The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964)

Nice effects though.

A lot of fun.

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Hammer movies have always been a tad hokey and that's forgivable, some sloppy writing however isn't.This is the second Hammer Horror movie from "The Mummy" franchise and this time the star power has taken quite a dip. No longer did they have the presence of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing and that really showed.It tells the story of a rich American who plans on making the opening of a mummy's sarcophagus a tourist event in order to make money but oddly enough things don't go quite as planned.The film looks great, the performances though spotty are mostly passable and the Hammer Horror brand of musical score is present. It's all very colour by numbers stuff, but that's okay.Sadly the writing is inconsistent, some is poor and some is baffling especially when it comes to character development.Passable stuff but again this underlines why though I appreciate Hammer Horror I've never exactly been blown away by it.The Good:Looks greatThe Bad:The absence of the likes of Cushing/Lee is very damagingThe bulletproof bandages have returned!Mummy actually looks worseNo character consistencyAwful cover artThings I Learnt From This Movie:Belly dancing is sexy or awkward, never anything inbetween

Even lower-end Hammer films tend to be worth a watch, and this follow up to THE MUMMY is no exception. Despite the extraordinarily slow pacing (the first hour of the film does nothing except to set up the various characters and their relationships), the production values – even in a film relatively cheap by Hammer standards – are top drawer, the costumes and sets are fun (love those Egyptian backlots), and there's even a smattering of graphic gore for those who enjoy that kind of thing. Imagine the year this film was made. Now watch the film complete with multiple hand-choppings, bludgeoning, beating and – most graphic of all – an offscreen but horrific (thanks to the sound effects guy) head-crushing underfoot – and you can imagine that the film must have been considered pretty terrible when it was first released. Sure, today it seems tame, but I still get a kick out of gruesomeness that is readily achieved WITHOUT excessive bloodshed and through imagination more than anything else.The storyline is very predictable and doesn't need re-telling here, other than it contains the usual themes of cursed siblings (one good, one evil), the mummy falling in love with a beautiful girl, immortality and the bumping off of those who first defiled the Egyptian tomb. The leading characters all seem pretty stuffy but the actors do manage to put in more than adequate performances (aside from Jeanne Roland, who's pretty but hopelessly miscast). Terence Morgan is devilishly evil as the slick bad guy; Ronald Howard more than acceptable as the decent hero; Fred Clark steals the show as a P.T. Barnum-style sideshow hustler who wants to get the mummy working for HIM. Then there's a trio of great supporting performances from George Pastell, Michael Ripper (killed all too early), and Jack Gwillim.The mummy makeup is imposing but not necessarily all that scary, and an interesting touch has the mummy heavy breathing as he goes about his business, kind of like a prototype Darth Vader! After the slow first hour, things pick up for the climax, throwing in some genuinely nasty shocks (one death scene is one of the juiciest in the whole Hammer repertoire) and a climax that must have seemed good on paper but doesn't work all so well. Would sewers really collapse that easily? Still, despite the ambiguity of the climax, this is a fun enough ride for genre fans content to happily sit through well-done ripe dialogue and costume drama to get to the good gruesomeness.

In my review of the Hammer version of THE MUMMY from 1959 I stated that it's a very political horror film centering around the Anglo-Franco debacle in the Suez three years before . CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB the first sequel continues the political subtext right from the opening scene where a hostage is cruelly slaughtered by backward violent Arabs . It's no coincidence that the heroine from the film speaks with a French accent or that we have a brash , dumb , philistine American portrayed in a rather bad light and the first half of the film holds the concentration due to its political subtext Of course no one watches a horror film due to politics and once the eponymous title creature makes its appearance things stop being intelligent and becomes clichéd . As in most horror movies there's a complete lack of credibility involved . Having a monster stalking the streets of London gives the impression that it can teleport a few feet away from its victim then materalise back to its lair . Doesn't any passerby notice an eight feet bandaged monster walking about ? Likewise the monster meets with a contrived fate This is a relatively poorly regarded movie from Hammer and shares many of the problems with the next sequel THE MUMMY'S SHROUD in that the Mummy takes too long to make an appearance . But unlike THE MUMMY'S SHROUD this film has a cerebral subtext to hold a thinking audiences interest

The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is out of Hammer Film Productions and written and directed by Michael Carreras. It stars Terence Morgan, Ronald Howard, Fred Clark & Jeanne Roland. Music is by Carlo Martelli and cinematography Otto Heller. It's shot in Technicolor using the Techniscope format. Plot sees three British Egyptologists discover the tomb of Prince Ra and under guidance from their showman benefactor bring their discovery back to London. Once in London the Mummified body of Ra starts killing people, it seems someone has the know-how to resurrect the creature for evil doings.It doesn't actually feel like a Hammer Horror movie, except for Roland's cleavage that is. The cast are largely unfamiliar Hammer performers and you sense that the casting is a deliberate attempt to detract from a very salient point. As a story and how it's strung together, The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is pretty much an uncredited remake of Hammer's own, excellent, first foray into Mummy world in 1959. Once mooted as that film's sequel, it has since been distanced as such because of the similarities. Which means to judge it as a standalone or a remake (which makes it a lazy cash in then) is the question. Fact is, tho, is that either way it's a distinctly average film from a narrative view point. The acting is fine enough, tho Roland really is only there for said cleavage, and the sets and vibrant colour make it very pleasing to the eye. But it takes an age to get going and the unoriginality of the script only hastens the feeling of, well, boredom setting in.Wrapping up (bad pun I know), it's watchable and better looking than the other Mummy film's that Hammer released after it. But really it all feels lazy and pales in comparison to the first film in 1959. 5/10