Home > Horror >

The Mummy

The Mummy (1959)

December. 16,1959
|
6.6
|
NR
| Horror

One by one the archaeologists who discover the 4,000-year-old tomb of Princess Ananka are brutally murdered. Kharis, high priest in Egypt 40 centuries ago, has been brought to life by the power of the ancient gods and his sole purpose is to destroy those responsible for the desecration of the sacred tomb. But Isobel, wife of one of the explorers, resembles the beautiful princess, forcing the speechless and tormented monster to defy commands and abduct Isobel to an unknown fate.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Evengyny
1959/12/16

Thanks for the memories!

More
Marketic
1959/12/17

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

More
Invaderbank
1959/12/18

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

More
Kien Navarro
1959/12/19

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

More
simeon_flake
1959/12/20

Hammer's first take on the Mummy and probably their best stab at it--or for me, anyway--perhaps the only one worth watching. Lee and Cushing are back as the 2 great stars, and Yvonne Furneaux makes for a very lovely female lead. This Mummy takes more inspiration from the 2nd wave of the old Universal chestnuts, harking back to Prince Kharis rather than Karloff's Imhotep. As far as the old Universal cycle goes, I assume most horror fans agree that the "Karloff" version is the superior one, but the films with Kharis--mostly the ones with Lon Chaney Jr., are a lot of fun as well. At any rate, the Hammer version sticks to pretty much the same formula--not many deviations aside from the obvious technicolor & the fact that Lee as the mummy, can see with both eyes. Reportedly, after this role, Lee stated that he had had enough of playing mute, heavily bandaged monsters, but his take on the creature is excellent nonetheless. Just a subtle expression or a movement with the eyes can display some great emotion--for those actors with obvious talent.

More
Nigel P
1959/12/21

It's strange to think that only 15 years separates Hammer Films' bright and colourful version of 'The Mummy' and the last of Universal's Lon Chaney fronted Mummy series. And yet, here it is: buoyed by the success of their recent internationally successful horrors, Michael Carreras' tiny British company forged on with this tale of Egyptian tombs and legends … … except that this has all the Egyptian atmosphere of a telephone box. Hammer were careful to reconstruct their take on 'Dracula (1957)' and 'Curse of Frankenstein (1958)' to take into account the modest budget at their disposal; 'The Mummy' makes little such concessions. As a result it is, to my mind, highly over-ambitious and unconvincing. There is a poky, studio-bound feel to the Tomb of Ananka and its surrounding settings that even tremendous actors like Raymond Huntley, Felix Aylmer and of course Peter Cushing cannot distract us from. Later, we revisit the tombs in a familiarly protracted flashback sequence.George Pastell makes the first of two appearances in this Mummy series, as respectful servant Mehemet Bey, and Michael Ripper is on hand as a poacher (in some much needed lightness during what is little more than a handful of cameos) once we are back in the easier-to-convey 1895 England. Christopher Lee's Kharis is so angry about the tomb of his princess Ananka being desecrated that he comes back from the dead, resurrected from the studio-swamp Bey's incompetent lackey's have inadvertently left him. Cushing's stoical John Banning happens to be married to Isobel (Yvonne Furneaux), the spitting image of Ananka.It's all a little staged and mannered and the story is highly reminiscent of a number of the Universal films, which were pretty familiar by 1944. Even some of the characters are very similar. Despite the intensity of the performers and the beautifully lit visuals, there is a staidness about Terence Fisher's direction ensuring that, unlike Kharis, the film never really comes to life (although clever camera angles make it appear the mummy could indeed be the ten-foot tall he is purported to be).Kharis is lean and powerful, and Hammer's best looking mummy. Lee's expressive eyes shine through the make-up, conveying the creature's emotion as required, but this added sense of humanity ensures that, despite his power, Kharis isn't particularly ethereal or frightening.Events do liven up during the final reel, where Kharis and Banning once again come face to face. But, as with Hammer's 'Curse of the Werewolf' the following year, an exciting finale is sadly too little, too late.

More
Jonathon Dabell
1959/12/22

When thinking about Hammer films which actually form part of a series, the obvious ones are the Dracula's and the Frankenstein's. There were, of course, other occasions when they made sequential films in their long history, such as the Jurassic classics (their prehistoric series) and the Mummy cycle. Even the most ardent fans of the studio accept that some of the Mummy movies are a little dull, and the main cause of this I feel lies with the 'monster' itself... mummies are just too slow and lumbering to have much shelf life as the bad guys in a whole series of bloodcurdlers. One film, yes, why not? But a whole series? Perhaps not. For me, the best of Hammer's Mummy cycle is the first - The Mummy from 1959, directed by the ever-reliable Terence Fisher, featuring yet another collaboration of the studio's favoured star duo Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.Egyptologists Stephen Banning (Felix Aylmer), Joseph Whemple (Raymond Huntley) and John Banning (Peter Cushing) discover the long-lost tomb of of the ancient Queen Ananka. Against the dire warnings of Egyptian villain Mehemet Bey (George Pastell), they enter the tomb. Something happens to Stephen inside the tomb which leaves him in a vegetative state, driven out of his mind by some nameless fright. Later, it becomes clear that he was attacked by the still-living mummified figure of Kharis (Christopher Lee), the Queen's high priest and secret lover... and when Mehemet Bey brings the mummy to England to finish off the others who desecrated Ananka's tomb, the scene is set for a final battle to the death.Lee's mummy, a gruesome and unstoppable automaton, is actually a rather interesting monster for this type of film. Powerful and frightening, yet strangely pitiable, it's a testament to his acting that he creates empathy from beneath so many layers of make-up. Cushing is good value too as the gammy-legged scholar trying to defeat he creature. What hurts The Mummy somewhat is the rather long-winded set-up, involving heavy-going and repetitive recap sequences narrated by Cushing. At its best colourful and exciting, at its worst dull and long-winded, The Mummy is a decent enough genre picture but not really top-tier stuff from the folks at Hammer.

More
Pumpkin_Man
1959/12/23

I wanted to watch the TCM Christopher Lee Hammer horror marathon they were having in honor of Christopher Lee recently passing away. I've always been curious about these films, and figured it would be the best time to watch them. I first started off with 'The Mummy' I have really only seen Brendan Fraser's 1999 Mummy film. I've been meaning to watch the 1932 film, so I watched this without really comparing it to anything. The movie had a great look, cinematography, great sets, and awesome makeup for the mummy. In 1895, some archaeologists dig up the tomb of Princess Ananka, the high priestess of the god Karnak. Angered that they have desecrated the tomb, an Egyptian reads from the Scroll of Life and awakens Kharis, an imprisoned mummy who protects the tomb. Three years later, the mummy is again resurrected to get his deadly revenge against those who entered the forbidden tomb. It's great cheesy fun and right to the point. It's old school horror at its finest. I would recommend THE MUMMY!!!

More