LeonLouisRicci There is a Chronological Connection Between the Importance and Quality of Hammer Horror Films. Although the Series Films Featuring Horror Monster Icons Declined with the Sands of Time, All Hammer Films are Worth a Watch.They Had "It", that Something that Makes them Unmistakable and Unique, and Entity Unto Themselves. Much Imitated but Never Equaled, the Studio was Consistent. In this the Third of Four Mummy Movies from Hammer, the Only Obvious Shortcoming is Relying on Some Fairly Constrained and Claustrophobic Sets.It Doesn't Seem to Breathe the way Most Hammer Movies did, Despite Low to Middle Budget Restrictions, the Studio Always Seemed to be More Expansive than They Actually were. Movie Magic. But, As Always, the Sets are Decorated with that Hammer Colorful Charm. The Acting is Competent and the Characters are Varied and the Mummy is a bit Different, and Menacing.There is the Creep Factor Mixed with the Charm that is Typical Hammer and the Movie, while Not in the Top Tier of Terror from the Studio, is Still a Hammer Film, and the Output did Vary at Times, but if its a Hammer it is Worth its Weight in Cinematic Cleverness, Wit, and Scariness that was, if Anything, Familiar and Comforting. There is a Reason that the Studio is so Fondly Remembered and One Only Needs to See a Hammer Film to Get it.

AaronCapenBanner John Gilling directed this third Hammer Studios Mummy picture, this time set in 1920, where an expedition led by Sir Basil Walden(played by Andre Morel) discovers the tomb of an Egyptian child prince, and takes it back to the museum. Unknown to them, a high priest(played by future "Doctor Who" Master Roger Delgado) knows the secret of reviving its Mummy guardian back to life, in an effort to avenge the tomb desecration, starting with Sir Basil.... Not original at all of course, but this one almost pulls it off by some effective(if unintentional) satiric comedy, having fun with the clichés, especially Catherine Lacey's turn as a cackling(and drooling!) fortune teller. Michael Ripper is also quite good as a doomed agent of the expedition's financial backers. Not scary at all, but does have its moments.

JohnHowardReid Virtually a remake of The Mummy (1932) – including even a re-run of the climax in the museum – but with the most interesting characters originally played by Boris Karlof and Zita Johann watered down and definitely not changed for the better. In both acting and personality, Eddie Powell and Maggie Kimberley are definitely no substitutes. I was also disappointed in both John Gilling's script and his direction. The script is full of padding and repetitive dialogue. The acting is full of much B-grade shuffling – a device originated to spin a "B" movie's tight budget out to feature length at minimum cost. In fact, Gilling's direction shows only three or four flashes of the atmospheric imagination that distinguishes some of the "B" movies he made on budgets much smaller than this. Admittedly, some of Arthur Grant's color photography provides a few good atmospheric effects, but mostly Grant's work here rates as competent but undistinguished. True, some of the special effects are mildly shocking, some of the sets show a teeny bit of Egyptian flavoring, and some of the actors try very hard – particularly Michael Ripper as a harassed, sycophantic press agent, and Richard Warner who actually makes a big effort to sound a trifle like an Egyptian police inspector. Other players, however, try too hard, particularly Roger Delgado as the mad guardian of the tomb (compare Boris Karloff's chilling but infinitely more restrained performance), and Catherine Lacey as his fortune teller accomplice. The mummy's make-up doesn't bear comparison with the 1932 film either. Mind you, a few thrills do manage to surface in the welter of marking-time dialogue, but this movie offers mild entertainment at best – especially for undiscriminating fans who wouldn't know Boris Karloff from Norman Wisdom.

Theo Robertson The 1959 Hammer version of THE MUMMY works both as a classy atmospheric horror movie and a film with a political subtext and I have very good memories of it . In theory this sequel of sorts should have a lot going for it not least because it stars Andre Morell , an actor who could make a shopping list compelling if he read it out loud . So I sat back ready to enjoy THE MUMMY'S SHROUD With hindsight I was too optimistic . Or rather not too optimistic just a victim of a cinematic scam . Morell despite heading the cast list doesn't make an appearance until relatively late in the running time and is quickly written out so that's one good reason for not watching . The other reason is that the Mummy of the title is equally short on screen time . So instead of seeing an atmospheric horror film like the original Hammer version we have a bunch of posh Englanders standing around in a studio set talking in posh accents about nothing much in particular . As I said prepare to be scammed for a very dull 86 minutes of your life