IMDb > The Mummy's Shroud (1967) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
The Mummy's Shroud (1967) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 25 comments in total 

20 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
Ignore the bad reviews - this is a GREAT Mummy movie!, 12 March 2003
Author: Geisterzug from Newcastle upon Tyne, England

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Okay,

This is Hammer's bandage-wrapped version of THE TERMINATOR, with a British Hammer-sixties budget.And I'm prepared to bet that a pre-teen viewing of this movie (and others) was part of the cocktail that led horror movie fans/turned directors like James Cameron into making the bigger budget versions.(Right down to the new MUMMY movies).

There are horror movie/Mummy movie fans who have been disappointed with the movie. I'm the first to admit that there are certain problems with it - particularly that bloody long prologue, and the flashback high-school play Egyptian scenario.

But as a long-term fan, and anonymous supernatural/thriller author of international standing - let me tell you that I've argued this movie at length with an author of the same standing.

He hates it - I LOVE it.

Let me tell you why.

There's a RELENTLESNESS to the Mummy attacks in this picture that are truly scary. That blank, unemotional mask of a face just seems to make the violence - when it happens - utterly terrible. (The mask was based on a real Mummy, in the British Museum. All credit to the Costume Designer. I've been there, seen the Mummy. Same face. Visitors to the Museum - make your way to the Egyptian section. There it is, under glass.)

When The Mummy is summoned - Don Banks' superb music creates a real sense of anxiety when you see its shadow stalking the streets, on its way to the next victim. And when it attacks, we're treated to what I've always loved about Hammer: Full-on physical confrontations and fights. This is a NASTY Mummy!

Special mention to a sequence where it attacks a victim, knocks him to the ground and grabs a big jar of acid, deliberately crushing it over him - in the knowledge that it's own long dead and mummified hands won't be affected - and then it strides away UTTERLY unemotionally, leaving the guy writhing and screaming. Who then CATCHES FIRE, as it leaves.

Nasty, nasty, nasty.

A previous reviewer refers to the serious playing of the cast as a bonus, and I couldn't agree more.

And yes, Michael Ripper finally gets a chance after years of working for Hammer to finally register EMOTIONALLY as a character. Throughout, he's treated terribly by the John Phillips character, but puts up with it. When the Mummy appears to kill him, it's quite upsetting.

Yes, he was present when the tomb was opened, on his bosses instructions. But that's all. And - in his bedroom -when he kneals on and breaks his spectacles, reaching his lowest miserable ebb, the Mummy appears - killing him horribly for his 'transgression'.

There's a terrible SADNESS in that killing.

And lastly, the best part of the picture.

The final confrontation with the Mummy. A great hands-on fight in a Museum, with the hero brandishing an axe (hey, what's an axe in the neck to THIS mummy?)and the heroine desperately enancting the 'Words of Death' from The Mummy's Shroud - leading to a great SFX sequence of The Mummy crumbling to pieces

Wish there was a way I could make this review appear first in the listings. But hey, if you perservered - amd made your way down here - take my word for it. You won't be disappointed.

Geisterzug

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Awwww Hammer Films... Gotta Love 'Em, 25 January 2005
7/10
Author: MaskedOne from Watching a Hammer Movie!

OK, it's a corny mummy movie made by Hammer Films in the 1960's. Low budget, over the top acting, cool creepy music and a really scary Mummy monster. Really, what more do you need? If you are a Hammer fan, you will definitely enjoy this one. If not, you may not want to bother. Hammer wasn't trying to fool anyone into thinking of this movie as some kind of masterpiece. Its just a monster movie of the Saturday matinée, or late night channel surfing variety. Nothing to write to Oscar about. In other words, its a Hammer film... get the popcorn and soda, fluff up your sofa cushion, prop your head back, put your feet up and kick back and enjoy!

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Hammer is Hammer - sometime's cheap but always entertaining!, 4 November 2006
7/10
Author: it001k0306 from United Kingdom

This isn't the best of Hammer, despite being directed by John Gilling who, at his best, provided some of the studio's finest. Obviously, the acting presence of Cushing and/or Lee would have improved matters but Hammer stalwarts Andre Morell and Michael Ripper more than do their bit. The Mummy is visually interesting and the emotionless visage coupled with its implacable intent make it pretty chilling at times. Some scenes in this one have clearly inspired later Mummy films. The budget obviously isn't the highest but Hammer always make their films look and sound good. As for the review which notes that the narration sounds nothing like Peter Cushing...get your ears syringed, man! It quite blatantly DOES sound like Cushing and that legendary gentleman is my favourite actor so I consider myself to be a reasonable judge.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Andre Morell Should Have Played a Much Bigger Part, 30 April 2001
Author: marquis de cinema from Boston, MA

There are moments in the film that are scary and eerie like the murder of Longbarrow or the mummy's stalking of Stanley Preston. Overall something for strict fans of Hammer films and British horror. Not an enjoyable film from John Gilling like his atmospheric and groundbreaking zombie pic, The Plague of the Zombies(1966). The Mummy's Shroud(1967) gets average performances from the actors except Michael Ripper who provides pathos as the long suffering agent of Stanley Preston, Longbarrow. John Phillips gives a great performance as a greedy and attention obsessed man who does anything to get ahead in life. Far cry from the great and frightful elements of The Mummy(1959).

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
A Great Mummy Movie!, 23 February 2003
8/10
Author: nelsmonsterx (nelsonbraendle@graffiti.net) from U.S.

I have to admit, I was a bit worried when I picked this baby up, but it shocked me for sure when I watched it. The awesome box cover pulled me in, but the movie is actually really good. Despite not having either Cushing or Lee, this film holds up because of the cast's seriousness and a very cool monster. Much like all mummy films, the curse to those that disturbed the mummy's tomb carries the plot of this sucker. That along with some drama about a "rich heartless father vs. handsome moral son" relationship and the girl mixed up in it and blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah . . .Who cares? We just wanna see mummies killin', right? And kill he does. Watch the close up of the centuries-old dust falling from his opening eyelids. Classic Hammer!

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Good cast overcome so-so film., 13 November 2008
7/10
Author: Scott LeBrun from Winnipeg, Canada

One of the few mummy-themed movies to come from Britains' legendary Hammer Studios, the scenario here is pretty standard, as the archaeological expedition that enter the tomb of an Egyptian child and would-be prince subsequently are cursed. The child's' protector, found in mummified form, is resurrected through the use of the title garment and used to kill the transgressors.

The review in Maltins' annual guide gives it the lowest-of-the-low "BOMB" rating and declares it "one of the least Hammers", but speaking as a fan of the horror genre and the studio, it's really not bad at all. Sure, it's not one of the studios' best; the screenplay and presentation are of no real distinction, but it's still quite watchable. The mummy is quite formidable and nasty, and doles out some sadistic punishment. I also thought it effective that no two methods of murder were the same.

The cast is up to the task, with Andre Morell in a strong performance as the expedition leader, and John Phillips quite convincing as the self-serving rich man funding the expedition. Hammer mainstay Michael Ripper has a much more substantial part than usual, allowing him to make quite an impression as the incredibly jittery Longbarrow. (This movie is well worth seeing for this aspect, if nothing else.) David Buck, Elizabeth Sellars, gorgeous Maggie Kimberly, Tim Barrett, Richard Warner, Roger Delgado, and Catherine Lacey round out the main cast.

Cinematographer Arthur Grant and production designer Bernard Robinson, two highly reliable pros who lent their talents to a number of Hammer films, do good work as always, and Don Banks supplies a great and spooky score. Special effects are enjoyable, with nice shots of the mummy's opening eyes and a nifty demise for him at the end.

Even if no classic, it's still a reasonably entertaining movie with some good and effective moments.

7/10

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
The Shrieking Shroud, 15 March 2008
6/10
Author: (Vomitron_G) from the Doomed Megalopolis of Blasphemous Technoids

This is actually the first Hammer movie about a mummy I've seen in its entirety. And now I want more! Although it's not exactly the most gruesome or most entertaining Hammer effort out there, it wasn't a let-down either. THE MUMMY'S SHROUD plays it downright serious, to some extend with success, on other levels a bit of a failure. Let's start with a few negative points first. As mentioned in other user-comments, the prologue knows a poorly staged and acted Egyptian sequence that might have you chuckling because of how cheap the sets look (it really looks a bit like a high school stage-play). But nevertheless, plot-wise that prologue was a necessity to provide the history to the story. Another thing is that the plot relies a lot on the cast to tell the story. Which is good and bad. Good thing is, that the whole cast is more than capable when it comes to performances. The bad thing is: It results often in too much talking and less thrills and chills. The budget restrictions also show, resulting in limited sets. There's only a handful of rooms and a couple of narrow city streets, all clearly built on a sound-stage. The film-makers just inserted the same over-view establishing shot of the city a couple of times, and the viewer should get the impression that the cast is running around in it. All this really isn't a complaint, because it works and that's just the way it was shot on a modest budget. It's just that it's clearly noticeable, albeit the set-design was handled with care. The handful of outdoors shots, weren't filmed in a real desert of course. You can clearly see it's just a few hills were they tossed around an amount of sand (in one shot you can even see some plants in the background that shouldn't normally grow in a desert). Still, no complaints, because the film shows they did the best they could.

Now for the stuff that matters. The story is well-constructed. Of course, it's about a mummy who comes to life and goes on a vengeful rampage to kill off all the cursed people who entered his tomb and placed him in a museum. But the little catch is, it's actually a shroud that causes the shrieks and slaughter, for he who has it, holds the power to resurrect the mummy. Knowing this, it's up to the archaeologists and the local police detective to figure out who exactly wants the members of the expedition dead. Sadly, the mystery isn't there, since the plot really serves up only one possible suspect. But still, nothing to nag about, because there still is the main attraction: The murderous mummy. The first time he comes to life features a memorable close-up shot of his face. The special effects shot where he opens his dusty & crusty eyelids ('animatronics' avant là lettre) is effectively creepy. I even re-wound that bit, because at first I wasn't quite sure what I was looking at, until they started to move. The mummy's got strength and he's a real stalker, shuffling his way through the streets at night into buildings and bedrooms. The kills are nicely staged, and my favorite one involves a jar of acid and a fire. Don't expect anything too graphic though. It might be a Hammer movie, but after all it was still the sixties. There's a decent, short but satisfying climax in the museum too. It shows us that a mummy's shoulder is firm soil to plant an axe into, although it's not likely to stop him.

One more thing that made this movie worthwhile watching too. An actress. Maggie Kimberly. I just can't quite put it into words... At first you don't particularly notice her. She's just part of the expedition. But the more screen time she gets in different scenes, the more she just demands your attention. She just had a mesmerizing look to her beauty. The more I saw her, the more I wanted to see of her. She has gorgeous blond hair, always tied together. And at one point I was wishing her to finally let her hair down, for it to engulf her shoulders... And then wham! The last scenes has her with her hair down. Ravishing! I just love it when a girl grants my wish. Even in a movie. Anyway, I'm going way off topic here. But whatever happened to her as an actress? She only did three movies and a TV episode. Strange...

Oh well. Bottom line: So far I've never seen a Hammer movie that disappointed me. THE MUMMY'S SHROUD might maybe not make it to the 'Best Of Hammer' list, but it sure is a fun watch.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
More of the same., 18 September 2004
7/10
Author: david-697 from Stockton, England

The biggest problem with 'The Mummy's Shroud' is that with 'The Mummy' in 1959, Hammer made the definitive 'mummy movie' and so 'The Mummy's Shroud' which basically tells the same story with only minor differences, comes across as being redundant.

John Gilling does his best with the material (there are a lot of great shots in this movie) but is unable to over-come the basic familiarity of the story. The cast is mixed, with the best actor, Andre Morell, wasted in a minor role. There are compensations, however, as Hammer veteran Michael Ripper (dubbed by Christopher Lee as 'face of Hammer') is given is best role as Longbarrow, his death is perhaps the dramatic highlight of the movie.

In addition, 'The Mummy's Shroud' is superior to Hammer's last movie in the series, 'The Curse Of The Mummy's Tomb', having a faster pace and sticks better in the memory (mainly due to the talents of Gilling). While not vintage Hammer by a long chalk, it's a solid Hammer movie which suffers from the 'seen it all before' factor.

Oh, by the way, if you're a Peter Cushing fan you will be disappointed, as despite being credited to Cushing in some sources, the narrator does not sound remotely like him.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
The Mummy's Shroud, 19 March 2009
6/10
Author: Scarecrow-88 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Desecrating the hidden tomb of Kah-to-Bey, and removing his skeletal remains for an exhibit, those responsible for the expedition will face unspeakable danger as the preserved mummified corpse of his loyal slave, Prem, is reawakened by the Egyptian guardian, Hasmid(Roger Delgado)reading from the hieroglyphics of the Pharoah's death shroud..a shroud with encrypted words which hold the power of life and death if the Pharoah's body and sepulcher are disturbed. The bank roll for the expedition is funded by unscrupulous businessman, Stanley Preston(John Phillips), who craves the limelight, fame, and attention normally vested to those who make the discovery. Heading the expedition, renowned archaeologist Sir Basil Walden(André Morell), his pretty language expert Claire de Sangre(Maggie Kimberly), Stanley's son Paul(David Buck), and photographer Harry Newton(Tim Barret). They indeed discover the tomb, and it's guardian, the pernicious Hasmid who will seek revenge against those willing to invade the holy tomb of his ancestors. Hasmid has an accomplice in the Egyptian soothsayer, Haiti(Catherine Lacey)who relishes in informing those, who come to her for a fortune, of incoming death. It's very simple, those who entered the tomb will be visited by Prem, their destruction drawing nigh..each individual are seen in Haiti's crystal ball, Hasmid prays to his cat idol speaking the words from the shroud, & the victims are targeted and executed.

I think this mummy film, like CURSE OF THE MUMMY TOMB and The MUMMY preceding it, stays in formula..basically those who invade a tomb must answer for it. Hasmid is the true villain for the mummy Prem can only harm when ordered from the shroud..and the mummy's reign of terror can only be silenced when the shroud is taken from the one using it as a weapon. The sets and props(..the sepulcher of the Pharoah and the different artifacts found)aren't convincing, but the superb casting helps keep it afloat. Morell, a very good, but under-appreciated actor who worked in other Hammer films(Plague of the Zombies;Hound of the Baskervilles), doesn't have a lot of screen time which was a shame. Phillips has the role of unkind, selfish businessman who orders others around, wishes to hog the spotlight, a proved coward when facing possible danger, willing to leave even the most loyal behind to save his own skin..a really loathsome swine, the fat cat who gets rich off of the hard-working efforts of others. Michael Ripper has yet another substantial Hammer role when working under the direction of John Gilling(..such as THE REPTILE and PLAGUE OF THE ZOMBIES)as the long-suffering, bullied, and improperly mistreated(..and ultimately tragic)press secretary for Preston, Longbarrow, whose undying loyalty to his employer leads to a horrifying fate. Buck's Paul, who loathes/disapproves of his father's behavior, is the hero who, along with Kimberly's Claire, must find a way to stop the killing, as their colleagues die around them, with the police unable to stop the madness. Delgado is appropriately malicious as Hasmid, reveling in his duty to persecute those who robbed his ancestor's tomb with Lacey colorful as the demented witch with the crystal ball(..her wicked eyes and grin are quite memorable). Non-gory but startlingly violent attacks by the powerful mummy on victims includes a skull-crushing, acid bath(..with a subsequent fire set to the body), head slammed into a wall, and a body(..wrapped in a curtain)tossed through a window bashing the street below. Great special effects sequence at the end showing the deterioration of the crumbling mummy.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Desecrating the Hammer Vaults ..., 5 June 2008
4/10
Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Ah, mummy movies. Nowadays they guarantee easy and big money at the box office, especially with all the modern computer-engineered effects and highly exiting animated action sequences, but back in the old days they were quite a risky and delicate undertaking for production studios. Long before there were the OTT flamboyant and irritable computerized monsters in Stephen Sommers' films, mummies were just incredibly slow moving piles of cloths, exclusively capable of scaring their victims to death or – if we're lucky – strangling them with their bandages. Classics like Universal's original version of "The Mummy" (starring Boris Karloff) and Hammer's first mummy venture (starring Peter Cushing and Christoper Lee) are terrific horror highlights because they mainly thrive on performances and a continuously sinister atmosphere. Hammer's third and final mummy movie isn't a classic at all because the performances and atmosphere aren't the least bit impressive and, even more importantly, the script is painfully tedious and ludicrous. The film opens with a massively overlong and irrelevant narration enlightening us about a banished pharaoh's son and his loyal pet-slave Prem. The slave's corpse is mistakenly mummified, since he wore the pharaoh's amulet, and the prince's corpse is only wrapped in a sacred shroud. Hence the title, duh! 2000 years later, in 1920, a British expedition financed by the obnoxious businessman Stanley Preston desecrates the final resting place of the prince and an ancient evil gets awakened. The guardian of the tomb reads the symbols on the shroud and the mummy comes to life, still dedicated to protect the remains of his young master. The plot is actually quite senseless, come to think of it, since the mummy is killing the wrong people. Okay, Preston exhibits the remainders of the prince for his own fame, but none of the expedition members are to blame for his premature burial in the desert. The death sequences are unpleasant to watch, particularly because the few sympathetic characters die in the most gruesome fashions. Especially the death sequence of Michael Ripper's character will leave you behind with a bad feeling in the stomach. "The Mummy's Shroud" is boring most of the time and contains a few inexplicably weird aspects. The females, for instance! The film only stars three women and they're all extremely weird, to say the least. There's the frigid Claire who foresees stuff and says the most inappropriate things at the worst possible timings (she predicts everyone's death during a toast), Preston's wife Barbara who says almost nothing but silently judges everyone and then finally there's the mad-raving local clairvoyant with her cheesy crystal bowl. Feminism in the sixties according to Hammer Studios, I guess… My initial expectations towards "The Mummy's Shroud" were fairly low, yet I couldn't help feeling a bit disappointed. Director and co-writer John Gilling was responsible for one of my all-time favorite British Goth-horror movies ("The Flesh and the Fiends") and he also collaborated on some of Hammer's finest achievements ("Plague of the Zombies", "The Gorgon"). It's a worthwhile film, especially if you're a fan of gloomy 60's horror, but definitely no must-see.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history