Overshadowed by the wretched Steven Sommers comedies released only months afterwards, 'Talos the Mummy/Tale of the Mummy' is superbly directed, looks great, is competently acted and verges on the incomprehensible. It is such a shame because the idea offers something refreshingly new in the way the mummy intends to resurrect himself.Having had his organs intentionally removed, his victims are therefore stalked by malevolent wrappings as he pursues rebirth, wrappings that take on a stronger physical form each time we witness them.There's a wealth of familiar UK faces here. Lysette Anthony, Honor Blackman, Louise Lombard – mostly in underwritten parts. There's a cameo from actors Bill Treacher and Elizabeth Power. A few years earlier, they played characters in UK soap EastEnders who had an affair that scored very high ratings. It's difficult to imagine their brief inclusion in this film as (presumably) husband and wife is not unrelated to that notoriety. Edward Tudor-Pole, lead singer with the band Tenpole Tudor, also appears as a blind man.The CGI Talos towards the end disappoints, but his almost spiritual influence throughout the film is impressive, particularly when it concerns Brad (Sean Pertwee) who is subject to a kind of exorcism to expel the creature. The ending further jumbles the narrative, with seemingly half the cast taking it in turns to be host to the spirit of the mummy. A flawed, frustrating ending to an enjoyable but confusing film.

People are being altogether too hard on this film. I found it delightful, and only partly because I had been looking at pictures of Lysette Anthony's breasts five minutes beforehand. Unfortunately those breasts do not make even cameo appearances in this film, but Christopher Lee does, and he is equally magnetic. There is some fine acting and adept direction on display here, in a heady combination with all the apocalyptic terror that can be generated by a pile of bandages. The scene in which the pile of bandages hitchhikes a ride on a maid's cart and sneaks off an elevator is, in particular, an imaginative tour de force.The most remarkable thing to me is that this film is called "Talos the Mummy", yet both IMDb and Wikipedia use a different title. It is as if there is a conspiracy to rewrite history so that this film never existed. Sublime.

About a week ago, I said that I didn't believe that a movie could be "so bad it's good." Then I saw Russell Mulcahy's "Tale of the Mummy." The special effects are terrible, the lead actor is more wooden than a fencepost, and the movie is edited down so much that the storyline struggles to remain coherent. Yet, I still enjoyed it like I enjoy many movies; not because of it's badness (although that helped), but because it's still entertaining.Admittedly, the storyline is not original at all (then again, this is a monster movie, and movies of this ilk generally have to follow a relatively rigid formula). An archaeologist, Sir Richard Turkel (Christopher Lee) has just discovered a mummy's tomb. Not heeding an ominous warning, he and his crew perish. Fifty years later, his grand daughter, Sam (Louise Lombard) follows in his footsteps, determined to find out what happened. Unwittingly, she and her associates unleash the spirit of an evil prince seeking to return to human form.Like I said, the storyline isn't going to be associated with the word "original." But the details are different, which makes it less boring. In fact, it's actually moderately engaging.When I put the DVD in the player, I was expecting a movie that I would regret watching, filled with bad acting and no plot coherency, and so on (I love Ancient Egypt, so I sort of had to see it). Actually, though, the acting is pretty good. Louise Lombard may have been a last minute casting replacement, but she's good in the role of Sam. She's comfortable in the role of the heroine, and makes a Sam in to a surprisingly believable character. Her co-star, Jason Scott Lee, isn't as successful. In fact, he's pretty bad. Riley is supposed to be the hard-boiled detective, but Lee is about as malleable as concrete. Fortunately, the actors with the smaller parts are better. Sean Pertwee is good as Sam's co-worker on the expedition, who after seeing visions when entering the tomb, is now on the edge of a nervous breakdown (you'll understand if you see the movie). Better known actors Michael Lerner, Shelly Duvall are solid as the modern day archaeologist and the fortune teller, respectively. Jack Davenport and Gerard Butler (who, sorry to his fans, is only on screen for about 5 minutes), are good as well. And Christopher Lee is good in the film's top-billed cameo.However, the special effects are hideously bad. They are so bad that they make the graphics on my N64 look good. I realize that this was made eleven years ago, and I'm sure no one will disagree that special effects have improved by lightyears, but "The Matrix" was made only a year later. Still, the effects are so bad that they become unintentionally funny, and they turn the movie into a cheesily enjoyable experience. That being said, I have to admit, that there are a few mildly chilling moments in the film.The only real problem that actually hurts the movie is that it's been edited down to its bare bones. The foreign versions have an additional 30 minutes, and that's obvious here. Many characters are undeveloped (one of the main characters had none at all), and some important plot points are missing, making the storyline (which, as I said, is somewhat interesting) borderline incoherent. And I never thought I'd say this, but for a movie that's rated R for "violence and gore," there's really no blood to speak of. A little more blood (and nudity, which was once a staple of these kinds of movies) could have given the movie a little more edge."Tale of the Mummy" surprised me. It's both entertaining because of its badness, and also because it's reasonably entertaining regardless. Do I recommend it? I liked it, although having a few beers in you before you start wouldn't hurt. It could be fun watch and laugh at the bad special effects (this could make a great drinking game), but it's also a decently made movie. It could be hard to find (I got it on Netflix), and although it's not for everyone (certainly if you're expecting something that's actually scary), it's worth a shot.

Okay, so I first saw this film about six years ago. I still haven't forgotten just how badly this film stunk. It's a fact Russell Mulcahy's career has been in a tailspin for the last twenty years since "Highlander", this film only reinforces that idea. So, the cast was okay, despite Christopher Lee being killed off about five seconds into the film but still managing to get his name above the title. He is probably the only reason a horror fan would watch this; too bad the film nosedives after he dies and the opening credits come up. So, essentially, worth watching, if it wasn't for the last 115 minutes. Oh, and the ending is painfully stupid and annoying, making the two hours you sat through seem pointless, with no closure but too stupid and annoying to be called tragic.AVOID, just watch Sommers' "The Mummy" instead, although his career now seems to be in the same situation as Mulcahy's, only he has big budgets.