O Sarcófago Maldito

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

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!

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.

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.

The Mummy's Shroud is directed by John Gilling who also co-adapts the screenplay with Anthony Hinds. It stars André Morell, John Phillips, David Buck, Elizabeth Sellars, Maggie Kimberly and Michael Ripper. Music is by Don Banks and cinematography by Arthur Grant.

Mezzera, Egypt, 1920, and an expedition to find the tomb of Pharaoh Kah-to-Bey gets more than they bargained for when they unearth a shroud adorned with the ancient writings of life and death...

The third instalment of Hammer Films forays into Mumified based Egyptology, The Mummy's Shroud follows the standard formula but never the less entertains in undemanding fashion. Released as the support feature to Frankenstein Created Woman (not Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed as listed in some quarters since that was two years later), it's nicely photographed, stoically performed by the cast (especially by Hammer hero Ripper who gets a meaty role) and is pacey enough to uphold the interest. The violence aspects are strongly constructed, but kept mostly in suggestive terms as per visual enticements, and how nice to see the lead ladies here be more than token cleavage.

This was the last Hammer feature to be made at Bray Studios, so it has some poignant significance in the history of Hammer Films. It's not a great send off for Bray, but it's unmistakably one of those Hammer Horror films that fans of the studio's output can easily spend the evening with and not feel it has been time wasted. 6.5/10