummy has some elements of the classic Boris Karloff film, The Mummy, but it ain't a patch on the original.

I understand the reason behind the low rating of this movie but on top, we talk about 1999 where the Egyptians look las if they are in the 1800 and also they require foreign archeologists to come and dig, and then to take the mummy to London free of charge !!

This movie includes many historical inaccuracies and cultural insensitivity. It's true that the portrayal of ancient Egyptians and their culture in the film is often stereotypical and outdated. The idea of foreigners easily excavating and removing artifacts from Egypt without any significant resistance or cultural understanding is also problematic.

I wish one day to see an American movie with more realistic plot about the Middle East particularly Egypt.

This is My second comment on the film.

Tale of the Mummy is really decent and yet one of the most different of all mummy films.Christopher Lee has a short but very good part in the film.He actually shows a side of himself that is rarely seen on screen.Jason Scott Lee performed well and his relationship with Louise Lombard was good but it didn't go to the distance it could have because of the situation.Sean Pertwee put on a very act in the film.A very troubled but serious character.Shelley Duvall,Michael Lerner,007's Honor Blackman,Jon Polito,and Gerard Butler was in this as well!As for the movie itself it is very interesting from start to finish.The Mummy is very different and I like the way he changed into many forms in the film and when he came into formation at the end it is really scary.The music in the film is excellent.I really don't know what else to say.Tale of the Mummy is a good mummy movie that doesn't disappoint and if you have a chance check it out!

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.

Talos the Mummy is a fairly ordinary movie. It kept me entertained for a couple of hours on a Sunday afternoon when it was shown on cable TV but I wouldn't recommend anyone actually *hire* it. The special effects in the first few minutes of the movie were laughable (almost on par with the laughability of the car crash at the beginning of the movie Along Came a Spider), but fortunately improved as the movie went on. The storyline went on as any normal mummy story should go, but the last 20 mins or so of the movie made no real sense in the whole scheme of things. Overall, only watch the movie if you are into mummy movies or you are bored, there's nothing else on TV and you are like me and can sit through almost any movie, no matter the quality....

"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.