Dans les griffes de la momie

In 2000 B.C., in Egypt, the pharaoh Men-Ta (Bruno Barnabe) celebrates with his people the birth of his son Kah-To-Bey (Toolsie Persaud) despite the death of his wife (Toni Gilpin). Meanwhile his brother Amen- Ta plots a scheme to overthrow Men-Ta. When the rebel army invades the palace, Men-Ta asks his servant Prem (Dickie Owen) to flee with his son and protect him. But Kah-To-Bey dies in the desert and Prem buries him in a tomb covered with a shroud.

In 1920, the wealthy British Stanley Preston (John Phillips) sponsors the archaeologists Sir Basil Walden (Andre Morell), his son Paul Preston (David Buck), Claire de Sangre (Maggie Kimberley) and Harry (Tim Barrett) to find Kah-To-Bey's tomb after the discovery of Prem's remains. The expedition is considered missing and Stanley and his wife Barbara Preston (Elizabeth Sellars) travel to Egypt to organize the search parties. Meanwhile the group finds the tomb and is warned by the keeper Hasmid (Roger Delgado) to leave the place; otherwise they will be cursed and doomed to die. However Stanley arrives and they take the mummified corpse and the shroud to the Cairo Museum. The arrogant Stanley uses the press to promote himself. Meanwhile the clairvoyant Haiti (Catherine Lacey) meets Hasmid and he summons Prem using the shroud. Soon Sir Basil Walden is found mysteriously murdered and Stanley asks his minion Longbarrow (Michael Ripper) to buy a ticket for him to travel to England. However he is forbidden by Inspector Barrani (Richard Warner) to leave Egypt during his investigation. When Harry is also mysteriously murdered by Prem, Stanley panics. Who will be the next victim of Prem?

"The Mummy's Shroud" is another entertaining Hammer's low budget movie. The unoriginal story is totally predictable, actually a rip-off of other mummies movies, but has a good screenplay that holds the attention of the viewer until the very end. Roger Delgado is a frightening villain and the conclusion is satisfactory. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "A Mortalha da Múmia" ("The Mummy's Shroud")

The Mummy's Shroud is far from an awful film, I've yet to see an unwatchable Hammer film, even their lesser work. It is however an uneven film, with a number of strengths and an even number of big weaknesses, and one of Hammer's least accomplished.

It looks good, some of the editing lacks tightness sometimes and the Mummy effects are not very good, but the photography is solid and often wonderful especially in the final thirty minutes, the lighting is suitably eerie and the sets give a sense of time and place very well while also looking great. The music score thunders thrillingly and doesn't feel stock and over-bearing, fitting with the atmosphere appropriately. The murders are inventive and quite grisly, while the first murder is the one with the most punch the most memorable being Longbarrow's. While the best The Mummy's Shroud gets is the final thirty minutes, which is very entertaining and legitimately scary.

Casting and acting-wise, it is a rather mixed bag with a few coming off well. The best performance comes from Michael Ripper, I appreciated that his role was more substantial in comparison to some of his other roles, and he is excellent in it, the tragic nature of the character Longbarrow was so poignantly done and had such pathos that it was easy to feel sympathy for him. John Phillips also stands out as a suitably loathsome villain, while Barbara Sellars matches him more than ideally; the interplay between Phillips is very effectively played by both. David Buck is an appealing hero. Catherine Lacey tries too hard sometimes, but it is clear that she was having fun and she is enjoyable to fun as one of the film's more colourful characters.

Others don't fare so well. Roger Delgardo has a tendency to over-compensate, that it takes one out of the film, his tongue-in-cheek comedic nature too much out of place. Andre Morell was a reliable actor but is completely wasted, no matter how hard he tried to give some serious depth to his character. As truly attractive Maggie Kimberly looks, her acting is very over-theatrical and melodramatic and it does hurt the film sometimes. Lastly the Mummy of the title is badly disadvantaged by the truly laughable and fake look it has(the Egyptians in the opening sequence are also very poorly made up), its far too late and far too short screen time and Eddie Powell's(even more lumbering and anaemic than the worst of Lon Chaney Jnr's interpretation) emotionless and un-menacing performance.

The film takes far too long to get going, with an overlong(did it really need to be seven minutes?) and not always relevant opening scene, with the back-story rather unnecessary. Despite the distinguished delivery, the narration was not really needed, and it should have been a case of more show less tell. The script is very stiff and rambling, with a lot of talk that doesn't do anywhere. The first half is also let down by its draggy pacing, noticeable lack of suspense and horror and a very over-familiar story with a few subplots that either lead nowhere, add little or both.

All in all, an uneven film and one of Hammer's lesser and least accomplished films, but by all means watchable, especially for the final thirty minutes and Ripper's performance. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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 have similarities and, whilst it clearly isn't Cushing, it's understandable that the error could be made by the inexpert in the matter. That legendary gentleman is my favourite actor so I consider myself to be a reasonable judge.

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.

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.