IMDb > Legend of the Mummy (1998) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Legend of the Mummy More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 32 reviews in total 

15 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Wow is this movie bad!

1/10
Author: logicize from San Diego
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Pretty feeble

Author: 35541m from London, England
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

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

2/10
Author: BA_Harrison from Hampshire, England
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!

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

mummifyingly bad !!

1/10
Author: fattybear from Sheffield, England
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...

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Dire mummy flick. Avoid!

1/10
Author: youngmarwood from Tebay, England
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Makes any Paulie Shore film look provocative and enjoyable.

1/10
Author: Barry_the_Baptist from USA
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Long, dull & not very good.

3/10
Author: Paul Andrews (poolandrews@hotmail.com) from UK
22 December 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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!

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Cool Hand Mummy?

4/10
Author: Adrian-34 from USA
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Long and dull

3/10
Author: Gerard Newham from Sydney, Australia
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

What the hell is this Garbage!

Author: anonymous from Canada
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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Ratings External reviews Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history