In 1999, the Stephen Sommers movie The Mummy, featuring Brendan Fraser, killed it at the box office. Banking over $400M and entertaining audiences with its action-adventure story, the film proved there was an appetite for mummy-related projects for arguably the first time since the 1930s. This interest was somewhat surprising due to a massive bomb released the year prior: Russell Mulcahy’s Tale of the Mummy — yes, the director put his name in the official title — starring a babyfaced Gerard Butler in his third ever feature. Despite their similar topic, The Mummy and Tale of the Mummy couldn’t be more different. So, why was one film so successful and the other so… not?
‘The Mummy’ Filmmakers Were Better Prepared
Your changes have been saved
Tale of the Mummy
Fifty years ago, Sir Richard Turkel (Christopher Lee) met disaster while exploring the supposedly cursed tomb of the ancient Egyptian tyrant Talos. Now his granddaughter, archaeologist Samantha Turkel (Louise Lombard), eagerly picks up where he left off, delving into its depths to uncover Talos’ sarcophagus. But, shortly after the tomb’s artifacts are transferred to a London museum, a strange series of murders begins to plague the city. Baffled local detectives enlist Samantha for help.
Release Date
March 19, 1998
Director
Russell Mulcahy
Runtime
88 minutes
Cast
Jason Scott Lee
, Louise Lombard
, Sean Pertwee
, Lysette Anthony
, Michael Lerner
, Jack Davenport
, Honor Blackman
, Shelley Duvall
, Christopher Lee
, Gerard Butler
, Jon Polito
, Ronan Vibert
, Bill Treacher
Writers
John Esposito
The Mummy leans into a fun, adventurous narrative about a resurrected mummy and a treasure hunter. Rated PG-13 and suitable for the whole family, it was deemed easily watchable by critics. Meanwhile, Tale of the Mummy comes off as more of a B-movie horror flick — and fails, even at that — trying to tell the story of archaeologists and an ancient tomb through three different time periods. With poor pacing, a discombobulated narrative, and a distinct lack of gore or scares despite touting itself as a horror movie, the film left viewers confused and disappointed. Tale of the Mummy provides little suspense, eliminating it as a successful thriller, and it was too cheesy to be taken seriously.
Related
The Mummy: Why the 1999 Movie is Still Great
The Mummy is a beloved film that mixes many genres into an epic adventure. Here’s why it’s still great.
It’s possible that the discrepancy in pre-production efforts contributed to the stark differences between the two movies. The Mummy’s producers worked on their adaptation of the 1932 film of the same name for nearly a decade, swapping out writers and directors until their vision was perfect. If they hadn’t, The Mummy could have turned out very differently. Meanwhile, Russell Mulcahy and his collaborator Keith Williams dreamed up Tale of the Mummy in late 1995, and it began filming less than two years later.
Mulcahy and Sommers Had Similar Inspirations
Interestingly, both movies were inspired by previous works, though they all lead back to Karl Freund’s 1932 classic The Mummy. Mulcahy credited his love of Hammer Film Productions’ The Mummy (1959) — which in turn was inspired by The Mummy’s Hand (1940) and its sequel, The Mummy’s Tomb (1942) — for prompting his idea; both of these reuse footage from the 1932 project. Meanwhile, Sommers’ film was a direct adaptation of Freund’s. It seems Mulcahy was trying to put his own spin on the classics, which deserves recognition, but clearly, Sommer’s recycling of a winning idea proved more fruitful.
Related
The Mummy at 25: How the Movie Almost Didn’t Get Made
From development hell to hellish shooting conditions to its lead star almost dying, 1999’s The Mummy came very close to never happening.
Tale of the Mummy Had Embarrassing Special Effects
One of the biggest criticisms of Tale of the Mummy was its abysmal special effects and cringe-inducing CGI. Some of it was so bad that it actually incited unintentional laughter in audiences, especially with the poor animatronics, which didn’t even allow characters’ mouths to move properly. For a borderline monster story — the reincarnated mummy goes on a murder spree to steal people’s organs, which turns out to be a lot less interesting than it sounds — it’s obvious that the filmmakers didn’t fully think through how they were going to make that monster believable. Some viewers found the movie entertaining, but more so because they were laughing at it, certainly not with it.
Alternatively, The Mummy employed several well-respected special effects companies to work on the movie from the beginning stages of development through its release. With combined quality CGI, makeup, prosthetics, and live-action, the film created a believable atmosphere that didn’t pull viewers out of the story. To be fair, Tale of the Mummy was working with a budget of $10M, which is much more than a typical horror movie at the time but far less than the $80M The Mummy had at their disposal. In fact, more money was spent on The Mummy’s special effects than Tale of the Mummy’s entire budget.
Casting Decisions Can Make or Break a Project
Another thing that separates The Tale of the Mummy from The Mummy is its casting. The former, though featuring some decent names, failed to do right by its actors. For example, legendary horror film veteran Sir Christopher Lee is briefly seen during the film’s opening scenes before his character promptly dies in a cloud of ancient dust and his own stupidity. Other stars include martial artist Jason Scott Lee, Louise Lombard, who would eventually become recognizable for her tenure on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, and popular live-action and voice actor Sean Pertwee, who went on to star as Alfred Pennyworth in Gotham. Unfortunately, none of the above people were used to their full potential.
Related
‘Evil Dead Rise’ Director Set for “Frightening” Universal Monster Reboot
Lee Cronin is continuing Blumhouse’s new take on Universal Monster movies with a ‘Mummy’ film like you’ve never seen before.
And finally, a pre-fame Gerard Butler appears — before he became a Hollywood star with rom-coms like P.S. I Love You and The Ugly Truth or action flicks like 300 and Den of Thieves (which became a franchise with the much-anticipated 2024 Den of Thieves 2: Pantera). He plays a member of an archaeological team who falls to his death before the halfway point of the movie — also an idiotic fate of his own making. Even if Butler had been further along in his career with more skill or notoriety, it’s unlikely this role would have gone better for him. In fact, as of 2024, it appears he has never spoken publicly about being a part of Tale of the Mummy, suggesting he might be happy to let the movie fade into oblivion, a forgotten smudge on an otherwise fairly successful resume.
Fraser Connected with Audiences
On the other hand, The Mummy stars Brendan Fraser as its lead, treasure hunter Rick O’Connell, opposite Rachel Weisz. His role was considered by heavy hitters like Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, and Ben Affleck, showcasing how much larger scale this production was in comparison to Mulcahy’s. By this time, Fraser had already broken into the industry and had nearly 10 years of experience under his belt.
Fraser did all of his own stunts — which rumors suggest almost led to his death during a few particularly dangerous scenes — and was committed to making his role believable. As he told the Los Angeles Times in 2023, “Rick is someone who has a great deal of irascible energy. He’s not taking anything too seriously. But if you’re playing Rick and you don’t believe in the circumstances of the reality of that movie, then your audience won’t either.”
Related
The Best Brendan Fraser Movies and Shows After The Mummy Franchise, Ranked
Adored actor Brendan Fraser has once again taken Hollywood by storm with the Brenaissance, excelling in some recent great movies and TV shows.
Leaving a Legacy (or Not)
Buena Vista Home Video
Luckily, the audience did connect with Fraser, and he earned reprisal performances in the franchise’s two sequels: The Mummy Returns (2001) and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008), which are now streaming on Peacock. Celebrating its 25th anniversary in 2024, The Mummy has proved its longevity by still remaining relevant, and even Fraser is on board for another potential sequel. Meanwhile, Mulcahy’s failed mummy attempt has become a relic locked away in its own tomb, with much of its cast distancing themselves from the project.
Mulcahy has since turned his attention to TV directing, most notably working on Teen Wolf throughout its six seasons, which has proven to be a much more successful venture. Ironically, Mulcahy would come to direct one of the cheesy, straight-to-video sequels of The Scorpion King, a spinoff from the Brendan Fraser mummy movies. There’s an argument to be made that The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior is better than poor Russell Mulcahy’s Tale of the Mummy, though it’s a low bar. You can watch Mulcahy’s film below:
Watch Tale of the Mummy
