Universal Monsters: The Mummy

Universal Monsters (Image Comics)

by Faith Erin Hicks, Lee Loughridge (illustrator)

New York Times bestselling and Eisner Award-winning comics creator Faith Erin Hicks resurrects one of the most iconic monsters in her bold new take on THE MUMMY!

Forever haunted by a cursed encounter as a child, Helen Grosvenor is a woman born to two worlds and belonging in neither. When unknown voices bring her to an Egyptian dig site, Helen will play an unexpected role in the rise of a monster known only as...THE MUMMY.

Superstar creator Faith Erin Hicks (Ride On, Pumpkinheads, The Nameless City Trilogy) teams up with colorist Lee Loughridge (I Hate This Place) to present a bold new vision of the seminal horror classic, bringing The Mummy to life like never before.

Collects UNIVERSAL MONSTERS: THE MUMMY #1-4.

Genres: Horror, Comics, Graphic Novels, Graphic Novels Comics, Fantasy, Graphic Novels Manga, Historical Fiction

112 pages, Hardcover

Published November 11, 2025

About the author

Born in the wilds of British Columbia, the young Faith frolicked among the Sasquatch native to the province before moving to Ontario at age five. There she was homeschooled with her three brothers, and developed an unnatural passion for galloping around on horseback, though never without a proper helmet (because you only get one skull). After twenty years of suffering through Ontario’s obscenely hot summers, she migrated east, and now lives beside the other ocean in Halifax, Nova Scotia. She worked in animation for a bit, and now draws comics full time. She’s not sure how that happened either.

Reviews

[Michael J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

NOTE: I read this in the single monthly issues.

Hick’s version of the 1932 film stays very close to the characters, plot, and elements of the original. It’s probably the truest version yet in these new adaptations of Universal classic monster films. The film was the least of my favorites, as I managed to catch all the Universal movies on late night Chiller Theaters, etc.; and they put a stamp on my young impressionable mind. This mini-series is also my least favorite, but it does have its’ merits.

Imhotep, the ancient Egyptian mummy, was killed for attempting to resurrect his dead lover (Anck-es-en-Amon). In 1912 Thebes, his body is discovered and accidentally brought to life. After killing a few archaeologists, Imhotep disguises himself as Ardith Bey and searches for his lost love. He finds her in the person of Helen, daughter of one of the archaeologists, who has grown up with a singular voice in her head conversing with her. Her resemblance to Anck-es-en-Amon is striking, and Imhotep plans to kill Helen and release the spirit of his lover so they can be together.

Hick’s art style is well-suited to middle-grade and young adult graphic novels, and it works well here. The only variance in her version of the story is a stronger focus on the lover relationship between the two ancient ones.

Enjoyable, and well-done - but not comparable to the amazing job done on the Dracula and Frankenstein adaptations. More deserving of THREE AND ONE-HALF STARS.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I complain a lot about certain artists not being suited to Horror comics, and, on the surface, Faith Erin Hicks should NOT be an obvious choice to illustrate one. But her style perfectly suits Egypt in the early 1900s. Image has been killing it with these Universal Monsters adaptations/expansions, and THE MUMMY is no exception. More please.

[Tobin Elliott · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pull off the wrappings, peel back the skin, lift away the layers of dry, tough muscle and tendon and sinew, and you'll find there's kind of a hint of a decent story at the bones of this graphic novel.

But my god, what a trainwreck this is.

The first and most obvious failing is the art. Loughridge's art looks like it should be decorating the pages of middle grade comics about the trials and tribulations of fifth-graders. It's very cartoony, and it's utterly unsuited for what should have been a dark, seductive, moody, mysterious tone. I will never understand why artists with a sketchy, cartoonish style get so many horror comic gigs. It's like hiring Johnny Rotten to headline your next opera.

So, that was major strike number one.

Number two was the story. Unevenly paced (did we really need Helen's childhood and teen years?), unevenly told, and it felt like Helen was just lurching from one calamitous event to the next, with the voice in her head an annoying presence buzzing about. None of the characters were developed, so the reader really can't care about any of them.

This was a hot mess.

I can't believe that there wasn't a single writer/artist team that could produce a decent story about the MONSTER in the title of the series, instead of four stories that focused on a side character who grudgingly gave up a few panels to allow the actual, titular monster in any of the four series so far, to show up to be utterly mistreated by the creative team.

I've already got Tynion's THE INVISIBLE MAN on pre-order (ordered before I read any of these and realised what a waste of time and money they were), but let's hope he might do something better than he did with DRACULA.

Then again, who am I kidding?

[Keenan Mcclelland · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a slow burn series that really unravels itself in true Universal Monster fashion midway through.

[Jeremiah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great art and a fast moving plot. Keen to read the other books in the series.

[righton · Rating 2 out of 5]

That kinda sucked

[Andrew Kline · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got the first two issues (signed!) at ALA 2025, and I was able to read issues 3&4 from a PDF ARC from Skybound (also from ALA). I love Hicks art, but she does a lot of YA stuff, so it was cool to see her tackle something a little more adult and creepy. Great adaptation. I love the original Universal Monsters and I can't wait to read the rest of the recent graphic novels!

[Murray Ferguson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm a huge fan of the Universal Monsters, and I enjoyed the previous three adaptations from Skybound, but straight away, the art style for Hicks' take on The Mummy put me off. It feels far too stiff, cartoonish and 'young adult' for the source material, and while there were a few panels I did enjoy, the vast majority of the art felt tonally jarring. This wouldn't be too disappointing if the story were adapted well, but the overall result was incredibly underwhelming.

Placing the focus on Helen's dual identity and the romance between Anck-su-namun and Imhotep was an interesting, if not entirely novel approach, as it had already been done to some extent in the superior Carl Dreadstone novelisation. Nevertheless, while I didn't care for her conversations with her ancient imaginary friend or the unnecessary narration throughout, this idea still had a fair amount of potential. Unfortunately, the writing was incredibly simplistic throughout. The story begins with Helen's childhood and introduces us to her parents, who were only alluded to in the film, but any opportunity to learn more about them is swiftly ignored, rendering the scene rather pointless. We next cut to Helen as a teenager, struggling to fit in with the children of her British father's servants, and in this case, we do learn far more about her father, even though he only makes a brief appearance at the end of this sequence. I liked the idea of the ghostly Anck-su-namun first awakening inside Helen at the same time Imhotep is resurrected, and there's some decent work on the colours with the moonlit desert landscape, but the artwork itself was seriously lacking. I'm surprised how little attention was paid to Imhotep's big moment, and this pretty much set the tone for the rest of the adaptation.

The story is so focused on Helen that it feels as if Hicks preferred to write a YA romance wrapped up in The Mummy's plot on an entirely superficial level. She makes some questionable changes to the source material, switching and repeating dialogue from scene to scene, altering Helen's first meeting with Frank and keeping Imhotep and almost the entire supporting cast on the periphery. The previous adaptations of Dracula and Frankenstein successfully acted as companion pieces to the films while still working very well as standalone stories. This isn't the case for The Mummy, where scenes from the film feel so disconnected that every character gets short shrift. If you hadn't seen the 1932 film, then you'd be wondering what these characters are really even doing here. Strangely, Hicks' adaptation is so focused on romance, and yet Frank ends up being more underwritten than he was in the film. There's essentially no romance between him and Helen at all. Even Helen feels underwritten. She's at the centre of almost every scene, and yet I know her less than I ever did in the film, and her feeling of being continually out of place with the world is never adequately explored with any sense of depth or nuance.

Imhotep himself is presented as too much of a cute bad boy, and despite there being a couple of effective small additions to their backstory, the flashback delving into the tragedy of these characters is too silly to take seriously. Even the famous lost reincarnation sequence feels like a lazy afterthought that is easily missed, when it should have been a standout moment bursting with impactful visuals. Hicks also makes drastic changes to the plot. No longer does Helen feel a hypnotic pull towards the mysterious 'Ardeth Bey'. Instead, Anck-su-namun just conveniently takes control of her body. No longer does she fall ever weaker as she struggles to resist Imhotep's supernatural power. Instead, she just goes straight to him. No longer does Frank undergo an arc where he begins to believe in the supernatural and gives up his protective talisman to save Helen, almost killing himself in the process. Instead, he takes one look at it and is merely attacked regardless. There is no context for the scene or any point in the talisman's inclusion whatsoever. We also don't see Dr. Muller rouse Frank and track Helen down in the Cairo museum. They just magically show up at the right moment. The entire plot feels rushed, carrying no weight and somehow removing the complexity of the classic film.

I will admit that Hicks does a decent job with the climax. I appreciate a few references to the 1999 film peppered throughout, and the final issue goes heavy on The Mummy Returns. Imhotep seduces his temporarily revived love by using his power to project an image of his mortal self, but only for a moment. Then, when he is enraged by her rudely refusing to be turned into a mummy just like him, he takes on the form of a rotting corpse. For once, Hicks' art really lands, and we are finally provided with some horror in this horror comic. While the resolution with Helen and Frank is disappointing, I did enjoy another Stephen Sommers reference with Frank and Dr. Muller briefly battling mummy servants, and Hicks' new interpretation of Imhotep's defeat was presented quite well.

Maybe I would find more to appreciate on a revisit, but this adaptation just feels hollow, somehow understanding the tragic love story of The Mummy but completely missing the mark in terms of execution and character development. I really enjoy the 1932 original and the 1999 remake is one of my absolute favourite films, so I really wanted to like this new take on a beloved story. Unfortunately, there was very little I could enjoy here. Oh well, The Invisible Man is up next and that looks fantastic.

[Joseph R. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This very faithful adaptation manages not to be a "movie-in-comic-book-form" by switching the focus to Helen Grosvenor, the woman who has an eerie resemblance to the Mummy's ancient paramour. Back in the day Imhotep was in love with a priestess of Isis named Ankh-es-en-Amon. She died from a plague and Imhotep tried to resurrect her using the Scroll of Thoth. He failed when authorities showed up. They buried him alive and cursed him with immortal life (while in a nameless grave!). This story starts with Helen as a young girl dealing with her parents--a British father and an Egyptian mother. They are rich and lean toward a British lifestyle. Helen only hangs out with the children of their servants who are all full-blooded Egyptians. The kids at the British school hold no interest for Helen. But the Egyptian kids think of her as the boss's daughter, and a half-breed at that. If that was not enough problems, Helen also discovers another soul trapped inside her who becomes her closest friend, though an invisible one, so others (British and Egyptian) think she's strange. Her life gets stranger as her father is involved in an archeological dig that discovers Imhotep's mummy, who comes to life when one of the assistants reads aloud the Scroll of Thoth buried also in the tomb. Plenty of troubles follow from this.

The shift in focus is interesting and provides a way to explore the story without changing the basic beats of the plot. Helen is an interesting person and her interactions with the other soul living inside her provide a lot of drama. The art is nice but less like a horror story than I was expecting. Hicks has a distinctive style (see her Nameless City series) that is a little more cartoonish than the story is. My quibble about the art is small because her writing is so fine, the whole is very satisfying.

Recommended.

[Freddie🏳️‍⚧️🐀 · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really dug this comic, I feverishly awaited every month for the new last series Frankenstein and loved it, but was dissapointed by the final issue. So how's this one fare? I read it as it relaesd, the shop forgot to put me on file for the last issue so I read it a month late booo, so my memory became a bit foggy when i finally caught up to the last issue.
I should say my stance on the original movie- it's bad. It's really bad sorry, it is easily the worst of the mainline films. Which is why I was very intrigued by this, espeically since it follows Helen. The leading lady of the film. Who in the original is half egyptian, which iirc they don't really touch on. Here it works more into her character, which I thought was super interesting. Movie Helen was incredibly boring and forgettable, but this comic made her a character I enjoyed following. So yeah this book suceeds at actually making something good out of a movie I disliked. I thought the storytelling and art was excellent. Like Frankenstein the last issue feels very fast as this is only a 4 issue series. But I did feel satisified by the ending this time.
But yeah this was a great read! I do love Hicks' work so I was excited to see her name on this (albeit it sounded like a strange combo). I like the diversity of art and storytelling styles for this series and I really hope they keep going for as long as they can. Next up is the invisible man and from the preview i'm a bit catious (not feeling the art). But hey I'll still be there when it comes out.

[Marc Pastor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Una altra adaptació dels monstres de la Universal al còmic, en aquestes entregues altament irregulars.
Aquest cop, almenys, no és un despropòsit, i tenim una versió correcta d'una història que ja d'origen no és que sigui res de l'altre món. Siguem clars: el tema de la mòmia atrau per l'ambientació i perquè a tots ens agrada una bona maledicció, perquè l'argument és d'allò més simple.
Aquest és el principal taló d'Aquil·les d'aquest còmic, que per molt que s'hi inclogui com a protagonista la noia objecte del desig d'Imhotep, no va gaire més enllà de la història d'amor separada per mil·lenis. Si bé hi ha algun apunt cap a la denúncia contra les masculinitats tòxiques (!!!) en l'actitut del sacerdot del faraó reconvertit a mort vivent, que és tan extemporani com interessant.
En l'apartat del dibuix, passem de vinyetes molt ben parides a parts narratives dominades per un hieratisme rutinari. Entre que els personatges són molt estàtics i que tots tenen una cara estàndard de còmics romàntics per adolescents, es perd l'ambient de terror que presumptament hauria de sobrevolar el retorn d'Imhotep.

[Ángel Javier · Rating 2 out of 5]

Formulaica, predecible, con diálogos estereotipados y dibujo mediocre, sin duda esta es la serie basada en los monstruos de la Universal más floja. Lo peor es que hay una buena historia oculta en este pequeño fiasco, una en la que triunfa el amor de verdad, no la sensiblería barata, y el hombre que se enfrentó a los dioses por su amada logra su propósito, y los amantes son felices para siempre. Pero... las cosas son como son, y este es un mundo de mierda, así que la niñata malcriada se sale con la suya porque la princesa egipcia no tiene las narices suficientes como para hacer lo que se tiene que hacer. En fin, una pena. Ay, pobre Imhotep. Yo lo conocía bien...

[Chris Lemmerman · Rating 4 out of 5]

The latest Universal Monsters title from Image is mostly a one-for-one interpretation of the original movie, with a little twist in that we focus more on Helen than any of the other characters. There's some expansion regarding her relationship with Imhotep's bride that helps modernize the story and give Helen a bit more agency in the proceedings, without losing the charm of the original.

Hicks' art is apt for the most part, though I did find that everyone looked a little squashed in some of the wider angle crowd scenes.

Not my favourite of the four we've had so far, but not bad by any stretch.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The Mummy" (1932) has always been my least favourite of the original Universal Monsters movies. It was just so slow and boring. Thankfully this is neither. It's a pretty faithful retelling of the movie but from the perspective of a character who barely appears (despite the importance to the plot).

I love the art style, it has a cool cartoony vibe that suits the setting well.

Overall another solid entry into the Universal Monsters line.

[Gonzalo Oyanedel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesante que Faith Erin Hicks eligiera llevar su revisión del personaje (según el molde Universal Monsters) por la vía del romance gótico, planteamiento distinto al terror predominante en Dracula o el mal y su evolución que aborda El Hombre Invisible. Su premisa recoge el tópico del amor que atraviesa los siglos, donde al privilegiar el suspenso consigue no volverse ni aburrida ni predecible hasta el episodio final. Una correcta reinvención.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've enjoyed picking up each new volume of the Universal Monsters comic collection. The Mummy was a pleasant read, though like the rest, I wish there were a few more issues so the story could be fleshed out. This one particularly read more along the lines of a middle-grades or teen plot. I really liked the illustration style for the setting, but I also think it'd be cool to see Faith go darker.

[October Murilla · Rating 1 out of 5]

These Skybound Universal Monster books really came out swinging with the near immaculate Dracula adaptation, but they've just consistently shit the bed ever since. Everyone responsible for this dull, drab effort should thank their lucky stars that the Creature from the Black Lagoon volume exists to make this thing seem not so terrible in comparison.

[Chris Ahearn · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Mummy has never been my favorite of the Universal Monsters, I've felt a lot of those earlier movies were kinda boring (not the Brendan Fraser ones, those are fun.) Shifting the focus onto Helen as not some damsel for Frank to save, but the main protagonist was such a smart move. It made the story way more engaging. Great artwork too

[Brandon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loved the change in framing between the film and this adaptation, Helen is the most interesting person from The Mummy film, giving her a better backstory and the main focus of the narrative is exactly what this story needed!

[Martijn Van · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great retelling of Universal's The Mummy. Respecting the origenal movie and adding new stuff to tickle our 2025 minds. So it's a pity that, just as with some other comics in this series, it all feels to rushed because of the shortness of the book.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like too many recent Mummy tales, the titular monster is not the lead in his own story.

[Penny · Rating 4 out of 5]

A favorite story of mine. I appreciate the themes being addressed and enjoy the illustrative work.

[Dustin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a pretty straightforward retelling and didn’t quite do it for me.

[Stanley Reeves · Rating 2 out of 5]

bad 4/10

[Sesana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overly straightforward retelling of the classic Mummy movie.

[Markus Seaberry · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this, it approaches the tale of the Mummy in a fresh new way.

[Wolverinefactor · Rating 3 out of 5]

This had a lot of potential but it felt rushed and lacks mummy stuff

[Al Capwned · Rating 3 out of 5]

The weakest instalment to the series so far, unfortunately. I really wanted to like this one.

[Ash · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5