JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

christopher-underwood I always tend to steer clear of 'Mummy' films, not for any Oedipal reasons, but because they can get a bit bogged down in Egyptian mythology and more particularly because the wrapped ones tend to move so slowly. In fact, in this one the movement is pretty good, its only a stunt man in there so no attempt at Shakespearean style overacting and generally he's okay. All around him it is very much , the 'B' team except for Jeanne Roland, who does well and looks lovely, but is lumbered with an awfully dubbed voice. The opening scenes with amateurish backcloths are risible and then the film stops for about fifty minutes before an excellent ending. The good old stunt man takes Jeanne down into the sewers and with excellent photography the film really comes alive. Bit late though and it is clear that this film made to fit into a double bill is fit for nothing else.

jaybour It's hard to think of another actress's role that is so thankless and unsympathetic as the one assigned here to Jeanne Roland. She comes across as an uncaring wanton; her father dies, and she's next seen, without a care in the world, carousing on a ship with her boyfriend. Her boyfriend is knocked out on the ship, and, minutes later, she's drinking and flirting with a stranger instead of being at her friend's bedside. The boyfriend is then knocked unconscious again, and, again, she's drinking and canoodling callously with this stranger as though oblivious to all except her voracious libido. She comes across as a lascivious nymph, and I was left hoping the Mummy would do her in to save the boyfriend the trouble! It all made a mediocre film even more ludicrous!

AaronCapenBanner Michael Carreras directed this singularly uninspired and utterly clichéd Mummy picture, not a sequel to the earlier 1959 film with Peter Cushing & Christopher Lee. Here, archaeologists discover the tomb of the Eqyptian prince Ra, which of course is cursed, and someone is using the Mummy to kill the expedition members. Fred Clark plays an American businessman who pays to have the tomb's contents brought to England for display, but didn't reckon on the fabled curse being real... Despite a fine score and production values, film is so unbelievably unoriginal, predictable, and tedious that it doesn't seem worth the effort. Good makeup on the Mummy can't save this, one of Hammer studios' worst.

Spikeopath 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