ebiros2 I didn't know this version of a mummy movie existed. It's made around the same time as the Christopher Lee's version, but this one is less well known.The movie starts out good. The characters are good, the story is good, and the scenes are beautiful. Then it starts going down hill. Acting starts to slip, the characters loses their edge, and the mummy looks like Jason in pajamas.Far from being the horror classic done by Ron Chaney Jr., this one is almost comedic when the mummy starts moving.So the ghastly horror is spoiled by the main antagonist not fulfilling its role. If the horror movie is not scary, then rest of the story won't matter.It could have been a lot better movie. They had everything going for it, but they blew it on few critical spots, that spoiled the whole show.

Harold_Robbins There's nothing really wrong with this entry in Hammer's Mummy series - there just wasn't really anyplace further to go with these stories (the Universal ones in the 1940s got progressively worse and inane) - this one's almost a remake of Hammer's previous entry, CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB, without the bombastic performance of Fred Clark. But there are good performances here - Andre Morrell, John Phillips, David Buck, Catherine Lacey and the ever-reliable Michael Ripper (in a larger-than-usual role), and the production maintains the good Hammer standards. It's really nothing to be ashamed of, and quite enjoyable - this was my second viewing (the first was five years ago, though I first heard about the film when it was released in 1967) and the beauty of most Hammer productions is that they can be re-watched at intervals of several years with no loss of enjoyment - 'comfort films' indeed.

drmality-1 Mummy movies are notoriously difficult to make interesting. The original Universal film with Boris Karloff succeeded by becoming a dark and dreamy romantic fantasy. Hammer's full-blooded remake in 1959 gave us a powerful yet sympathetic Mummy portrayed by Christopher Lee. Beyond those two, most mummy films have been of middling quality. This is one of the better ones, though it surely has its faults.The lengthy historical prologue has been complained about by many, but I think it it necessary to show the great loyalty and devotion that the slave Prem has towards his young master, Kah-to-bey. It gives him a sympathetic edge, as he did everything to honor his master both in life and death. This aura of sympathy is in all of Hammer's Mummy films to some degree. Lee's Kharis suffered horribly for true love while Ra-Antef in "Curse of the Mummy's Tomb" was a noble soul terribly betrayed. Prem fits well with his predecessors.The reanimated Prem is little more than a slave of the fanatical Hasmid and his crazed mother. But when he strikes, it's with a lot of violence in some very well-crafted death scenes. He crushes one character's head like an eggshell (off screen but we can imagine the gruesome details), splatters another with burning acid before setting him on fire, strangles another before dashing his brains out on a wall and wraps up another in a bed sheet before tossing him out a window to the street far below! Now THAT is a violent mummy and one capable of more than just simply strangling people.Prem's unique look is based on actual Egyptian mummies. Some find it disappointing...I do not. One of the best scenes is when the mummy slowly opens its crusty eyelids. Prem is also mighty tough. He gets singed with acid (giving him a nice smoky look), hacked with an axe and shot to hell at close range without much effect. When destruction finally comes to the mummy, it comes in a most unique and gruesome fashion.Most Hammer films boast good performances and there are several worth noting here. John Phillips hits just the right note as the arrogant and cowardly Stanley Preston. One of the more subtle horrors of the film is his completely loveless and emotionally dead relationship with his wife. Just before his meeting with the Mummy, Preston must realize that he will be missed by no one. Elisabeth Sellars as Mrs. Preston gives one of the most cold-blooded and emotionally detached performances I've seen. Roger Delgado is great as the sinister Hasmid, unleashing an amazingly perfect stream of Arabic gibberish. Delgado would perfect his evil as The Master in Dr. Who. Another wild performance is given by Catherine Lacey as the demented Haiti the fortune teller. Never has any fortune teller delighted in predicting her customer's deaths as much as Haiti.One black mark against the movie is the criminal misuse of Andre Morell as Sir Basil. Morell was a terrific actor, so memorable in "Plague of the Zombies", "Hound of the Baskervilles" and the little-seen "Cash On Demand", but here he makes little to no impression. Something which I blame more on the script and the director than Morell himself.Maggie Kimberly is quite stunning as Claire. She looks rather average at first, but the more she is in peril, the more attractive she becomes.The actor who really walks off with the movie is Hammer mainstay Michael Ripper. What a versatile actor he was. As the meek and suffering lackey of Preston's, he makes for a perfect milksop. We feel an overwhelming sympathy for this simple character and his death is a brutal shock.There are parts where the movie lags, particularly in the opening desert scenes, but once Prem is awakened, the action never flags and the movie builds to a powerful and action-packed climax. In the end, Hammer gave as much life as they could to the tired mummy concept with "The Mummy's Shroud" and the film should satisfy anyone looking for escapist horror.

preppy-3 After a needlessly elaborate prologue narrated by (I think) Peter Cushing this opens in 1920 Egypt--although everybody dresses in 1960s clothes and fashions. The plot is a boring by-the-numbers number about people desecrating the tomb of some Egyptian king (or something) and the mummy coming to life to kill them. A minor twist is that someone must have the mummy's shroud in hand and say a particular phase to animate him and send him out to kill. This is just barely a horror film--the mummy doesn't even start moving until 45 minutes in! It's mostly a dull drama of people standing around and discussing why people are being killed and by who. All the attack scenes are short and distressingly non-bloody (except for two) and the mummy looks pretty silly (even though it was based on how actual mummies look).Some good acting saves this from being a total disaster. David Buck is good as Paul and Maggie Kimberly is just OK as the love interest Claire. John Phillips is terrible as the main villain Stanley but Elizabeth Sellars seems very amused as his wife. Also Hammer regular Michael Ripper is excellent and Catherine Lacey chews the scenery as Haiti. Also there's a thundering music score to keep you awake. A deadly dull Hammer film with nothing new to offer. The third and probably the worst of the four mummy films they did. A 2--mostly for the acting.