Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

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.

Leofwine_draca 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.

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!

mlraymond 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.