Legend of the Mummy (1998) User Reviews

A shambling, putrescent mess best left undiscovered (I'm talking about the film, not the mummy!).

[BA_Harrison · 2/10 · 5 September 2006]

The Legend of the Mummy is so bad, I would rather have my brain removed through my nose and my innards scooped out and placed in jars than watch it again. A turgid, muddled and totally inept movie, this lame horror stumbles awkwardly from one awful scene to another even slower than its titular creature.

Based on the Bram Stoker novel about the resurrection of a 7-fingered Egyptian queen (which was made into the almost as awful Blood from the Mummy's Tomb by Hammer in 1971), this film is poorly scripted, acted, directed and edited and the result is totally confusing and lacking in any suspense or shocks whatsoever.

Pretty Amy Locane (from John Water's Cry-Baby) plays Margaret Trelawny, the heroine of the tale whose father is attacked by a mysterious assailant whilst examining an old artifact from the cursed tomb of Queen Tera. Margaret's boyfriend Robert Wyatt (a totally bland Eric Lutes) tries to solve the mystery, along with dodgy treasure hunter Corbeck (Louis Gossett Jr., who still sounds and acts like the Drac he played in Enemy Mine) and ex-copper Daw (Mark Lindsay Chapman).

The film boasts bargain basement effects and features a barely seen (and probably for good reason) manky mummy. Enlivening proceedings (but only slightly) are some gratuitous sex scenes: sexy maid Lily (Laura Otis) imagines herself having sex in a bath, pudgy museum curator Brice Renard (Richard Karn) inexplicably beds a massive-jugged blonde hottie, and Margaret does a brief full-frontal flash towards the end (although this is more than likely a body double for Amy Locane).

When rating a horror film, I always take into consideration any inclusion of unnecessary scenes of quality female nudity (there's always room for some nekkid flesh); thus The Legend of the Mummy saves itself from the shame of receiving the lowest possible score by the (wrinkled) skin of its (decayed) teeth!

Long, dull & not very good.

[poolandrews · 3/10 · 22 December 2007]

Legend of the Mummy starts in Egypt 1947, the Vally of the Sorcerer where a young John Corbeck carries out a bit of tomb robbing... Jump forward to the Present Day, Marin County California where Egyptian artifact collector Abel Trelawny (Lloyd Bochner) reads some ancient incantations from a stone tablet, he is attacked shortly after & found in a coma by his daughter Margaret (Amy Locane). Worried & unsure what to do she contacts her ex-boyfriend Robert Wyatt (Eric Lutes) to, well I'm not sure really but he goes round her house to be with her anyway. There Robert finds Abel in a coma & a set of bizarre instructions he left behind to be followed to the letter, Robert soon realises that something odd is going on & seeks the advice of John Corbeck (Louis Gossett Jr.) who tells a tale about Queen Tera (Rachel Naples) who is using magical influences & Abel to reincarnate herself...

Co-written, executive produced & directed by Jeffrey Obrow one has to say that Legend of the Mummy is rubbish & that's all there is to it. The script by Obrow & John Penney is an adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel 'The Jewel of the Seven Stars' which had been previously adapted to film as the Hammer horror film Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (1971) & the big budget The Awakening (1980) both of which are much, much better than Legend of the Mummy which takes itself far too seriously, everything is played with a straight face & it doesn't work. The character's are awful, the dialogue is so dry & tedious it becomes a chore to listen to, the story is a mess with all sorts of dull plot strands going on all of which come to nothing & a criminal lack of blood, gore or Mummy activity. At almost 100 minutes Legend of the Mummy is far too long & if it doesn't put you to sleep you will lose interest well before the painfully obvious twist ending. The main problem is the story which is so fragmented & slow going I lost all interest in it, there's confusing sub plots about a Mummy that hides behind an old mattress in Abel's basement (!) & is then forgotten about, lots of spiritual nonsense spouted by Corbeck which amounts to nothing, chopped up Mummy's buried in Abel's garden (!), the number seven is a recurring motif for no reason including the fact Queen Tera had seven fingers (!), several boring flashbacks as well as some rubbish about a red jewel. Add this to the total lack of gore or horror elements & we've got a turkey on our hands which is best avoided.

Director Obrow films this in the most static, boring & unadventurous way imaginable & it has all the pace, style & energy of a fishing instruction video. There's no gore apart from someone having their fingers pulled off during a dream sequence so forget about any. Since the film is so lethargic & dull it's not scary & there's no tension or atmosphere. I will admit though that the production design is quite nice, set during the present but set in a hose full of antiques & period furniture Legend of the Mummy does look like a 20 or 30's period piece in keeping with the traditional Mummy films. To be honest if you want to watch a decent Mummy flick then go for the big budget The Mummy (1999) or it's sequel The Mummy Returns (2001) which are far superior to this in every way.

With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 Legend of the Mummy had a pretty decent budget which is probably why it looks quite nice, it's a shame there isn't more Mummy action, more gore, more style & a better more straight forward story. The acting is very stilted & no-one seems to put much effort in, Lou Gossett Jr. was winning an Oscar for his role in An Officer an a Gentleman (1982) not so long ago, needless to say he won't be getting one for Legend of the Mummy.

Legend of the Mummy, or Bram Stoker's Legend of the Mummy as it's also known is a tepid, dull, bland, boring none event of a horror film with a confused plot, no gore & minimum Mummy action. When I watch a Mummy film I don't want it to spend most of the film hiding behind an old mattress in a basement!

Very little mummy

[lastliberal · 4/10 · 10 June 2007]

I had to struggle to get through this one. Louis Gossett Jr. (An Officer and a Gentleman) was the only reason I tuned in. he usually does a great job, and he really wasn't all that bad in a poor vehicle such as this.

This is one of those films that you need a bucket and a gun before you watch. That is to either throw up or shoot yourself if you can't escape.

The mummy was pathetic, there was little horror, and the ending was a mess.

Stay away - far away.

Pretty feeble

[35541m · 2 December 2002]

This film is another low budget version of Bram Stoker's Jewel of the Seven Stars previously filmed as Blood From The Mummy's Tomb by Hammer in 1971. Trivia fans will care to note that deranged character actor Aubrey Morris, who appears as the doctor, played exactly the same role in the Hammer version.

It's pretty poorly acted and scripted and Amy Locaine can't hold a handle to the wonderful Valerie Leon in terms of physical presence. The ending is extremely confused and very bathetic - just as you are waiting for a climax, it finishes and we fast forward to a limp postscript. Generally, the second half of the film is a mess.

Wow is this movie bad!

[logicize · 1/10 · 18 August 1999]

This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Absolutely no suspense. A lot of really bad acting. Very poor special effects. Avoid wasting your time with this one. Nothing more to say, but here's the required minimum 4th line anyway.

mummifyingly bad !!

[fattybear · 1/10 · 24 January 2000]

Don't even think about watching this movie. I did and I would find it very difficult to find a worse film than this. It was long, drawn out, poorly acted (even by Louis Gossett Jr) and the special effects were laughable. Unfortunately, a lot of people will buy this by mistake (my wife included). Just don't...

Long and dull

[Keltic-2 · 3/10 · 26 October 1998]

_Legend of the Mummy_ was long and tedious... a few mildly suspenseful scenes and not much else. Al from _Home Improvement_ provided a little comic relief, but there was nothing at all in this flick which so much as made me want to stop it before going for a snack. And the mummy is incredibly cheesy, looking rather like Eddie, Iron Maiden's concert mascot.

Cool Hand Mummy?

[Adrian-34 · 4/10 · 7 April 2000]

Okay, first, I'll make it clear that I am not a Mummy fan. This is not my monster of choice to begin with, but barring that fact I know a bad flick when I see one. I won't insult your intelligence by referring to this as a "film." This was a movie that had the audacity to tie Bram Stoker's name to it in hopes of saving it I assume. If you saw Bram Stoker's Dracula and liked it, don't let this one fool you, it doesn't compare.

Now, if you're that is not to say I hated this, but rather I expected lots more here. First of all, it seemed to remind me way too much of a very lame Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie meets the mummy sort of story and is written, directed and performed pretty much in that tone. If you're a Hammer film fan you may LIKE it, but you won't LOVE it.

The effects are just that, effects. Way too theatrical for this simplistically performed story. The characters are not only unbelievably portrayed and cast but not even exceptionally interesting. Louis Gossett Jr. is of course excellent as always, but even his excellent talents could not save this poor movie. Some of the other cast members were what actually saved this film for me at all.

The plot and story is so predictable. The ending is so over-used it shames the finer points of the whole movie -- What few there were. The seven fingered mummy bit is not only obviously awkward but pathetically prosthetized. The mummy herself is indeed disappointing enough without the bad hand effects. Some of the scenes seem to exist solely as fillers and I wonder if they were ever in Mr. Stoker's original story at all.

Over starved fans of horror, and Hammer films especially, will likely find this some what entertaining at least. Not much quality horror has been produced over the last 20 years or so therefore many will at the least find it watchable or of interest. Being a horror fan, that's pretty much how I found it to be though I would not actively seek out the video to add to my collection especially if paying money is involved. But if you can catch it on cable and have a spare VHS tape it might be fun to add to your collection in jest. Though if you're really looking for a good horror film, with a great story and excellent FX look for and buy The Mummy starring Brendan Frasier, you won't be disappointed.

Makes any Paulie Shore film look provocative and enjoyable.

[Barry_the_Baptist · 1/10 · 1 July 2002]

The acting in this film is so hilariously atrocious and the mummy so cheesy that you just might have to rent this the next time you have one of those 'bad movie nights' with your friends. Last but not least, let's not forget the Oscar-worthy acting of Al Borland of "Home Improvement" fame. Who would have thought his film career would never take off? (shocking)! With no actual scares, this film becomes a campfest from the very first minutes. This is a script even Paulie SHore would have thrown out. If you like watching bad movies for pure fun, I also recommend 'R.O.T.O.R.', which is quite possibly the worst film ever made. All in all, this is one great waste of time.

Stoker was never like this!

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 25 October 2015]

Bram Stoker's 1903 novel, JEWEL OF THE SEVEN STARS, was a tale of ancient Egypt and a present-day horror story about a young woman finding herself possessed by the spirit of an Egyptian queen. It's a book that doesn't seem to translate well to the screen, with the previous two adaptations - Hammer's BLOOD FROM THE MUMMY'S TOMB and Hollywood's THE AWAKENING - coming across as fun but deeply flawed. Still, they're masterful in comparison to this atrocious B-movie version of the tale.

The source material is chopped and mutilated into madness and what we're left with is a muddled wannabe horror flick in which a sorry-looking mummy stumbles around and kills off a bunch of badly-acting characters. Looking for similarities to the source material is an impossible job, as is watching this film; the narrative is disjointed and unsatisfactory, and the last half an hour in particular makes you scratch your head and wonder what's supposed to be happening. Mostly it's a series of random scenes of people being attacked in dark rooms with really bad direction. You feel for poor old Louis Gossett Jr. and Aubrey Morris, two actors who should really know better. Incredibly, an equally poor sequel (BRAM STOKER'S LEGEND OF THE MUMMY 2) was to follow.

Dire mummy flick. Avoid!

[youngmarwood · 1/10 · 27 October 2005]

There are some films which are so bad that they are actually watchable, such as "The Grim Reaper", but this is not one of them. It sags dejectedly between two stools - neither good enough to watch nor bad enough to be fun.

This would have been good if it had been done in the greatest traditions of Hammer Horror with oh-so-obviously-a-set locations and the nearest modern equivalent to Peter Cushing et al. The actors try to act, they really do try and some should have known better, but they would have had more success if they had hammed it up in glorious fashion along the lines of "Psychomania" or other can't-hear-the-dialogue-for-the-creaking-of-wooden-acting horror films.

I love unashamedly bad movies but everything about this film is just poor. It is best watched while drunk at 3am after the clubs have shut and you just want something on in the background while you and your mates finish your pizzas or you want something to fill the awkward smoochable pauses in the conversation between yourself and the latest bit of skirt/trouser you picked up.

This film is utterly forgettable.

What a heep of rubbish

[aaron-156 · 10/10 · 2 September 2003]

What was the point on making this film, all which i like about it is the mummy, the acting's crap and so is the movie, its worse than Legend of the Mummy 2, anyway whats the connection, i bought it thinking something good would come out of it, instead i was treated to total Crap, DONT BUY IT!!!

Not bad, but nothing special

[slayrrr666 · 7/10 · 1 June 2006]

"Bram Stoker's The Mummy" is another rather traditional mediocre mummy film.

**SPOILERS**

Robert Wyatt, (Eric Lutes) a budding art historian, is called by Margaret Trelawny, (Amy Locane) his ex, to her father's house to help her with a mystery. Once he gets there, the staff isn't receptive to him, and treat him as an outsider. When strange events begin happening around the mansion, Robert seeks out her father's old accomplice, John Corbeck, (Louis Gossett Jr.) And brings him back to the house. He believes that Margaret's father has come under the spell of Egyptian Queen Tera, one of the most powerful queens. When they find that Tera has taken possession of Margaret, Robert and Corbeck race to stop her from enacting an ancient curse.

The Good News: The film is based upon a novel by Bram Stoker, and in fact has been done before as the film "Blood from the Mummy's Tomb," too which there are certain similar characteristics. The fact that the evil being is called Queen Tera, the possessed woman called Margaret, the born-on-the-day-of-discovery angle, a ruby-bedecked ring as a means of possession, and the ailing father all pretty much the same between the films. This allows for some familiarity between the stories and that increases some entertainment if we know a little bit about what's going on in the film. The film does have some nice sequences. One of the best is an attack on a rainy night outside a phone-booth. It sets up the attack beautifully with an earlier attack, and here is the final payoff. It goes out in a pretty grand fashion that features some nice suspense to ago along with the payoff. The resurrection sequence at the end is nicely realized, and the way it plays out provides some nice moments.

The Bad News: The mummy sub-genre has had relatively little success in the mainstream, mainly because the myth surrounding it is one that's always been a hard one to film properly. It's always been a hard one to get down, and here the pattern continues. The familiarity with the other film raises the concern over where or not this can be a remake or not, and the debate is a tricky one as both sides have valid arguments. The fact that this is billed as a mummy movie is also a misprint. True, there is a mummy in the film, but there is no shambling corpse wrapped in bandages after people who desecrated it's tomb. It's more of a supernatural film that features a mummy as the source of a curse. There is such a slow pace to this that it can be maddening for something to happen. The deaths are OK, but fall into a rhythm that is pretty far apart. Apart from the deaths, there is really not that much action to speak of, so it's incredibly slow and a long time occurs before anything happens.

The Final Verdict: Mummy films traditionally aren't all that spectacular, and this one follows the pattern, with a slow pace, not a lot of action, underwhelming deaths, and a mummy that takes forever to get on screen. It's not a total loss, but it's not all that spectacular either. Exercise caution before giving this a shot.

Rated R: Violence, Nudity, some Language and a brief sex scene

It's awfulness is legendary

[BigSquirrel · 1/10 · 5 November 2005]

Was forced to watch this by a "friend" and can honestly say this is one of the most tedious boring films that I have ever seen.

From the little of the film that remains with me it's about some old git in a study with some annoying woman having something to do with the plot as well of course the mummy itself.

For most of the films too long running time most of the main characters are talking in the study with an unconscious old man.

For some reason the film includes sex scenes that seem to come out of nowhere and have nothing to do with the story although they rarely do.

Avoid this there is nothing redeeming in this film at all - it's boring.

What the hell is this Garbage!

[REDdog-1 · 24 May 1999]

One of the worst movies I have ever seen, ranks with trash like "The Chilling" and "The Lurking Fear". I am a big fan of Louis Gossett Jr. and I have no idea why he starred in this movie. The plot, I think, concerns the resurrecting of a mummy who begins killing people while hiding out in a basement. The last half hour of this movie doesn't make any sense. Al from "Home Improvement" has a pointless cameo. The twist ending is terrible I give it 1.5/10 and that is only because of Louis Gossett Jr.

I was NOT Well!!!!

[RaiderJack · 1/10 · 25 February 2008]

Okay, folks, please indulge me....if I provide the right context, you might thoroughly understand why the title of this review is oh, so apropos!! ...okay, so it was a crisp, foggy, rainy, windy San Francisco Sunday morning....one of those mornings where you awoke, looked outa the window and immediately knew you would deservedly luxuriate in bed after a loooooooong week....this was the perfect time to catch up on some old movies I had been meaning to watch/may have missed....I had passed by Bram Stoker's The Mummy on guide listings, each time wondering, "why haven't I heard of this before?" all because the natural assumption was that it was somehow remotely connected to Bram Stoker's Dracula...at least in terms of production values.....nothing could be further from the truth...

....I should have paid attention to the sinking feeling in the pit of my gut when in the beginning of the film we are set in Marin, California.....MARIN?!??!!!...what on EARTH does Northern California have to do with Bram Stoker??!!?.....folks, it was all downhill from there....

....okay, so I relaxed and thought, hmmm, set in San Francisco...this oughta be fun...(well, for lack of a better word/phrase....) The movie is absolutely horrible....so horrible in fact, that I could not even turn away from it...AND I HAD THE REMOTE RIGHT THERE IN BED WITH ME!!!....I suppose I kept thinking, well, Lou Gossett is in it...how bad can it be?.....

Lou, a dubiously celebrated archaeologist (with an ever-present flask), carried off the role with aplomb and MUCH overacting, and was probably actually drinking during the production...I dearly love Lou, but I could NOT stop laughing at his performance here...and the guy who was the sidekick on "Home Improvement" and the face of Orchard Supply there for a while, (yeah, the cute bear) was humorous enough...however, the most interesting part of his performance, HANDS DOWN, is that the very last time the audience sees him, he is having a "spasm' or "seizure" of sorts, presumably from a curse and his last words were "I gotta get some fresh air!!!" and he RUNS OFF!!....NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN....I tell ya, I lost it!!!...

The leading man and woman were absolutely horrible. The script was absolutely horrible. The acting was absolutely horrible. The plot was absolutely horrible. I googled Bram Stoker to find out if indeed there even WAS a Bram Stoker's "Mummy" and haven't found anything he's written with that title...yet...

But for some ungodly reason I watched it until the end...at least some of the shots of the city, i.e. the Chronicle truck, the obligatory cable cars, (wow, no Golden Gate Bridge shot) were somewhat accurate...

This movie was so bad, I might add it to my collection...it was hysterical in its absurdity and if I can include the Toxic Avenger (I. II AND III!!!) I can certainly have an over-the-top Lou Gossett warding off the curse of whatshisname!!! I laughed until I cried...perhaps it was because of the glass(es) of white zinfandel I sipped while watching...(..hey, lay off..I'm a Raider fan, whaddaya want!!)

Why God... WHY!!!!

[fiveliter302 · 1/10 · 11 November 2007]

I remembered when this movie came out back in the late 90's. I never paid much attention to it, but when I saw it was going to be on HBO, I DVRed it. I finally got around to watching it, and several times throughout the movie I had to refrain from stopping it and deleting it. I figured, this has to get better at some point.

Boy was I wrong...

I got up several times during the movie, to let the dog out, grab something to eat, and didn't even bother to pause it. I had such a disinterest in it that I didn't even want to be bothered by hitting the pause button.

This was the biggest pantload of a movie I've ever seen. How many mummies were in this movie? Was there one, or 12? The story line was awful. What happened at the end? Hell, what was going on through the whole movie!!?? Was the kid in the beginning of the movie supposed to be Louis Gosset Jr?

Take some ancient Egyptian artifacts, an old unconscious bag of bones (not the mummy, the old man in the movie), a $3 throw away version of Christian Bale (Eric Lutes), complete nonsense, and the contents of an unflushed toilet, mix them together, and there you have the gist of this movie.

From beginning to end this movie made zero sense, was poorly scripted, and the acting was worse than imaginable. Al from Home Improvement really put the final nail in the sarcophagus.

Very Unimpressed by this movie.

[jerseygalhello · 1/10 · 15 June 2000]

Not to make myself out to be conceited, but I think of myself as a Film Connoisseur. I am also a fan of Louis Gosset Jr. Anyhow I believe this script does not do him any justice. As far as Amy Locane goes. The only movie i found her remotely good in was airheads. I would only recommend this film to anyone who has those Summer Repeat blues and there is nothing else on.

What the hell?

[BrandtSponseller · 1/10 · 18 December 2007]

Wow, this is a bad film. I think this may be the first flick with some passable production values (you can hear dialogue, they know how to do lighting, etc.) that I've scored a 1. Others have mentioned many of the problems, but some bear repeating as a forewarning:

* Every character seems to be in a separate story/different film. Maybe this was an experimental work wherein each actor was told to write their own Mummy story/script and act out (in whatever style of their choosing, no matter how incongruous) their self-penned part while others did the same.

* Despite the multitude of actor/writers, the film primarily works as a sleep aid. Not much happens. I was starting to wonder if this wasn't really a low-budget 1970s BBC attempt to make a "relatively" boring drama.

*Actors are sometimes attacked by nothing. Maybe they were told that effects shots would be added later. That didn't happen. So most of these scenes are amusingly ridiculous.

* The various scenes of the simultaneous separate stories seem to be edited by throwing a hundred randomly selected pieces of film in the air and putting them together however they landed.

* It's not clear how many mummies are supposed to be involved in the story. There seem to be a few different ones . . . you never get to see most of them very well though. It's a mystery who most of them are, where they came from, and what they're trying to do.

* Because there are twenty different sketchy stories occurring at the same time, the film makes less and less sense as it progresses. Like another viewer, I got to a point where I started looking for more interesting things to do--like brushing my teeth--without caring if I hit pause or not . . . the movie wasn't going to make sense no matter what I did. There's a strong "everything including the kitchen sink" approach evident. I primarily entertained myself from the halfway mark by making fun of the film and writing/reciting my own dialogue, MST3K-style. For example, when they decide they all need to go downstairs for some ceremony, I'd add, "Now, we all need to do the hokey pokey." It made just as much sense as the actual dialogue.

Bad Mummy...

[Mike-263 · 1/10 · 30 December 1998]

This incredibly inept (supposed) horror film is so badly done that one might think that everyone involved (cast & crew) created this mess just to upset the general movie-going public and to sit back and laugh at us for trying to watch it! ...either that or it was created as some sort of tax dodge... Please don't waste your time on this 0 out-of 10 trash...(a.k.a.

"Bram Stoker's The Mummy")

A horrible movie that does Bram Stoker dishonor.

[seamonkey1723 · 1/10 · 1 February 2008]

This movie is bad. This movie is awful. I was lured in to watching it without doing any research first and was under the illusion that it may in some form be related to Francis Ford Coppola's classic, "Bram Stoker's Dracula." It isn't. These false pretenses lead to a great deal of disappointment. But as I was watching, it occurred to me that there is one format in which this movie could be improved. That would be if Mystery Science Theater 3000 were to take on this movie as a project and were to work their magic and at least make this over-the-top, cheesy B-grade movie into something that is laughable for reasons other than the predictable dialog and ridiculously melodramatic acting. The highlight of this film comes when the mummy that the story revolves around is being depicted . The camera pans down the arm of the cloth-wrapped creature and when it focuses on the hand, one notices that something doesn't seem quite right. Apparently the special effects and make-up flunkies got together and decided to pull a prank. For some reason, this un-believable depiction of an ancient Egyptian queen has seven fingers on one hand. Curious.

Almost the lowest rating I've ever been responsible for!

[webweasel2 · 2/10 · 20 January 2007]

Man! A horror movie with Lou Gossett Jr. (THE Lou Gossett Jr.) and Richard Karn (Al from Home Improvement)! Must be great - or at least good.

I think not. There's some terribly annoying ex Scotland Yard detective who seems bent on pissing OFF everyone involved (audience included).

NOT a real good movie. I actually had to watch this one in two shifts. Far too much bad movie crammed into one movie slot. It is honestly a not-real-good movie.

Many times when there's a good deal of activity on screen, the camera work is such that you can't see much of anything going on. Almost, not quite. But it doesn't add to the suspense at all. Just frustration.

Finally, why are there so many people with different type of accents. Why is it that when you could MAYBE understand what one of them was saying, the volume dropped so low that it wouldn't matter anyway.

If they'd have just done what was required earlier, I wouldn't have wasted slightly better than an hour and a half of my life.

Stagey but well made adaptation of Stoker's story

[joel_exc · 10/10 · 24 July 2012]

This movie reminded me of a lower budget version of the Nicole Kidman film 'The Others'. The performances are good,(sometimes very good) and the spirit of Bram Stoker's tale is well created. The sound mix is excellent and though this is a very different movie from the wonderful Brendan Fraser / The Rock Egyptian tales, set your expectations accordingly and I feel you will not be disappointed. There is a difference between the pace of a stageplay and a twenty-first century movie, and whilst 'Bram Stoker's Legend of The Mummy' could not be described as 'brisk' or 'energetic', it is a well told story worthy of the £1 I got it for at Poundland!

Not bad, but nothing special

[MWFD · 7/10 · 31 January 1999]

This isn't bad for direct to video fare. The ending kind of falls apart a bit. It's not as good as Shadow Builders though...

2 reasons to watch

[dashforcover · 4/10 · 5 May 2022]

This film is pretty pathetic. In fact, there are only 2 good reasons for taking the time to watch it so you won't feel your time is completely wasted. The first is that you feel a moral obligation to see any and all Mummy related movies -- good, bad or indifferent. The second is that you are a great fan of all work of Louis Gossett, Jr. To see this master at work in film completely unworthy of his great talent still provides a real fan the joy of watching him.

You also get a few other quality actors Lloyd Bochner, Mary Jo Catlett, and Aubrey Morris with Richard Karn bringing some delightful humor sequences. So if you can appreciate these snippets, you won't have your time totally wasted. Not ... totally.