The Mummy's Shroud (1967) User Reviews

Hammer is Hammer - sometime's cheap but always entertaining!

[it001k0306 · 7/10 · 4 November 2006]

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.

Awwww Hammer Films... Gotta Love 'Em

[ProfessorMovieMovie · 7/10 · 25 January 2005]

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!

Bray Mummy.

[morrison-dylan-fan · 6/10 · 10 October 2013]

With having recently been in the mood to watch some Hammer Horror,I decided to search around Zavvi,where I was thrilled to discover a double Blu-Ray/DVD of writer/director John Giallings final collaboration with the studio being sold for half price,which led to me excitingly getting ready to unwrap Hammer's Mummy.

The plot:

2000BC:

Escaping from the kingdom with the families few remaining loyal guards as his dad is murdered by a former friend,the pharaoh's son is taken to a far away desert,in the hope that he can be protected from the bloodshed which is taking place across the kingdom.With supply's having dried up,the guards start to die out one by one,remaining loyal to his master till the very end,the pharaoh's son uses his dying wish to give the final guard a royal seal,as a sign of appreciation,and also as a key,so that the guard can protect him in life,and death.

1920:

Backed by huge financial support from a wealthy investor called Stanley Preston,a group of archeologist's led by Sir Basil Walden head off to Egypt in the hope of proving that a recent discovery of a mummy by architect's who are claiming it to be the body of the long-lost pharaoh's son,is actually that of a former loyal guard.Ignoring the towns people's plea to not going digging around,the gang are relived when they soon stumble upon the elusive tomb containing the pharaoh son's body.As the group excitingly start to lift out the artifacts from the tomb,the pharaoh's most loyal (now mummified) guard prepares to save his master from these unexpected invaders.

View on the film:

Before getting to the movie itself,I have to mention that whilst the films original soundtrack features flaws that can never be fully fixed, (such as the actors footsteps sounding "hollow",which causes a strong feeling of them being stage bound,instead of being in the middle of the vast desert that the movie is taking place in)Studio Canal bring Hammer's final movie to be shot at Bray Studios alive with an excellent restoration,which along with allowing every line of dialogue to be clearly heard,also allows for the full set details of the movies great Egypt setting to be displayed.

Taking his final collaboration with Hammer Horror in an interestingly proto-Slasher direction,writer/director John Gillings, (who would later moan about how the movie turned out,which was probably partly caused by Gillings relationship with Hammer having always been on the "shaky" side of things) shows a real eye in expanding the gang v Mummy outline to include some rather noticeably,subtle touches.Gillings gives the Mummy's a real motivation for its killing spree,and also bravely puts all of the male character's into the background for the movie's second half,so that the second half almost becomes a "Women's Horror" picture,thanks to Gillings making each of the female character's much smarter and cunning then any of their male counterparts.

Along with his fast moving screenplay,Gillings also gives the movie a warm desert appearance,that is sharply turned to an icy chill when Gillings display's a strong stylised eye for the film's set piece murder scenes,with Gillings and editor Chris Barnes closely working together to give each murder set piece,a distinctive, snappy feel,from the first victim being only able to see the Mummy in a blurred vision due to losing his glasses,to another first catching a glimpse of the monster from a reflection of photo developing chemicals.

Making their own mark in the ensemble cast,Andre Morell reunites with John Gillings for a delightfully cartoon performance,whilst the brilliant Michael Ripper gives a performance that completely changes the design of the character which had been lay down on the script,with Ripper showing his henchmen to be someone who knows all too well what awaits him and the other explores.

Joining Morell and Ripper,Elizabeth Sellars (whose previous Hammer title was the first ever one to be shot at Bray studios,in 1951!) gives an icy performance as Barbara Preston,whose frozen glances to her husband Stanley (played by a witty John Phillips) suggest that she is all too aware of the doom that her husband has unwittingly unleashed upon them.

Ignore the bad reviews - this is a GREAT Mummy movie!

[Geisterzug · 12 March 2003]

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

The Mummy's Shroud: Third times not the charm

[Platypuschow · 4/10 · 18 May 2018]

The Mummy's Shroud is the third of four Hammer Horror "The Mummy" movies and thus far sadly this is the worst.

With no star power, a weak looking mummy and exactly the same plot as before it really is a weak link.

Stop me if you've heard this one. A group go on an excavation, uncover a tomb but find themselves besieged by a mummy and get picked off one by one.

This time however at least there is no reincarnated love interest for how horny bandage wearer!

Dull, lifeless, with few characters worth a damn and a script that feels highly recycled. Maybe I'm burning myself out watching all of these back to back, but this failed to entertain on any level.

The Good:

Interesting finale......kinda of

The Bad:

Worst looking mummy yet

Very dull

No originality

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Wine does not go in the ear

All Egyptians have bad teeth

Beware the beat of the cloth-wrapped feet!

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 31 August 2013]

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

One of Hammer's least accomplished and an uneven film, but by no means an unwatchable one

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 29 June 2015]

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

The Shrieking Shroud

[Vomitron_G · 6/10 · 15 March 2008]

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.

Third of the four Mummy movies from Hammer Studios and the last with an actual Mummy in it.

[sol1218 · 5/10 · 14 January 2011]

***SPOILERS*** The usual Mummy movie with the Mummy's shroud used to activate the Mummy by reciting the ancient Egyptian writing on it. It was the fact that the Mummy's Tomb was violated by a number of British archaeologists that brought the Mummy back to life. The Mummy then went to work in punishing those who violated it with a violent and torturous death. In protecting the remains of it's master the boy Pharaoh Kah-to-Bey the Mummy being his loyal manservant Prem back in ancient Egypt must have been out to lunch when Kah-to-Bey Tomb was entered by the head man of the archeology team Sir Basil Welden. In fact Sir Basil on entering the Mummy's tomb was immediately bitten by a poisonous snake leaving him near death until help arrived. It was really Sir Basil's boss Egypt expert Stanley Preston, John Phillips, who started things going on the wrong foot by having Sir Basil committed to a lunatic asylum, not a hospital,in order to take all the fame and glory away from him! That's in Stanley not Sir Basil being the one getting all the credit of finding the Mummy.

This didn't go too well with Stanley's son Paul who together with his girlfriend Chair De Sangre, an interpretor of ancient Egyptian writings, who both decided to stay in Cairo and get to the bottom of all this Mummy business and be even willing to face the music when the Mummy comes looking for them! As for Stanley he together with two of the members of the Mummy expedition team end up getting whacked by the Mummy who was guided to do his dirty work by his and Kah-to Bey's guardian of he Mummy's Tomb the crazed Bedouin tribesman wild eyed and spaced out looking Hasmid Ali. It was Hasmid who recited the curse, written in ancient Egyptian, on the Mummy's shroud that got him into kill mode.

****SPOILERS*** In the end it was Chair who finally stopped the Mummy by finding out the words, on the shroud, to put a stop to its carnage and murder by having it disintegrate into a pile of dust and bones when the movie finally ended. The Mummy in the movie was a lot more agile, like a gymnast or professional wrestler, that what your were used to seeing Mummy's depicted on the screen as well as far more well dressed! In fact the Mummy's clothes or bandages were so neat and tapered that you would think that he just got them laundered and dry-cleaned at the nearest Chinese laundry.

The Tomb Keeper and the Shroud

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 1 May 2015]

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")

A Standard Mummy Film

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 29 August 2017]

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.

A Great Mummy Movie!

[nelsmonsterx · 8/10 · 23 February 2003]

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!

Beware the wrath of Prem

[drmality-1 · 7/10 · 16 October 2010]

Mummy movies are notoriously difficult to make interesting. The original Universal film with Boris Karloff succeeded by becoming a dark and dreamy romantic fantasy. Hammer's full-blooded remake in 1959 gave us a powerful yet sympathetic Mummy portrayed by Christopher Lee. Beyond those two, most mummy films have been of middling quality. This is one of the better ones, though it surely has its faults.

The lengthy historical prologue has been complained about by many, but I think it it necessary to show the great loyalty and devotion that the slave Prem has towards his young master, Kah-to-bey. It gives him a sympathetic edge, as he did everything to honor his master both in life and death. This aura of sympathy is in all of Hammer's Mummy films to some degree. Lee's Kharis suffered horribly for true love while Ra-Antef in "Curse of the Mummy's Tomb" was a noble soul terribly betrayed. Prem fits well with his predecessors.

The reanimated Prem is little more than a slave of the fanatical Hasmid and his crazed mother. But when he strikes, it's with a lot of violence in some very well-crafted death scenes. He crushes one character's head like an eggshell (off screen but we can imagine the gruesome details), splatters another with burning acid before setting him on fire, strangles another before dashing his brains out on a wall and wraps up another in a bed sheet before tossing him out a window to the street far below! Now THAT is a violent mummy and one capable of more than just simply strangling people.

Prem's unique look is based on actual Egyptian mummies. Some find it disappointing...I do not. One of the best scenes is when the mummy slowly opens its crusty eyelids. Prem is also mighty tough. He gets singed with acid (giving him a nice smoky look), hacked with an axe and shot to hell at close range without much effect. When destruction finally comes to the mummy, it comes in a most unique and gruesome fashion.

Most Hammer films boast good performances and there are several worth noting here. John Phillips hits just the right note as the arrogant and cowardly Stanley Preston. One of the more subtle horrors of the film is his completely loveless and emotionally dead relationship with his wife. Just before his meeting with the Mummy, Preston must realize that he will be missed by no one. Elisabeth Sellars as Mrs. Preston gives one of the most cold-blooded and emotionally detached performances I've seen. Roger Delgado is great as the sinister Hasmid, unleashing an amazingly perfect stream of Arabic gibberish. Delgado would perfect his evil as The Master in Dr. Who. Another wild performance is given by Catherine Lacey as the demented Haiti the fortune teller. Never has any fortune teller delighted in predicting her customer's deaths as much as Haiti.

One black mark against the movie is the criminal misuse of Andre Morell as Sir Basil. Morell was a terrific actor, so memorable in "Plague of the Zombies", "Hound of the Baskervilles" and the little-seen "Cash On Demand", but here he makes little to no impression. Something which I blame more on the script and the director than Morell himself.

Maggie Kimberly is quite stunning as Claire. She looks rather average at first, but the more she is in peril, the more attractive she becomes.

The actor who really walks off with the movie is Hammer mainstay Michael Ripper. What a versatile actor he was. As the meek and suffering lackey of Preston's, he makes for a perfect milksop. We feel an overwhelming sympathy for this simple character and his death is a brutal shock.

There are parts where the movie lags, particularly in the opening desert scenes, but once Prem is awakened, the action never flags and the movie builds to a powerful and action-packed climax. In the end, Hammer gave as much life as they could to the tired mummy concept with "The Mummy's Shroud" and the film should satisfy anyone looking for escapist horror.

Another Cursed Mummy Movie

[Cineanalyst · 3/10 · 30 October 2018]

Even in introducing "The Mummy's Shroud" on Turner Classic Movies, Ben Mankiewicz seemed to bemoan the repetitiveness of these mummy movies, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the proceedings for those, like me, who were about to watch it. But, of course, he was right. If you've seen Hammer's other mummy movies, such as the prior "The Mummy" (1959) and "The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb" (1964), or the Universal films, then you know what to expect. An expedition of archaeologists invades another cursed Ancient Egyptian tomb, and for the desecration another reanimated mummy seeks revenge upon them. As always, there's a flashback; in this case, a some-seven-minutes one beginning from hieroglyphs and with an unidentified narrator, to start the film. A fight between Ancient Egyptians in what looks like a modern office space or apartment (and it may've well been shot in one of the rooms of Bray Studios, which was a house, this being the last of Hammer's films shot there) is probably the low point of this one.

The narrator continues describing the 1920 expedition, before the film moves to characters talking, where industrialist and financier of the expedition, Preston, is organizing search committees to find the lost explorers. The lost in the harsh desert bits and Preston's transparent machinations, including his frequent posing for photographs and seeking publicity, are somewhat interesting. Preston's dysfunctional relationships with his son and wife less so. There's also a fortune teller who uses a crystal ball like a security-camera monitor to spy on the Westerners. The Mummy is also seen, via POV shots, through objects, including the crystal ball, before his attacks.

Unfortunately, beyond the professional rivalry between Preston and Sir Basil, the other characters are either stilted or rather ridiculous. At least there's no screaming-and-fainting beauty for a change, but the woman on the expedition, like the two younger men, is generally less lively than the millennia-old mummies, and she spends more time as a superstitious psychic than the linguist she purports to be--refusing to read the shroud because of curses and sharing premonitions that not all of the members of the expedition will survive (no kidding, I could've told them that). There's a very-European actor pretending to be the Egyptian Keeper of the Tomb, repeating the absurdity of these movies where a cult or family protect an Ancient Egyptian tomb for centuries. Talk about a thankless job. There's the white colonialist complaining about his troubles with insubordinate porters. And I swear the Mummy changes appearances between shots, wearing the usual wrappings one moment and a more modern-looking pajama suit of bandages the next. Worst of all, this one too often commits the cinematic sin of telling instead of showing, including the movements of Sir Basil in and out of a lunatic asylum and some of the expedition details.

More of the same.

[david-697 · 18 September 2004]

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.

Predictable mummy yawner from Hammer films

[preppy-3 · 2/10 · 16 October 2010]

After a needlessly elaborate prologue narrated by (I think) Peter Cushing this opens in 1920 Egypt--although everybody dresses in 1960s clothes and fashions. The plot is a boring by-the-numbers number about people desecrating the tomb of some Egyptian king (or something) and the mummy coming to life to kill them. A minor twist is that someone must have the mummy's shroud in hand and say a particular phase to animate him and send him out to kill. This is just barely a horror film--the mummy doesn't even start moving until 45 minutes in! It's mostly a dull drama of people standing around and discussing why people are being killed and by who. All the attack scenes are short and distressingly non-bloody (except for two) and the mummy looks pretty silly (even though it was based on how actual mummies look).

Some good acting saves this from being a total disaster. David Buck is good as Paul and Maggie Kimberly is just OK as the love interest Claire. John Phillips is terrible as the main villain Stanley but Elizabeth Sellars seems very amused as his wife. Also Hammer regular Michael Ripper is excellent and Catherine Lacey chews the scenery as Haiti. Also there's a thundering music score to keep you awake. A deadly dull Hammer film with nothing new to offer. The third and probably the worst of the four mummy films they did. A 2--mostly for the acting.

Formulaic but enjoyable

[utgard14 · 6/10 · 22 March 2014]

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.

Just an average Hammer Horror movie...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 18 June 2018]

I stumbled upon "The Mummy's Shroud" one late night on some obscure TV channel. And not having seen this 1967 Hammer Horror movie before, I did of course take the time to sit down and watch it. After all, what am I if not a horror fan?

Well, this was definitely not the most interesting or best of movies from the Hammer Horror vault.

It had an adequate enough story, especially for a mummy movie - you know what I mean by that genre.

The effects in "The Mummy's Shroud" were fair enough, taking into consideration the age of the movie.

One of the better aspects of "The Mummy's Shroud" was the fact that they had some good acting performances by a fairly good cast. And that did indeed help to make this otherwise mundane and generic horror movie bearable to watch to the end.

Having seen this movie once, I can honestly say that this is not a classic in any way, and it is not a movie that I will be returning to watch a second time.

If it's a Hammer Film...It's Worth a Watch

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 21 October 2014]

There is a Chronological Connection Between the Importance and Quality of Hammer Horror Films. Although the Series Films Featuring Horror Monster Icons Declined with the Sands of Time, All Hammer Films are Worth a Watch.

They Had "It", that Something that Makes them Unmistakable and Unique, and Entity Unto Themselves. Much Imitated but Never Equaled, the Studio was Consistent. In this the Third of Four Mummy Movies from Hammer, the Only Obvious Shortcoming is Relying on Some Fairly Constrained and Claustrophobic Sets.

It Doesn't Seem to Breathe the way Most Hammer Movies did, Despite Low to Middle Budget Restrictions, the Studio Always Seemed to be More Expansive than They Actually were. Movie Magic. But, As Always, the Sets are Decorated with that Hammer Colorful Charm. The Acting is Competent and the Characters are Varied and the Mummy is a bit Different, and Menacing.

There is the Creep Factor Mixed with the Charm that is Typical Hammer and the Movie, while Not in the Top Tier of Terror from the Studio, is Still a Hammer Film, and the Output did Vary at Times, but if its a Hammer it is Worth its Weight in Cinematic Cleverness, Wit, and Scariness that was, if Anything, Familiar and Comforting. There is a Reason that the Studio is so Fondly Remembered and One Only Needs to See a Hammer Film to Get it.

Same old, same old.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 13 May 2020]

Not the worst of the Hammer mummy movies -- that would be Blood From The Mummy's Tomb (1971), in my opinion -- The Mummy's shroud is still a fairly lifeless affair, featuring none of Hammer's more familiar players (Michel Ripper being the obvious exception), with cheap looking sets and locations (the supposedly scorching desert looking suspiciously like an overcast quarry with a few truck loads of sand dumped over it), and lacking a decent hero (David Buck as archaeologist Paul is extremely ineffectual -- it's a shame Ralph Bates wasn't a Hammer star at the time). There's also a noticeable absence of quality Hammer glamour, Maggie Kimberly and Elizabeth Sellars not quite cutting it (at least 'Mummy's Tomb' has Valerie Leon, I suppose).

The plot is the usual Mummy guff: a group of British explorers desecrate the tomb of Kah-to-Bey, thereby incurring the wrath of the guardian of the tomb, Hasmid (Roger Delgado), who instructs the mummy (Eddie Powell) to take revenge. Being the slowest of the 'classic' monsters, the mummy relies on the element of fear, its victims cowering in a corner waiting to be killed, rather than simply side stepping the creature and hot footing it; failing that, the mummy uses the element of surprise, tippy-toeing about and grabbing his victim while their back is turned. Either way, the attacks are lame, not in the least bit scary, and few and far between, most of the film consisting of dull conversation. Adding to the annoyance is one of the most irritating characters in Hammer history -- Stanley Preston (John Phillips), Paul's obnoxious father, who is so rude you'll be longing for him to have the life squeezed out of his body.

The movie's best moment comes at the very end, when the recital of some hieroglyphics causes the monster to crumble to dust, its desiccated flesh falling off to reveal the skeleton underneath, before disintegrating completely. Well done if you make it that far.

3.5/10, rounded up to 4 for IMDb.

An enjoyable Mummy movie

[KillerCadugen · 7/10 · 26 May 2003]

I was a little surprised by the low rating of this Hammer Studios movie. Although it seems as if the Mummy has been done to death (so to speak), I thought this had some moments that were offbeat, creepy and fun. I did not like a couple of the plot devices used (specifically, by the fortune teller) but I did like the build up of the tension and the climactic ending. A good edition to anyone's Hammer collection.

Third Hammer Mummy Movie.

[AaronCapenBanner · 5/10 · 22 November 2013]

John Gilling directed this third Hammer Studios Mummy picture, this time set in 1920, where an expedition led by Sir Basil Walden(played by Andre Morel) discovers the tomb of an Egyptian child prince, and takes it back to the museum. Unknown to them, a high priest(played by future "Doctor Who" Master Roger Delgado) knows the secret of reviving its Mummy guardian back to life, in an effort to avenge the tomb desecration, starting with Sir Basil.... Not original at all of course, but this one almost pulls it off by some effective(if unintentional) satiric comedy, having fun with the clichés, especially Catherine Lacey's turn as a cackling(and drooling!) fortune teller. Michael Ripper is also quite good as a doomed agent of the expedition's financial backers. Not scary at all, but does have its moments.

Hammer's Shroud!

[nvillesanti · 8/10 · 10 January 2008]

Like almost all the Hammer movies, I saw this movie on TV on a Saturday afternoon when I was 8. I wasn't scared by it but I was entertained by it. The movie begins in ancient Egypt when the Pharaoh's wife gives birth and dies. The Pharaoh dedicates everything to his son (the future Pharaoh) Kah-to-Bey but little did he know that his brother was planning to take over. On one night the palace was attacked by the Pharaoh's brother. While the attack, Kah-to-Bey's bodyguard, Kremm, escaped with the Pharaoh's son to the desert. Later Kar-to-Bey dies in the desert and his bodyguard mummifies him and covers him with the sacred shroud. In the 1920 an expedition is sent to find the tomb of Kar-to-Bey. The expedition is led by Sir Basil Walden (played by Andre Morell) Archaeologist and son of the financier Paul Preston (played by David Buck), and linguist Claire de Sangre (played by Maggie Kimberly) but there is nothing known about the expedition or the members. The financier Stanley Preston (Played by John Phillips) orders a search party. While in the desert the Archeologists are trapped in a sand storm but after the storm settles they find a cave and inside they find a mad man speaking some kind of dialect warning them to keep away. Obviously, they didn't listen, later they are found by the search party and among them is the financier S. Preston who had come to ensure his investment on the expedition. Soon they find that the cave is the tomb of the Pharaoh's son. They find Kar-to-Bey and they take him to a museum but the shroud that accompanied the mummy mysteriously disappears. Then one by one, the members of the expedition are been killed by a mysterious force. This is a traditional mummy movie, explorers find tomb and are later hunted by the wrapped mummy. Nothing is new about it but it has an interesting story and characters are well developed. The actors take it seriously and this makes the story believable. This movie brings back great memories when movie didn't need CGI or complicated stories to make them entertaining. If you are a fan of classic horror from the 50s and 60s this you will definitely enjoy. So on a Saturday night order a pizza and some beers and enjoy Hammer's legacy of horror.

Enjoyably old-fashioned romp

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 30 August 2016]

Unfairly put upon by critics and fans alike, THE MUMMY'S SHROUD remains a classic Egyptian adventure which will greatly entertain when given the chance. The plot is unremarkable - even clichéd, a simple variation every mummy film has ever used since Karloff's original classic, but the strength of the film lies in the characterisations, especially that of Stanley Preston, a superb performance by John Phillips (who has one of those familiar faces) of hypocrisy, greed, contempt, and sheer unfeelingness.

A lot of the film concentrates on his relationship with the poor assistant, played by Michael Ripper, and the two spark each other off nicely in their many conversations. These scenes, although brief, are numerous and hugely enjoyable. Andre Morell also stars as a father-like figure, this time with his hair floured grey, and he comes off the worse for wear. Maggie Kimberley is the token blonde bombshell, but remains an intelligent character, while the villain of the piece is played by non-other than Roger Delgado, the Master himself from DR WHO! It's good to see Delgado in another typically villainous role, even if his stereotypical mad Arab is a somewhat racist portrayal.

The mummy story is familiar to horror fans, even down to the Egyptian flashback, but a nice score complements the action as it unfolds. This time the sets are also different, as the location is Egypt, instead of the fog-bound London we have in CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB (which, incidentally, is inferior to this film), which makes a refreshing change. The deaths in the film, although few and far between, are spectacular.

The highlight of the film is the smashing ending in the museum, where the survivors battle the invincible mummy, using axe and gun to no effect as it rampages through the cases and other antiques. The final disintegration is also superb, one of the best deaths I've seen in a Hammer film, and also pretty macabre (just what I like to see). THE MUMMY'S SHROUD will win no awards for originality but it remains a thoroughly enjoyable, and old-fashioned, horror romp.

Beware the beat of the cloth wrapped feet

[mwilson1976 · 5/10 · 25 November 2019]

Archaeologists discover the final resting place of an Egyptian boy king and exhibit his remains in a museum, but the Mummy of his loyal slave named Prem returns to life to discharge a violent retribution on the defilers , and an ancient curse that surrounds the tomb begins to come true. This Hammer production isn't one of the studios best, and the whole thing feels rushed together, but it is pretty violent for the time and has a pretty high body count as the Mummy murders the explorers one by one, until one of them discovers the ancient words that have the power to reduce the brutal killer to particles of dust. The great ensemble cast includes André Morell, John Phillips, Maggie Kimberly, Elizabeth Sellars and Michael Ripper. Catherine Lacey is brilliant in her role as Haiti, a grizzled Romany clairvoyant with a voodoo-esque name who cheerfully predicts the deaths of others with the aid of a crystal ball. Stuntman Eddie Powell who was Christopher Lee's regular stunt double plays the Mummy, the last in the Hammer series to be swathed in bandages. It was the final Hammer production to be made at Bray Studios, before its productions moved to Elstree Studios and occasionally Pinewood.