UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Uriah43 This movie essentially begins with an archaeological expedition led by a man named "Sir Basil Walden" (Andre Morell) in search of the tomb of a Pharaoh's young son named "Kah-To-Bey" (Toolsie Persaud). As it so happens, the young boy was forced to flee into the desert with a loyal servant named "Prem" (Dickie Owen) because of intrigue within the Pharaoh's family. Unfortunately, the Egyptian desert proves too much for the young boy and Kah-To-Bey is buried by Prem and a curse is placed upon anyone who might disturb his master's tomb. As luck would have it the archaeological expedition finds the tomb--and brings the body of Kah-to-bey back to the nearest Egyptian city—where the wealthy financier of the expedition named "Stanley Preston" (John Phillips) takes all of the credit. What he doesn't count on, however, is the mummified body of Prem being brought back to life by the ancestral guardian of the tomb who then orders the mummy to kill all of those who dared to desecrate the sacred resting place of Kah-To-Bey. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film pretty much shared the same plot and formula as any number of "mummy films" made prior to it and as a result there really isn't much here than hasn't been seen before. Even so it was an okay movie for the most part and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Average.

lorddnarbsy Well, going in expecting nothing but hoping to enjoy myself, I put this movie into my blu-ray player. I've got a major Hammer DVD collection and this was one of the movies I hadn't seen before.Starting of with the main thing that defines this movie: When you've got a movie solely designed to show your Mummy killing people, you might want to invest time in developing your characters. This wasn't the case unfortunately and brings the movie down for me. The best thing in the movie though was Michael Ripper. The Hammer regular gave one of his best performances and was perhaps the most likable character in the movie. (perhaps because he got more opportunities to make his character seem emphatic than for example the underused Andre Morrell) Another great element in the movie was the musical score. I think, for me, this is one of the more memorable music cue's that Hammer produced for their movies. On another positive note, the way the Mummy sneaks up on it's victims were different in a creative way every time. Director John Gilling tried to visually make those sequences as interesting as possible. (although the Mummy suit looked like a worn-out pyjama ha ha) I'm a huge fan of the first Hammer Mummy movie and I also found Blood of the Mummy's Tomb pretty good. In comparison, this movie was a bit underwhelming. It could have done a little more with the content it had. This movie is a simple slasher. An interesting watch nonetheless and surely a fine addition to my Hammer collection.

utgard14 An archaeological expedition does what archaeological expeditions in movies do best: they desecrate an Egyptian tomb and incur the wrath of a mummy. Routine mummy movie from Hammer. Helped by nice cast that includes Hammer vets Michael Ripper and Andre Morell. Ripper has probably his best role as the tragic Longbarrow. John Phillips makes a particularly hissable villain. Opening prologue seems to go on forever. The mummy makeup/costume is particularly ratty. Not sure if that was the look they were going for or if it was just the best they could do. It's not a particularly special horror movie but it's entertaining enough if you're a fan of mummy movies as I am.

Michael_Elliott Mummy's Shroud, The (1966) * 1/2 (out of 4)Hammer had great success at taking various Universal monsters and making them their own in a long running group of films. They did wonders with Frankenstein and Dracula but The Mummy, on the other hand, offered up more disappointments than anything. This time out we start off with some narration by Peter Cushing (rumored) who tells us of a young pharaoh who escapes persecution thanks to his slave. Flash forward to 1920 and an exhibition uncovers the tomb of the young boy. Like idiots and after being warned, they mess around with his skull, which sets loose the mummy to seek revenge. I guess this film is best remembered for being the last Hammer film to be shot at Bray Studios but it's surprising how poor all the sets look here. Usually you could depend on good looking sets but that's not the case here and this is easy to spot early on when we get the big battle but it's obvious that they'll all fighting on cardboard sets. Things don't improve as we flash forward as we get one long, boring dialogue scene after another and it gets so bad that you'll be wishing a real mummy will show up at your house and crush your skull just so you can quit watching this thing. The usually dependable Andre Morell comes off pretty boring here as does John Phillips and David Buck. Hammer regular Michael Ripper doesn't add anything either. The locations used here make you feel as if you're on a fake set, which is never a good things and there's zero atmosphere created by director Gilling. The entire movie moves as slow as Lon Chaney, Jr.'s mummy and that's certainly not a good thing. There are a few effective moments and the highlight is the final sequence with the mummy. I won't ruin how they destroy him but it's certainly a great looking sequence.