The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
49 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb: Watchable stuff
Platypuschow17 May 2018
Hammer movies have always been a tad hokey and that's forgivable, some sloppy writing however isn't.

This is the second Hammer Horror movie from "The Mummy" franchise and this time the star power has taken quite a dip. No longer did they have the presence of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing and that really showed.

It tells the story of a rich American who plans on making the opening of a mummy's sarcophagus a tourist event in order to make money but oddly enough things don't go quite as planned.

The film looks great, the performances though spotty are mostly passable and the Hammer Horror brand of musical score is present. It's all very colour by numbers stuff, but that's okay.

Sadly the writing is inconsistent, some is poor and some is baffling especially when it comes to character development.

Passable stuff but again this underlines why though I appreciate Hammer Horror I've never exactly been blown away by it.

The Good:

Looks great

The Bad:

The absence of the likes of Cushing/Lee is very damaging

The bulletproof bandages have returned!

Mummy actually looks worse

No character consistency

Awful cover art

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Belly dancing is sexy or awkward, never anything inbetween
13 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I Liked It!
BaronBl00d19 November 2001
While definitely not as much a first-rate production as Hammer's first Mummy, Curse of the Mummy's Tomb has some great camerawork, nice supporting performances, and an intriguing mummy plot. Archaeologists financed by an American P. T. Barnum type find a lost tomb and open it despite the curse that says whosoever is present at its opening should die. Hammer production values prevail with lush costumes and sets. George Pastell(from the original) is back as yet another Egyptian naysayer out to prove that the British had no right to take and break the sacred nature of treasure and memory of forgotten kings. Michael Ripper, Jack Gwillim, and Fred Clark excel in their supporting roles, clearly out-performing the rather tiresome and boring leads of Terence Morgan, Ronald Howard, and Jeanne Roland. Clark gives an impressive performance(as well as very affable one) as the American out to turn his mummy find into carnival magic, taking the show to the "American Heartland" for a dime a peep. The story is not the fastest paced story around, but once the mummy's casket gets opened....people die. Definitely worth a look for the mummy fan.
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not a masterpiece, but still underrated
The_True_Meller27 May 2007
Curse of the mummy's tomb certainly is not a best effort from Hammer studios, as many of their true classics outshine it without any serious effort. However, it is not as much a disaster as many comments here in IMDb suggest. The movie doesn't have any Hammer's big stars in the cast, the story doesn't bring anything new into the mummy myth, and at few times the going gets unintentionally hilarious in the film. But on the other hand, the characters are acted quite solidly, even if the performances don't truly shine. Comical reliefs are mostly done with certain style, especially by Fred Clark as a P.T. Barnum replica, and the plot has few interesting twists. We even have here few scenes of surprisingly graphic of it's time, if a bit unrealistic screen violence, if that's your cup of tea. Slow pace and low action rate of the film works more for than against the movie, at least in my books, and the whole package is short enough, so the story can carry it all through till the end.

All in all, if you're a fan of old horror films, give it a go, whether you're a fan of Hammer studios works or not. At least this one certainly beats the stuffing out of it's follow-up, Mummy's shroud, which in my opinion truly deserves any public stoning it gets.

This is my truth - what is yours?
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Another Great Hammer Film, This Time With a Mummy
gavin69428 November 2008
On an Egyptian expedition, a group of British explorers stumble across the hidden tomb of the pharaoh Ra (yes, I know, quite original). But once they bring him back to England for exhibition, they find the tomb to be empty. Did someone steal this priceless specimen or is the curse real, with a lumbering corpse walking the streets of London ready to kill those who disturbed his rest? Has a good mummy film been made in thirty years? I can't think of a recent one, "The Mummy" with Brendan Fraser really isn't all that great. The 90s were not mummy-friendly. The 80s? Not so much. Vampires, zombies... no problem. Even werewolves get the occasional bone tossed to them ("Dog Soldiers"). Where are the mummies? I don't know. But I do know you can find one seriously cool mummy in this film.

The actual mummy doesn't appear until the third act, with about twenty minutes left. We are instead treated to the conflicts, deceptions and internal politics of these competing archaeologists. And, believe it or not, this works. A good plot is unraveled with interesting characters... Hammer Studios didn't use the usual cast (sorry, Lee and Cushing) but gave us others that are equally capable. A romance blossoms that pays off later on in the film.

Mummy films are interesting, or at least this one is, if thought of as a moral tale about invading and desecrating a foreign culture. Sure, we can talk of a curse that kills those who disturb a mummy's rest. But how often do Egyptians dig up their own kings? It's more often... the Brits. So, there's something of a moral suggesting the Brits, a dominant empire, shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of weaker nations, stealing their heritage for monetary gain. Would the Brits want Egyptians digging up William the Conqueror? (Then again, maybe they would.) Things take a bizarre turn later on that you'll have to see to believe. One of the archaeologists is not who he says he is. And yes, you really ought to see this film. I watched it courtesy of the Icons of Horror box set featuring four classic Hammer films, and I can now say that all four are worth watching, and even owning. Hammer knew horror, and some of their gems at the time make today's horror look silly in comparison. Until a better mummy film comes along (and I've been waiting decades) this is the one to see.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Filthy bandages on the loose in the streets of London!
Coventry27 January 2004
This motion picture is supposed to be a kind of sequel to the terrific film starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee from 1959 but, compared to that one, this is a highly unimaginative and rather dull experience. The movie starts exiting enough, with a scientist getting slaughtered by angry and dangerous looking Egyptian priests…Unfortunately, the next 40 minutes are just a series of dull conversations and uninspired history lessons. The typical stereotypical American businessman wants the bandaged body of Ra to be in an amusements park, while the serious British archaeologist wants it to be in a classy museum…very uninteresting, I tell you. Curse also lacks a few decent and convincing actors and Jeanne Dubois – as the love interest Anette – fades away when set next to the other Hammer Egyptian queens like Valerie Léon (Blood from the Mummy's Tomb) and Yvonne Furneaux (The Mummy). The film becomes a bit more watchable when the mummy finally is going on his rampage in the streets of London...he even ends up in the sewers!! Which brings me to the most positive element of Curse of the Mummy's Tomb!! The creepy and dusty looking make-up! The filthy bandages and the impressively shot images of Ra alone are worth the effort. The ending is more or less surprising and satisfying but it doesn't save the entire finish product. A real shame, I think, because mummies ( and the Ancient Egypt in general ) are such a fascinating and astonishing source of inspiration for terrifying horror tales.
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pedestrian Hammer picture
lorenellroy26 January 2005
Hammer made its reputation ,not to mention its money , with Gothic horror but in 1964 this was the only such movie on its slate .That year they turned their attention elsewhere --to the psychological chiller with Fanatic and Hysteria ; to the adventure yarn with The Brigand of Khandahar and She ;to the war picture with The Secret of Blood Island .This may be why the movie looks so tired and underfunded -almost as if they wanted to be seen as a studio that could turn its hand to many genres and were a little shame faced about doing horror pictures This a routine and unoriginal revamp of the mummy movie sub genre with all clichés present and correct .There is one deft twist-the mummy's brother turns out to be an immortal ,alive and living in London .For the rest it is the over familiar tale of archaelogists who invade a tomb becoming prey for the rampaging ,vengeful mummy who sets out to kill the " desecrators "and who turns out to have a soft spot for the comely female of the party . Fred Clark is good as the American impresario who seeks to exploit the discovery of the tomb for commercial gain and there is sound support from Ronald Howard ,George Pastell and John Paul but Terence Morgan is dull and the heroine ,Jeanne Roland is so badly dubbed as to be incomprehensible at times .There was no exterior shooting in the picture and it shows with the Egyptian desert represented by a painted backcloth Add a mummy which lacks the poetry and pathos of Karloff and Lee in previous pictures and this is second rate fare ,well below the usual standards of the studio
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Spoilers follow ...
parry_na13 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Produced and directed by Hammer executive Michael Carreras, this film opens up in classic low-budget style: footage of camels tearing across a real desert fade into close-ups of blacked-up actors in a studio set, where the elderly father of drippy, fickle-hearted heroine Annette Dubois (Jeanne Roland) is killed and has his hand removed by ruffians. Carreras also wrote this under the pseudonym Henry Younger.

'The Curse…' has not found a huge amount of favour from fans over the years, but I really like it. Apart from the opening sequence, it looks to be an expensive production, features a first rate cast, features some gruesome moments – and features Michael Ripper as a wonderful (if unlikely) wide-eyed Arab called Achmed.

George Pastell makes an appearance, the second cast member from Hammer's original Mummy film to appear here. Fred Clarke, renowned American comic actor, plays the larger than life Alexander King (who, it seems, invented the term Turkish Delight in this film) arrogantly determined to milk as much money from the Mummy as possible, but lives (or dies) to regret it. Jack Gwillim is very good as pickled, deflated Sir Giles Dalrymple (whose demise is the film's highpoint in my view), whilst underrated actor Terence Morgan excels as villainous and debonair Adam Beauchamp, who is more interesting than stuffy square jawed hero John Bray (Ronald Howard).

The Mummy (Dickie Owen) is a curio. He seems slight compared with the usual culprits, and has a clay-like face, giving him a Golem-like aspect. But he is directed very well, and his kills are often accompanied by nothing but the sound of his deep, rhythmical breathing, which makes up for his less than intimidating bearing.

It is true to say that the story takes a while to get going, but is a solid telling of typical Mummy revenge, and certainly livens up once the resurrected Ra-Antef begins his killing spree, and remains compelling until the exciting sewer-based finale, in which Beauchamp is also relieved of his hand.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Another Sumptuous Looking Hammer Film
LeonLouisRicci4 August 2013
All Hammer Movies had that look. They had a way of presenting Color in a formula of their own design and it is part of their appeal to this day. In a word, it is sumptuous. Here we have the Studio's second Mummy Movie as our old friend is awakened once again to materialize the proverbial Curse.

It has a rather talky first half but the verbiage is slightly interesting and the "Mummy as Sideshow" is a new take. The second half kicks into gear and moves quite energetically, well as energetic as a Mummy can be. He seems determined to wreak the necessary havoc and does so quite brutally.

In the finale things really come together with a Plot twist and an exciting chase through the sewers. Overall, this is mid-range Hammer and that is almost always better than the Studio's contemporaries. Definitely worth a view for Hammer, Horror, and B-Movie Fans.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Creepy Mummy Make-Up
bensonmum24 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964) is Hammer's second venture into the world of ancient Egypt. Without giving too much away, the story is similar to all mummy films - an ancient tomb is opened and those who opened it must pay. To many, the film may seem slow to start, but once the mummy is released, things pick up. Terence Morgan, Ronald Howard, and Jeanne Roland are all adequate, but somewhat uninspired. Fred Clark is the brightest spot in the movie as the wealthy Alexander King. Clark's character, obviously inspired by PT Barnum, is a breath of fresh air to this otherwise predictable mummy story. He is looking to cash in on the mummy by presenting it as some sort of sideshow spectacle. The mummy make-up is good - the most obvious comparison would be to that of Kharis in the Universal mummy sequels. Also, like Kharis and unlike Christopher Lee in Hammer's first mummy film, this mummy walks and moves in a more "normal" pace. He is not the athletic mummy played by Lee.

After reading this it may sound as if I didn't like The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb. While not the best mummy movie or the best Hammer film, it's still fun - especially the final third of the movie.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty Neat Mummy Movie
Rainey-Dawn9 January 2016
This is not that bad of a mummy movie. It's no where near as good as The Mummy (1932) with Boris Karloff but it is almost as good as the Kharis mummy series (Tom Tyler & Lon Chaney Jr as the mummy for that series). Nor is this film quite as good as The Mummy (1959) with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee (as Kharis) BUT I do feel that The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964) is an underrated mummy movie on IMDb.

Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964) is about Egyptian prince Ra aka Ra-Antef - the Mummy. His tomb was discovered by Egyptologists and they are wanting to display and tour with the discovered mummy. But someone decides to resurrect the mummy... who and why?

Overall a fun but underrated film. Worth watching if you like mummy movies.

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gets off to a slow start but leads to a good finale...
Doylenf15 October 2010
This may not be the best of The Mummy films from Hammer, but it is handsomely filmed and well acted by a fine British cast--especially TERENCE MORGAN, RONALD HOWARD and YVONNE ROLAND as the charming feminine lead. The less you know about the Terence Morgan character (Adam), the more you'll enjoy the plot.

The story requires a lot of exposition at the start which means a lot of talky and static scenes before the real suspense starts. The tale is not exactly original in concept. Again, the mummy has come to life to kill the people who've exploited him. High among his priorities is the fast-talking, rather obnoxious American showman (FRED CLARK) who is anxious to make a profit on exhibiting the mummy in show biz style.

DICKIE OWEN makes a formidable mummy with the help of some fine make-up effects but it is really the convincing performances of the three principals that makes the story credible.

I missed hearing James Bernard's background music, usually a strong point in any Hammer horror film.

Summing up: Easy enough to watch but you have to be patient to get past the slow start.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
And You Thought the Mummy Was Slow Moving?
tommyknobnocker18 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I hate to admit it, but I watched an entire evening of mummy movies courtesy of our Turner Classic Movies over the weekend. I hate to admit it because this monster has to be one of the most boring in the pantheon of creatures.

Worse, "The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb" spends more time on character development than it does on visits from the title monster. The mummy only makes a couple of appearances and these are fleeting and in the second half of the picture.

This entry also suffers from some major pacing issues. The story moves so slowly that I was able to leave the room on several occasions, fix myself a snack, take a stroll around the block, and by my return I hadn't missed a single thing.

In short, "The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb" needed a lot more mummy and a lot less interaction between the archaeologists who were trailing him. I do give it points for the plot about the mummy having an evil brother.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Like the mummy, it takes a while to get going
heedarmy3 January 2000
After a cripplingly slow start, the second-half of this low-budget (even by Hammer standards) tale is quite lively and gruesome. Devotees may miss Cushing and Lee but Hammer alumnus Michael Ripper IS on hand, as an unlikely Cockney-accented Egyptian called Ahmed. Director Michael Carreras liked to shoot all his films in widescreen and the film is probably best seen in its original Hammerscope format.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A lesser Hammer effort
JoeB13128 August 2009
Hammer had two great stars, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. When they tried to make a horror movie without them, what they got was kind of pedestrian and predictable.

I usually try to avoid "Star Quality" as a virtue of film, but Hammer proved it...

The plot is that an archaeological team uncovers the lost tomb of a dead Egyptian prince. The mummy is reanimated and begins to pick off the people who opened his tomb. (Cliche). The twist is that his brother has been cursed to live forever, and wants his brother to kill him, after he took care of those people who desecrated the tomb, of course..

(Now, you'd think that if you were tired of eternal life, you wouldn't focus on snuffing the bit players so much.)

Especially nutty is the evil brother seducing the girlfriend of the head archaeologist....Now you would think that if you are so anxious to die, you wouldn't worry about such side issues...

It's okay to watch, but not great. YOu can see why whoever owns the rights to Hammer films put this on the "collection disk" grouping.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rather dull movie has some good moments of fine acting
mlraymond22 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very slow film, with a not very frightening monster, a rather dull romance, and some pretty unconvincing backgrounds.That said, it does have its moments of excitement, and the basic story manages to hold one's interest, if you can get through the long stretches of expository dialogue.

The parts that stay in my memory the strongest are those involving the tragic figure of archaeologist Giles Dalrymple, played by Jack Gwillim.This dignified older man has a weakness for alcohol, and as his embarrassment at being an unwilling participant in the hokey show biz presentation of the mummy by the American impresario increases, his drinking gets worse. There are a couple of truly memorable and sad scenes involving his boozing, one where a housekeeper tries to persuade her employer to eat supper, as he pours himself the latest of many drinks and insists he isn't hungry.

The other is an uncomfortably convincing scene of Giles trying to be helpful to a younger colleague, who is translating a manuscript, and Giles clumsily spills his drink on the ancient parchment. The younger archaeologist has been trying to restrain his impatience and discomfort with the awkwardness of his mentor being intoxicated, but he loses his temper and curses Giles for being a drunken old fool. The actor's look of chagrin at what he has just said is completely real, as is Giles' sad, low key response, as he looks shocked at first, but says " So I see I've lost your respect now, also", and the younger man tries to pretend he didn't mean it.

This scene is perhaps the most memorable of the entire film, and quite moving. It's a small moment in the convoluted tale of the mummy and the curse, but a striking one, nonetheless.

Having recently acquired a copy of this movie and seen it twice, I am struck by the idea that the basic storyline is rather intriguing, and might have made for a much more exciting picture. I think the main problem is that the leads are not terribly interesting personalities and/or that their characters are under-written. Imagine the possibilities if Christopher Lee had played the part of Adam Beauchamp instead of Terence Morgan, or Richard Pasco had played John. Terence Morgan gives his role a good try, but I can't help feeling that Lee would have brought a really intense, evil charisma to the part of Adam that would have made Annette's attraction to him more believable. Also, imagine the level of intensity and fire that Pasco would have brought to the role of John, with serious conflict between him and Adam over the love of Annette.

I think this is not really a bad film at all, but it could have been better, with more inspired casting.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964) **
JoeKarlosi22 February 2009
After Hammer's first successful stab at a mummy film (THE MUMMY - 1959) it's pretty rough going with their bandaged follow-ups. This one was not quite as unwatchable as I feared, but was still a limp and rather average affair that I don't see myself revisiting any time soon, if ever. A typical group of treasure seekers uncovers another Egyptian carcass which ultimately gets put on public display by a sleazy American showman, but mysteriously disappears and starts killing people. There's a lot of dull filler through most of this, but by the time the mummy starts stomping there was more action than I was lead to believe from others' reviews. This mummy's makeup isn't too bad, and he's more inventive than most with some of his killing techniques.

** out of ****
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty good
SanteeFats11 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This is obviously an old school horror movie from Hammer Studios. It starts out a little slow but picks up as it goes on. One of the opening scenes is a bit confusing with one of the archeologists tied to two posts. A nomad (?) shows and knifes the guy and then cuts off his left hand. The hand and knife show up a little later in the research teams tents. Discovering the tomb of an Egyptian prince. They excavate the tomb find the mummy and other artifacts. The financial sponsor for the dig, an American showman, decides to take the whole shebang on a tour of America. Well it leads to several dead witnesses of the opening of the sarcophagus. Turns out Ra's younger brother who actually responsible his murder has been cursed with eternal life unless Ra kills him with his own hand. Well this happens and taking the necklace with the "Words of Life" on it he then destroys himself.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
You know how the actual Mummy moves slow?..........
Spikeopath10 April 2011
The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is out of Hammer Film Productions and written and directed by Michael Carreras. It stars Terence Morgan, Ronald Howard, Fred Clark & Jeanne Roland. Music is by Carlo Martelli and cinematography Otto Heller. It's shot in Technicolor using the Techniscope format. Plot sees three British Egyptologists discover the tomb of Prince Ra and under guidance from their showman benefactor bring their discovery back to London. Once in London the Mummified body of Ra starts killing people, it seems someone has the know-how to resurrect the creature for evil doings.

It doesn't actually feel like a Hammer Horror movie, except for Roland's cleavage that is. The cast are largely unfamiliar Hammer performers and you sense that the casting is a deliberate attempt to detract from a very salient point. As a story and how it's strung together, The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is pretty much an uncredited remake of Hammer's own, excellent, first foray into Mummy world in 1959. Once mooted as that film's sequel, it has since been distanced as such because of the similarities. Which means to judge it as a standalone or a remake (which makes it a lazy cash in then) is the question. Fact is, tho, is that either way it's a distinctly average film from a narrative view point. The acting is fine enough, tho Roland really is only there for said cleavage, and the sets and vibrant colour make it very pleasing to the eye. But it takes an age to get going and the unoriginality of the script only hastens the feeling of, well, boredom setting in.

Wrapping up (bad pun I know), it's watchable and better looking than the other Mummy film's that Hammer released after it. But really it all feels lazy and pales in comparison to the first film in 1959. 5/10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This is a Hammer film...?
The_Void18 January 2005
The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is Hammer's second foray into ancient Egypt...and it's not as good as the first. Not even nearly. None of the cast from 'The Mummy' has returned (probably because they read the script), and the film lacks both the ingenuity and good-natured style that has come to be associated with Hammer productions. In fact, this film goes directly against what Hammer fans have come to love about their films as about two thirds of it is frankly boring! The film is far too talky, and it diffuses any sense of dread or horror that the film contains. To be honest, I have no idea why Hammer studios ever green-lighted it. The story is basically a re-run of the first film, except there's far more chat about the pitfalls of taking ancient relics away from a Mummy's tomb, as opposed to the far more interesting subject of Egyptian mythology. We follow an American that is very much like J. Jameson from the Spiderman films, who decides to make a sideshow out of a mummy and ends up feeling the Mummy's curse after a whole load of boring nonsense.

When the film does finally get going, it isn't bad as we've got a mummy going round bumping people off left, right and centre; but it takes far too long to get to this stage, and by the time it does you couldn't care less about the mummy, the characters or anything else about the film. Many people seem to be giving the film small plaudits for the mummy's make-up, but I honestly can't see why. It looks like something some kid made in a Paper Mache class (assuming kids have Paper Mache classes, of course) and nothing like what you'd expect to find in a horror movie. The Mummy suffers because it's boring, lacks invention and doesn't feature enough horror. This is by far the worst Hammer film I've seen, and if you really have to see it I recommend fast-forwarding the first hour and just watching the ending. Feel free to disregard my sage advice, but I don't doubt that you'll wish you'd heeded it when the credits finally role.
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Curse of the Mummy's Tomb
Scarecrow-883 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Mummy, supposedly housing under it's bandages Prince Ra-Antef, murders those responsible for unearthing his Egyptian crypt and disturbing his eternal rest. Someone, though, seems to be guiding him. We later discover that a seemingly sophisticated, kind enough wealthy bachelor, Adam Beauchamp(Terence Morgan)might just be Ra's cursed eternally young brother..perhaps pulling the strings behind the mummy's murdering folks. The film opens with quite a renowned archaeologist being stabbed in the stomach by an accompaniment of ominous Egyptians, following that by removing his hand with a blade. This is a warning to a specific British expedition concerning the removing of a sarcophagus from an Egyptian crypt with the financier of the trip, American show-business man Alexander King(Fred Clark), planning to carry the mummy on the road as a side-show exhibit. Sir Giles Dalrymple(Jack Gwillim)who was in charge of the operation, finds this idea absurd, planning to place it in a museum in London. John Bray(Ronald Howard)is a fellow archaeologist under Giles who isn't offended by King's desire to showcase the mummy despite his colleague's rejections to such a notion..Giles even resigns as a protest. The dead archeologist's daughter Annette Dubois(Jeanne Roland)doesn't protest, either. She is currently committed to marriage with John until meeting Adam on a cruise Egyptian tries to harm John and Giles with Adam so conveniently stepping in to save the day. Most of the setting is in London as the mummy stalks and kills various partakers the removal from his home. Hashmi Bey(George Pastell)is the Egyptian voice of his government cooperating with the expedition who tries, and fails, to convince King not to go through with his side-show plans. The films ends, entertainingly enough, in the London sewers out of all places.

To be honest, I rather enjoyed this film. It certainly seems to not entertain very many others..most consider it dull and life-less. It's not the shining, heralded example of Hammer's productive output, but I wasn't myself that bored. I thought the film had some marvelous sets, stylish set-pieces(such as when the mummy attacks one victim tossing him down a flight of steps, or another where the mummy explodes through a window to bash a poor fellow over the skull with a small cat statue), and even a few gory bits(such as the removal of hands). Certainly not the better mummy film of the series(I thought Holt's "Blood from the Mummy's Tomb" was quite better and more interesting)and doesn't really take an original route, showcasing some very familiar material(such as the idea of invading crypts and removing mummy's from their rightful burial ground or the exploitation of ancient civilizations for profit, taking a nice little jab to ribs of American materialism). But, I think it had enough style and the mummy, I felt, was effectively shot to add suspense. I had a good time, even though I'm one of the few who seems to have.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A decent enough horror from Hammer.
seance-647493 October 2017
All four Mummy films by Hammer I like. Curse with atmospheric scenes does give a quality to it. You have fog bound London to add atmosphere. Sets on film re Egyptian biz are quite good.Story so-so various characters who crop up. Then we have the Mummy itself which looks quite impressive, with scenes with Mummy in like in fog top of steps near embankment etc, scene in study where curtains are concealing it. Another scene in house where Mummy ascending stairs, menacing and quite gripping. Odd comical relief in film re certain characters. Overall film has some merit to it!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Decent entry, if not overtly spectacular
kannibalcorpsegrinder28 October 2014
When the discovery of a strange coffin in the Egyptian desert leads to a mysterious rash of murders as the recovery party arrives in London, it's eventually found to be the work of an ancient spell that reanimated the body of the pharaoh within leading them on a race to stop the creature's rampage.

This was a below-average and pretty forgettable entry in the series. The biggest issue with the film is the fact that there's hardly any action at all within this, focusing way too much on extraneous plot-points the keep the film running along at a dreadfully boring pace. For all the talk here of curses that are mentioned in the first half, hardly any of it makes the film go along any faster while it tends to focus on issues relating to everything but the curse. Instead, we get a rather pointless love triangle that eats up absurd amounts of time only to have it be taken away by the fact the third wheel steals her away for a secondary purpose his involvement didn't need to still get the same effect and causing her to back anyway, a massively confusing and curious chain of events that comes off very badly. Likewise, the dealings with the artifacts and their importance in solving the mystery of the brutal attacks makes the film go on for far too long and really becomes all the more flaccid by not doing anything. All in all, these tend to drag on together throughout the first half succeed so well in dragging the pace of the film out so much that it causes the actual attack to occur just shy of an hour into the movie, which is highly disconcerting. Only the back-story flashback of the origins of the mummy's identity within this section breaks up that monotony by showing the reasoning for his mummification, and after that there's a few shambling attacks spread out to really help the second half to have better pacing and more excitement. The finale chase does make for quite a fun time as the sewer battle does make up for some of the extreme boredom and the situation involving the cliché attraction does help this out by generating the kind of uplifting arc needed here. Along with the fine make-up on the creature, these good points do help out somewhat here though there's still a lot of problems within this one.

Today's Rating/PG: Violence.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A strictly so-so mummy horror outing from the usually reliable folks at Hammer
Woodyanders19 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The key problem with this handsomely mounted, but extremely pedestrian picture is that it quite simply takes too long to get going and start cooking the way that it should from the get go. Writer/director Michael Carreras alas allows the opening half to plod by at a leisurely clip and crucially fails to build any tension or momentum that would sped things along better. It doesn't help that the story is totally routine: Once again a lethal shambling mummy springs to angry life in order to avenge itself on several people who are foolish enough to desecrate its tomb. Fortunately, the movie finally begins humming and delivers a few effectively rousing mounts after the mummy awakens. Dickie Owen as the mummy makes for an impressively fierce and fearsome monster. The violence is shockingly brutal and gruesome stuff. Plus there's a nice unexpected plot twist involving one of the central characters. The game cast do their best with the mediocre material, with especially stand-out contributions by Terence Morgan as the charming Adam Beauchamp, Ronald Howard as the huffy John Bray, Fred Clark as the blithely crass P.T. Barnumesque American showman Alexander King, Jeanne Roland as the fetching, sensitive Annette Dubois, George Pastell as the helpful Hashmi Bey, and Jack Gwillim as the hearty, morally upright Sir Giles Dalrymple. Both Otto Heller's sumptuous widescreen cinematography and Carlo Martelli's robust, stirring score are up to par. But overall this film is way too bland and meandering to be anything more than a merely watchable and acceptable time-waster.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Boring, badly acted Hammer horror
preppy-314 August 2000
Warning: Spoilers
A very dull Hammer horror film with people opening an ancient mummy's tomb, the mummy comes to life, kills all the defilers, etc etc. It starts off great with a stabbing and a hand being cut off but quickly slows down and becomes dull.

The story concentrates more on the romantic triangle between John (Ronald Howard), Adam (Terence Moragn) and Annette (Jeanne Roland). The "romance" scenes between them are pretty deadly--Howard and Morgan walk through their roles and Roland has got to be the WORST actress I've ever seen in a Hammer horror movie (and that's saying something). She certainly is beautiful but that doesn't excuse her lousy performance. The mummy doesn't even swing into action until almost an hour in!

SPOILERS!!! It does have some gruesome scenes--two more hands are cut off (Hammer seemed to really enjoy that in this one) and one man's head is crushed when the mummy steps on it (heard but not seen)! These bits are the only highlights in the film and are cut from most commercial TV prints leaving you NO reason to watch this. Cool mummy makeup too. END SPOILERS!!!

It looks good and is lavishly filmed but, all in all, this movie is very dull and pointless. Don't bother. with this one.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Underrated Hammer mummy outing
Leofwine_draca16 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Even lower-end Hammer films tend to be worth a watch, and this follow up to THE MUMMY is no exception. Despite the extraordinarily slow pacing (the first hour of the film does nothing except to set up the various characters and their relationships), the production values – even in a film relatively cheap by Hammer standards – are top drawer, the costumes and sets are fun (love those Egyptian backlots), and there's even a smattering of graphic gore for those who enjoy that kind of thing. Imagine the year this film was made. Now watch the film complete with multiple hand-choppings, bludgeoning, beating and – most graphic of all – an offscreen but horrific (thanks to the sound effects guy) head-crushing underfoot – and you can imagine that the film must have been considered pretty terrible when it was first released. Sure, today it seems tame, but I still get a kick out of gruesomeness that is readily achieved WITHOUT excessive bloodshed and through imagination more than anything else.

The storyline is very predictable and doesn't need re-telling here, other than it contains the usual themes of cursed siblings (one good, one evil), the mummy falling in love with a beautiful girl, immortality and the bumping off of those who first defiled the Egyptian tomb. The leading characters all seem pretty stuffy but the actors do manage to put in more than adequate performances (aside from Jeanne Roland, who's pretty but hopelessly miscast). Terence Morgan is devilishly evil as the slick bad guy; Ronald Howard more than acceptable as the decent hero; Fred Clark steals the show as a P.T. Barnum-style sideshow hustler who wants to get the mummy working for HIM. Then there's a trio of great supporting performances from George Pastell, Michael Ripper (killed all too early), and Jack Gwillim.

The mummy makeup is imposing but not necessarily all that scary, and an interesting touch has the mummy heavy breathing as he goes about his business, kind of like a prototype Darth Vader! After the slow first hour, things pick up for the climax, throwing in some genuinely nasty shocks (one death scene is one of the juiciest in the whole Hammer repertoire) and a climax that must have seemed good on paper but doesn't work all so well. Would sewers really collapse that easily? Still, despite the ambiguity of the climax, this is a fun enough ride for genre fans content to happily sit through well-done ripe dialogue and costume drama to get to the good gruesomeness.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed