Tale of the Mummy

Tale of the Mummy

1998 "The curse is legend. The terror is real."
Tale of the Mummy
Tale of the Mummy

Tale of the Mummy

4 | 1h28m | R | en | Adventure

Centuries ago, under the sands of ancient Egypt, a Prince was buried and his tomb eternally cursed so that no man would ever again suffer from his evil ways. But hundreds of years later on a greedy search for treasure, a group of archaeologists break the cursed seal of the tomb. Every man vanishes without a trace, leaving behind only a log book, and a deadly warning of the legend of the bloodthirsty Talos.

View More
Rent / Buy
amazon
Buy from $7.99 Rent from $3.99
AD

WATCH FREEFOR 30 DAYS

All Prime Video
Cancel anytime

Watch Now
4 | 1h28m | R | en | Adventure , Fantasy , Horror | More Info
Released: March. 19,1998 | Released Producted By: Telepool , The Carousel Picture Company Country: United States of America Budget: 0 Revenue: 0 Official Website:
Synopsis

Centuries ago, under the sands of ancient Egypt, a Prince was buried and his tomb eternally cursed so that no man would ever again suffer from his evil ways. But hundreds of years later on a greedy search for treasure, a group of archaeologists break the cursed seal of the tomb. Every man vanishes without a trace, leaving behind only a log book, and a deadly warning of the legend of the bloodthirsty Talos.

...... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Cast

Jason Scott Lee , Louise Lombard , Sean Pertwee

Director

Simon Bowles

Producted By

Telepool , The Carousel Picture Company

AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.

Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Paul Magne Haakonsen 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.
Nigel P 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.
fellowdroogie Quite possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen. I was just wandering around my kitchen, like you do, bored, thinking up mad stuff when suddenly I had a vision of Arthur Fowler trying to fight off a mummy with a shotgun and I thought, what the hell was that film called? I remembered, obviously, and decided to offer my brief but firm opinion on this turkey. Don't be fooled when you see Christopher Lee's name amongst the first credits. Let's just say it was an ill-advised cameo. I don't remember much about the rest of the film, although it was six years ago when me and the missus stumbled across it on the Movie Channels. I wonder if there are any extras on the DVD? An explanation as to...Why?
Netherland Let's compare this movie to The Mummy, which was released a year after this one (why wouldn't we compare? everybody does). Making a mummy movie has a downside. You have to make a story in which a mummy is released or revived, and that mummy probably wants either to take over or destroy the world. This is the same in all mummy movies, so the director has something to make up, so that his movie won't be considered as 'just another mummy movie'. First: the rest of the story, which was (for me) in both The Mummy and Talos the Mummy (or 'Tale of the Mummy', as it is also often called) quite good, though The Mummy has more adventure and comedy, while Talos was more thriller. Second is the acting, which was a bit better in The Mummy (I liked Brendan Fraser and Arnold Vosloo the most in this one). Light is... different in both, because Talos is thriller-like and The Mummy adventure, but both have the light done as it should be in their genre. Music was wonderful in The Mummy, but maybe this is also because of the different genre. The, the special effects... The Mummy had good, if not great, special effects, with mummies crawling over walls and Vosloo's face in the sand (which I thought was impossible to do and make it look good). Then, in Talos, the special effects could be described best as 'pathetic'. How do they dare to do this? The worst is, I think, at the beginning, when Christopher Lee gets it (another stupidity; They list Christopher as one of the first, but he dies about five minutes after the beginning of the movie), his upper half crawls while you see him from a spot in which you can see his 'wound'... which is a computer generated effect, and when he crawls the wound dos not stay in place but just moves forward too, so at the end of the wound you can see Christopher's clothing disappear and reappear. Why has the studio let them do this, in times when dinosaurs are artificially generated, when complete armies are made by computer? Ever since movies like Star Wars and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Studios should be ashamed of special effects like the ones in Talos The Mummy (except for, off course, things like Beetlejuice, in which special effects are made bad on purpose, but even Beetlejuice had better effects than this). Shame on thee, shame on thee.