For a bad film, this wasn’t so bad a film. Of course you just know I cannot give a passing grade to film so poorly researched, right? I mean Under Wraps makes Fox News look like responsible reporting. And the acting comes straight out of the Disney Channel where I found it. That said, you can see worse family films on the Hallmark Channel any time of day, any day of the year.
Most mummies are angry. I’m not sure why; after I get a good rest, I’m rarin’ to go … and can you think of anybody who gets a better rest than a mummy? So when Marshall (Malachi Barton) and his buds accidentally reanimate an Egyptian mummy, they’re far more surprised by the “alive” part than the temperament part. I suppose I would be as well.
There’s an embarrassing lack of historical accuracy to any of this film, from a sarcophagus that looks
like a high school prop to an eons-old mummy who still has the skin, teeth and eyes of a couch potato, well, I don’t really want to get into this. I mean, sure, when you need hieroglyphics translated, why consult an Egyptologist or a museum curator when your local costume store dungeon master will do?
It doesn’t matter. None of this matters. What’s important here is plot and attitude and a monster that is one part scary and seven parts goofy.
Following a trip to the local museum, three tweens speculate that their neighbor is a crypt thief and while proving such, they animate an ancient mummy. The mummy appears angry at first, but is really just confused, lonely, and a bit clingy. Geez, dude, you’ve been by yourself for centuries; you’d think you’d handle the solitude better. The kids name the mummy “Harold,” which I find funny. In fact, there was a lot about this film I enjoyed (against my better judgment), from the mummy cutting a rug in the junior high gym to Harold’s love of 
hot sauce.
Truth be told, I’m kinda just happy they gave the mummy a personality. Any personality. Why should Harold (Phil Wright) be a gauze-bandaged zombie, huh?
The film takes place at Halloween, so it’s “easy” to pass Harold off as a weird adult rather than something supernatural. Nobody asks a question as to why a weird adult is hanging around three minors all day; this is the Disney Channel after all.
The controversy comes when the angry neighbor discovers his quarry has walked off and the tweens realize there’s a shelf life on Harold’s groove. Sure, why not make this mock-horror into a mock-thriller. Under Wraps is a bad film, no question. But it’s a lovable bad film, not unlike the kind Disney used to make in the 1960s and 1970s. At the end of the day, I suppose you’re asking what do you want for your family: to learn a genuine fact or two, or to be shown how to love by an ersatz horror icon? I think the answer is clear: go watch a Pixar.
An ancient mummy revived on the street
Found life a touch incomplete
For he was fond of candy
Which would be just dandy
If he could just learn to moan, “trick or treat”
Rated TV-Y7, 91 Minutes
Director: Alex Zamm
Writer: William Robertson, Alex Zamm
Genre: Family horror … like an RV trip
Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: Parents who believe in togetherness through soft-peddled terror
Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: Historians
