My son is 8 and he enjoyed it. At three hours it was a too long for me, but I remember watching Tarzan movies for hours on Saturday mornings when I was his age, including those awful Mike Henry in South America Tarzan movies. This was better than those. So, even though I didn't like it much, I'm glad movies are still being made that a kid can watch and get lost in. One thing I thought was puzzling, they kept introducing characters that they never really did anything with. Steven Waddington was the only supporting character that managed to shine. The history was of course pretty silly, but they "fixed" that at the end. It made my son want to know more, so we went on the web and looked up what really happened. Definitely a "B" movie, with limited special effects and wooden acting, but still fun for kids.
Add a Review
-
chucktaine1 June 2006
-
dave-84721 August 2006I seldom stop a movie part-way through and refuse to watch the rest of it. "The Curse of King Tut's Tomb" provoked that exact reaction. It tries to be an action movie and fails. It attempts, badly, to imitate elements of both "Mummy" pictures and falls v-e-r-y short. It desperately tries to grab onto parts of the "Indiana Jones" series and misses the mark every single time.
The acting varies widely from stilted, to just plain amateurish. Any resemblance to historical accuracy is fleeting, at best, and CG work is about on a par with a talented child wielding an Etch-A-Sketch.
The only reason I can fathom for hanging on to this DVD is to use as a coaster when you get unexpected company. I can only imagine that Messers McDowell and Hyde desperately needed work. They should have been more discriminating.
The Director, Russell Mulcahy, seems to be on a role at this point. His version of "Mysterious Island" (2005) suffered from similar shortcomings and is another Movie Worth Missing. It is interesting to note that both "Mysterious Island" and "The Curse of King Tut's Tomb" were produced for The Hallmark Channel. Thankfully Hallmark greeting cards are much better than their movies.
If you see this movie coming on, go floss your cat's teeth. It will be much more productive. -
ma-cortes12 November 2007The film starts thousands years ago,under sands of ancient Egypt. The pharaoh Tutankamen rules, few know the events about his life.Tuthankamen really was son from King Amenophis IV and Qeen Nefertiti and he died violently.In the movie he appears fighting evil forces. The king was buried and his tomb eternally curses so that no man would ever again suffer from his evil ways. But thousands years later on a greedy search of Tut's treasure a group of archaeologist break the curse seal the tomb. A crakerjack adventurer(Casper Van Dien,Space troopers)is an adventurer wishes to find King Tut's tablet that would rule the world. But his nemesis Sinclair(Jonathan Hyde,Titanic) along with a secret society(Malcolm McDowell,Clockwork orange and Simon Callow,Room with a view)also want it and will stop at nothing to obtain it. Fremont is helped by a beautiful archaeologist(Leonor Varela,Cleopatra) and a trio friends(Steve Waddington,The last Mohican,among others). They venture into Valley of the Kings where find the Tut's tomb and the curse come out and once again unleashes the savage power.
This TV picture is a crossover of Egyptian fantasy:¨Mummy,King Scorpion¨(Stephen Sommers) and adventures and clothes from¨Indiana Jones¨(Spielberg). This is a cheesy fun in the Saturday matinée tradition with excessive and mediocre special effects. The movie contains lots of mummies, skeletons, wizards, as well as spooky tombs. The motion picture is regularly directed by Russell Mulcahy(Razorback,Highlander,Resurrection)who made a similar story about Egyptian curse titled¨Tale of mummy¨. Rating : Average but with some moment entertaining. -
pjmurnane4 June 2006I've always thought I was one of the more forgiving movie viewers in the country, but I just can't describe how bad this movie is. The "Egyptology" described in the terribly written introduction voice-over must be from not a parallel universe, but a skewed one, because it certainly has nothing to do with this one. The dialog is just atrocious. The acting could have been good -- I choose to believe this because the bad directing so completely overwhelmed any performance talent that evidence of acting ability is completely undetectable. The characters would have to be improved to be two dimensional. The pacing was haphazard at best. I can't remember the editing, so it must have been better than the other aspects of the film. I wish Joe Bob Briggs was still reviewing movies, because that's the most entertainment anyone could hope for from this film.
-
funkyfry3 December 2008If you're in the target audience for this kind of thing -- basically you enjoy movies like "Indiana Jones" and "The Mummy" -- then you're not going to feel particularly ripped off by this film. It satisfies all the basic requirements of its genre and even includes a few nice touches I haven't seen anywhere else; for example it's the first movie I've seen that makes its supernatural mummy (Francisco Bosch) into a hero.
Casper Van Dien dons Indiana Jones' hat and Rick O'Connell's hair to fill in the archaeologist/adventurer role as best he can. I didn't think he did half a bad job; he has an easy charm that suits this kind of material, and his face reminds me of John Agar's. His buddies, played by Patrick Toomey, Tat Whalley and others are an appealing bunch and they have good comedic chemistry together. Despite the fact that Malcolm McDowell is in the film, Jonathan Hyde plays the main villain. He's OK, basically a poor man's version of David Warner. I would have liked for McDowell to have more to do though.
This is basically a very simplistic story and a pretty shopworn script, given some life by a group of enthusiastic actors and a pretty good director, Russell Mulcahy (who used to be a very "hot" director in the early 80s when he directed videos for "Duran/Duran" and made the film "Highlander."). The whole thing holds together well enough that you overlook some of its rough edges, although some things that happen are just too stupid to be taken seriously even on the level the film seems to demand. For instance, why would the hero and his love interest (Leonor Varela) go back to the tomb only to decide they need to go back to get more help? Did they imagine there would only be one or two villains there? There are some lazy mechanical aspects of the plot that could have been fixed.
I found myself enjoying this film and having affection for the characters despite all its obvious flaws. -
gloria-4721 January 2007One of the most fascinating things about this film (apart from Jonathan Hyde's extraordinary resemblance with Henry Daniell)is watching how the plot meanders and wanders with no destination in sight as if it were an Art Nouveau filigrain.
I suspect that the archeology academics would seriously object at the unorthodox -but revolutionary- system that the protagonist and his buddies use to find the legendary Pharaoh's tomb, namely, by sitting in the terraces of Cairo's seediest bars and leaving them without alcoholic stock. Their interest is, however, scientific, except for the legionnaire buddy who is more interested in gold statuettes accidentally getting lost in his greatcoat pockets (Having mentioned the legionnaire, I must say that I admire the courage of the scriptwriter, who reveals to us -for the very first time- that Egypt was at the time a French protectorate, and not, as we've been led to believe by the official history, associated to the British empire)
The bad guys stick to the old, slow, boring system of studying the terrain and excavating carefully according to old Ieroglyphs, while our hero and his friends discover the tomb the legendary grave by happily throwing dynamite sticks at random: a new path is opened thus for archeology. -
poetryinmotionpictures27 August 2006It's sad to see. Really. With Russell Mulcahy being the director of Highlander - a must see of my 80's teenage - I thought maybe it was a return to form when I caught a trailer on Sky. I duly tuned in...
That was the start of my troubles. This lack lustre schizophrenic wannabe Indiana Jones clone lacked any sense of pace, character or credibility, and that's leaving the dubious special effects alone. My woes were doubled when I found that at the end of transmission I had only seen the first half of this two part torture.
Through some freak happenstance I collided with part two a week or so later. I accepted the wafer thin plot, the unlikely OTT villains, the stereotypes, the surface characterisations, and even the Very "Special" Special Effects. And from somewhere came the impetus to want the film to be finished. It went into free-fall and became a demon laden action type thingy effort, sort of... You see, it just ended and I thought "There is a God". All I wanted was to see it finished. And mercifully I did.
Please Russell Mulcahy, I beg you, read the script before you say yes to your next film! The Lost Battalion wasn't bad at all! As far as viewers are concerned though - save yourself a couple of hours of your life, because this film is certainly Cursed! -
morana6920 April 2006This is terrible. Do not watch! This made-for-TV 'extravaganza' is clearly intended to cash in on the success of Raiders of the Lost Ark and the other Indiana Jones films; however it is but a very pale shadow.
The characters are less than two-dimensional. Van Dien's character clearly tries to be Indiana Jones and fails so badly it's not even funny. He even dresses like Indiana Jones. However he has none of the charm and intelligence needed to be a believable character.
I don't expect, or want, fantasy to be realistic; but the characters have to act logically within the fantasy world the writer and director creates. They do not here.
I would rather watch paint dry than this drivel. -
docrotwang14 May 2007Yes, Casper Van Dien, it's Tut. Well, actually, it's immortal, mystical, son-of-Ra Tut, with Mechanical Wing action, come to save the world from Set, Lord of the Underworld, in a (not very) climactic battle in a quarry.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you read that right. Sorry.
Look, I understand that pulp can take liberties with history and, you know, scientific accuracy. That's fine, as long as it's fun and at least somewhat convincing. But when it isn't, you get "The Curse Of King Tut" (DVD titled "The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb"), a meandering wonderland of nonsensical cuts, bad dialog, magical explosives that cut 90-degree angles straight down and characters who add nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING, to the development of the plot.
What plot, you ask? Ah, yes. Casper Van Dien plays Danny Fremont, who is neither Rick McConnell nor Indiana Jones (and he's not Daniel Jackson, either), who has found 3 of the 4 fragments of the Emerald Tablet which King Tut (an immortal superhero, by the way) used to trap Set (who looks like a beardless Cthulhu) in the Netherworld. His nemesis Sinclair (Jonathan Hyde) belongs to a secret cabal called The Hellfire Council (who are not the Illuminati) and has stolen all three of them so far. If Danny and his pals (whose names you don't learn until, ummm...I dunno, 45 minutes in?) fail to find the final fragment before Sinclair, then Sinclair will wear his sunglasses a lot and have incredible powers with which to control the world. Also, there will be CGI demons.
Naturally Danny DOES find it first, but his proved ability to lose important artifacts and not, you know, take basic precautions secures the fact that Sinclair gets it anyway and gets the powers and ahoy, the CGI demons. There's the obligatory love interest (Leonor Varela, whose character's name we also don't know for a while), the Crazy Wise Man, The Sexy Spy, The Comic Relief Who Adds Nothing To The Plot, The Tough Soldier, and The Horrible Dialogue. Russ Mulcahy, who left all his flair in 1985 where the pop music was better, phones it all in.
Oh, and apparently India looks like Egypt. Who knew?
Seven bucks gets you the DVD at Wal-Mart; 3 hours gets you an experience you'll never forget.
Neither one, unfortunately, is refundable. -
ozthegreatat4233016 January 2007This is not "The Lord of The Rings" by any means and is not even the best work of Director Russell Mulcahy. And there were far too many natives of India trying to pass as Egyptians. Having said that I found this film to be good escapism entertainment if you realize that they are not trying to present any kind of historical fact. One of the best ways to sum it up is to imagine Indiana Jones on the cheap. Casper Van Dien is always fun to watch once you accept his natural cockiness and are pulled into his ability to be comic and serious at the same time.
Johnathan Hyde is always excellent either as hero (ala "Richie Rich) or as villain, and he seems to be fated to play these evil archaeologist types recently. And Malcolm McDowell is always superb. But the winner in this film was the sets, props and the soundtrack. The film was worth that alone. Still, a tighter shot film in a shorter time frame might have made it all work better. Not Oscar material by a long shot, but worth the time if you have nothing better to do. -
Too bad there's no negative stars rating... I was appalled by everything about this movie, including the chick's fake French accent, the terrible Indiana Jones/the Mummy ripoff, and the awful editing. I have honestly seen better acting in adult films. The few hours I spent watching this movie seemed like an eternity. The historical inaccuracies are so numerous that I found myself shouting "wtf" throughout the entire film. I have no idea how Russell Mulcahy's name ended up anywhere near this abomination. It shouldn't even be called a film. This "thing" is a pathetic attempt to combine the 'Indiana Jones' and 'Mummy' franchises.
-
This movie has a special feeling me: It was X-mas 2017, i had a cold and was at my brother's place: not able to sleep, i zapped on the TV and caught the movie when they open the tomb! I was hooked at first: sure it's a rip off from Raiders but it has talent and dynamic. and for sure the great Leonor who i haven't watched for a long time! As I came back in Paris, i watched the beginning half i have missed and doing that, i caught her Instagram account: that's how i learned that she married and been a mother twice! As in her movies, she gives the same determination and heart to her family, especially her son Matteo who passed away 11 months later! So a lot of life enters with this movie and I will always remember it...
-
silvermoon13219 February 2009Lets be honest, this is no master piece. But it is good mindless entertainment.
I think that all the people going on about the bad directing and less than believable storyline are really quite ignorant and foolish. This movie is clearly marketed towards male teens and people looking for a cheap fantasy story. If you are in to things like that (star trek, stargate, etc) then you will probably like this movie. If, however, you expect to see Oscar winning performances in this movie...well then you are also foolish and ignorant.
Realistically, the acting is not that bad. Several people pull off relatively impressive performances. The characters are likable for the most part, the plot is rather interesting, and all things considered the special effects are not that terrible.
Basically, after the first 10 to 20 minutes the movie is quite enjoyable. Once you get past the completely unbelievable storyline and accept the film for what it is you can get into it.
But unfortunately, if you are a snob who only watches movies of the highest caliber you will not be able to see this movie as a humorous satire like I did. Certainly it is not worth paying $7.50 for to see in the theater, but I think it was time well spent. -
pswillis27 May 2006What else can we expect, this is an example of production companies to make films for 'entertainment' only and not have to pay the high Hollywood star wages.Even the 'bigger' name stars are working for less and as the scripting,historical accuracy is lacking the players get paid the producers can sell it, no real quality needed. Not to mention the new actors (esses) get some experience and become known. Goood movie to watch on a cold rainy day like,today. Anyway how can every movie be as great as Casablaca or Gone With The Wind, and at least its better than a 'teen movie'.The best factors are there is no swearing just to swear and no unnecessary sex.
-
I'm writing this while watching it and i have to say, SWEET Jesus! who in their right mind actually green lit it? First of all, the opening speech is supposed to enlighten us to the comprehensive mythological aspects of Egyptian culture whilst introducing us to the fictional story wound into those aspects to form some sort of a plot. All we get from this is drivel! The mythology they base this on is changed completely to suit "the story".
OK at least Casper Van Dien attempts his best with the shoddy script and frivolous dialogue but he too fails to conjure up any sort of character traits since character development is obviously overlooked in the script. There's so much wrong with the script I'm not even going to go any further than this! The directing is atrocious as is the editing, the only way i can describe it is by means of a films pace. This has none! I'm not even going to waste my time continuing with this "review" as it clearly isn't one, more so, id like to call it a warning to anyone who is ever looking to watch this.... DON'T! The curse of King tut makes the likes of "The Mummy" or even "The Scorpion King" masterpieces! -
in technical aspects this movie was adequate (though not particularly good): the sets look Egyptian, the special effects are acceptable for a TV-movie.
the acting ranges from 'phoning it in' (our hero and heroin) to 'cringe-worthy' (the bad guys and extras) the story is the biggest problem: to say that the writer wiped his ass with historical accuracy is an understatement. but such an offense could be easily forgiven if the departure from history is for the sake of making a more entertaining story or for trimming a confusing back-story. this story however fails at both: it constructs an elaborate back-story (or at least pretends to have done so, while in fact it's just 'good versus evil') and fails to be entertaining.
the only entertainment this train-wreck offers is in schade-freude: laughing at the huge pretensions that seep through and at the actors who must at one point have thought they were in a half-way decent movie. that the hero and his friends are boring and not very intelligent is to be expected (they are audience-avatars, and the people who make these movies don't have a very high opinion of their audience). but the biggest problem is that the villains are equally stupid and one-dimensional and (most damning of all) boring as hell. their only goal is apparently to 'be bad' (and not in the 'getting drunk and having fun' way, but in the 'having countless staff-meetings and doing boring political things' way). -
bkoganbing3 August 2013The happenings depicted in The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb somehow didn't make it into the history books. If you're looking for the story of how Lord Carnarvon and Howard Carter found the tomb than you'll be disappointed.
Instead we find Casper Van Dien doing a pale imitation of Indiana Jones as archaeologist, right down to the fedora. Van Dien knows he's in a Thanksgiving special and he overacts accordingly.
That of course is nothing compared to what Jonathan Hyde does as the master villain of the film. Hyde runs the gamut of villainy from Snidely Whiplash to Darth Vader with a lot else thrown in. Hyde in his villainy is backed by the Hellfire Club headed by Malcolm McDowell. But Hyde's ambitions extend far beyond just ruling this world. Tut's tomb is a passageway to the demon world and Hyde's working with them.
A lot of talented people get wasted in this Hallmark TV movie which is downright mediocre. And the end switches from Indiana Jones to Stargate.
As for Carnarvon and Carter that's covered too, but you'll have to sit through almost three hours to find out. -
bnanno13 April 2006just absolute piece of utter drivel..although I admit I only lasted about half an hour somewhere in the middle You can't even call this rubbish... for instance, I caught the scene where they are supposedly digging in the wrong place, find the right place (72 steps, but no ones counting) and about 20 metres away the heroine brushes away a few CMOS of sand BY HAND and uncovers the tomb....a few rubbishy sentences later we see someone put a dynamite YES DYNAMITE stick in the very same sand, it blows up, and you have this beautiful SQUARE HOLE with nice clean staircase going down to the tomb. No wonder they call it King Tut. Tut tut, exactly.
-
pensman21 November 2012There are two actors in this--Malcolm McDowell and Simon Callow--but they are in it for maybe five minutes. So where did the budget go? Well it is a very nice film to look at. There is nothing new here. Well, given today's political climate maybe a nod to the Republican one percent. It is a cabal of rich business responsible for WW I who are the evil behind the scenes. They are looking for a green tablet that will allow them to completely dominate the world. Wow, never heard of that plot before. Anyway, if you want a nice sort of travelogue then worth a view. If you want the same plot with blood everywhere then try the remake of Conan. At least in that one you get a few bare breasts to view.
-
paul_haakonsen20 December 2015This movie does at first seem like a copy of the "Indiana Jones" movies, and it does bear a lot of striking resemblances to those movies. That being said, don't get me wrong. Because "The Curse of King Tut's Tomb" is an entertaining movie. Sure it may not have had the same budget as the "Indiana Jones" movies, but it did manage to hold its own well enough.
The story is about archaeologist Danny Freemont (played by Casper Van Dien) who is after four emerald fragments of a mystical tablet that Tutankhamon broke in order to keep Set and his demonic spawn from the world of man. At the same time a secret order, with a sinister agenda of their own, is chasing after the very same four fragments for using in their dark dealings.
"The Curse of King Tut's Tomb" does offer entertainment, action and excitement in a very "Indiana Jones"-like way. If you enjoyed those type of adventure movies, then you will also enjoy this particular movie.
The CGI effects were adequate for the purpose they served. Just don't expect it to dazzle your mind and blow you away.
There is a good continuous flow to the movie and storyline, and the people on the cast list were doing good jobs with their given roles and characters. The movie runs about two hours and forty minutes, so you will be in for an extended evening of adventure.
The scene with the dead guy had me laughing, because you could so clearly see his eyes fluttering and his chest heaving as he was breathing.
The movie does have an appeal to both young and mature audience. I was thoroughly entertained by this movie, and it surprised me when it turned out much better than I had anticipated. -
Bernie444428 February 2024With all the finesse and depth of an after-school movie, we are treated to an Indiana Jones knock-off.
Long before the Egyptian dynasties, the world was in a struggle between good and evil. A jade plaque that when assembled lets them their evil critters in from another world.
Archeologist/teacher Danny Freemont (Casper Van Dien) is in the process of finding the plaque quadrants from the far corners of the earth.
Morgan Sinclair (Jonathan Hyde) competing archeologist/teacher and member of that popular cabal "Hell Fire" is in the process of pilfering jade plaque pieces from never learning and unsuspecting Danny Freemont.
Now here comes the Hallmark part. Danny loves Dr. Azelia Barakat (Leonor Varela), who loves Government Official Yunan Heikal (Parvin Dabas) who is in love with Egypt. Will anyone get together?
Will the bad guys finally win or is this just another save the world at the last minute movie?
This is supposed to be Egypt however, it is filmed in India. Strangely, enough all the Egyptians look Indian.
This animal even looks fuzzy in Blu-ray. -
generationofswine9 February 2019The problem with reviewing things like this is, simply, that you are an adult and this was a movie made to play at the imagination of little boys.
Adults are going to think it's horrible, its cheesy, the special effects are terrible, the script is insane, and the Curse of King Tuts Tomb is a repulsive smite on history.
Meanwhile little boys are going to become fixated on it. They are going to look up things about King Tut, they are going to become fascinated with Egypt, it's going to blow little boys away. They are going to watch it and incorporate the parts they like into the games they play. -
gar71427 May 2006I haven't used that suggestion since Spielberg's 4-hour indulgence to nowhere: "A.I." This equally indulging crap-fest only lasts half that time, but I was not connected to IMDb and thus did not heed the warnings. I was merely channel surfing and stopped long enough on the Hallmark Channel presentation of "This Piece of Crap" AKA "The Curse of King Tut." Zzzzzzzzzzzz
This CRAP does not even offer any guilty pleasures. It's just stupid with tired and lame production values. If I could put it out of my misery, I would fire the first shot and blow my own brains out rather than watch this drivel.
Change the channel. Change the channel. Do not watch this drivel. It will offend your sensibilities. It's that bad. (And I don't mean Showgirls bad. There is no redemption here. It's just Gawd awful and STUPID.)
And even though it runs shorter than "A.I."; it's still worse. And that is bad.
"Worse than A.I." So, abandon all hope -
pritchetts11431 January 2020This is Eypyian fantasy adventure escapism and measures up well in that category. If you love movies with Egyptian settings and lore, you CAN lose yourself in this. Don't expect tons of digital special effects. I found this no worse, possibly better, than Casper Van Diem (the lead in both flicks) in Starship Troopers. It's meant to be campy adventure, not Shakespeare or the History channel. So many people think it's a some badge of honor to demean anythjng that isn't Oscar worthy or some confusing arthouse mind fark. This is good clean fun despite that it's obvious everyone is Indian, not Egyptian. That's all part of the "camp factor", but the film is well made for what it's intended audience is - people like me who are NOT so full of themselves that they can't enjoy a good cheap adventure film.
-
Vomitron_G24 October 2011A three-hour-long made-for-TV movie. Now that's usually too much of the 'good' stuff, certainly if you know Casper Van Dien is starring in it. And yes, it's a bit of a mess, this film, especially script-wise. But there's enough evil shenanigans going on in it to keep it all mildly entertaining. Too much stuff going on, actually, because in the end you're likely to go "What was all this about again?". Casper Van Dien plays a third rate Indiana Jones out to collect the 4 parts of an ancient tabloid which were scattered around the world to protect mankind, for he who possesses all 4 of them combined, has the power to unleash great demonic evil upon the world. There's this secret society, The Hellfire Council, that already has 3 of the 4 pieces. Van Dien discovers the 4th one in the hidden tomb of King Tut. All bets are off from then on, with the Hellfire Council on his tail to steal the 4th piece and Van Dien & his buddies eventually even passing through an inter-dimensional portal to the land of Ancient Demons (or something) to go wake up sleepy King Tut to help battle the Forces of Evil. It's a whole heap of amusing nonsense juiced up with crappy CGI. Malcolm McDowell is running around in it as the head of the Hellfire Council, not doing much else than simply being the head of the Hellfire Council. Villainous Jonathan Hyde plays Van Dien's nemesis. And beautiful Leonor Valera is too cute as the archaeologist chick & Van Dien's love interest. The whole thing was clearly made to appeal to fans of Universal's blockbuster hits "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns". It goes without saying that it doesn't deliver the same kind of 'quality entertainment'.