Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

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

Claudio Carvalho 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")

LeonLouisRicci 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.

utgard14 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.

JohnHowardReid Virtually a remake of The Mummy (1932) – including even a re-run of the climax in the museum – but with the most interesting characters originally played by Boris Karlof and Zita Johann watered down and definitely not changed for the better. In both acting and personality, Eddie Powell and Maggie Kimberley are definitely no substitutes. I was also disappointed in both John Gilling's script and his direction. The script is full of padding and repetitive dialogue. The acting is full of much B-grade shuffling – a device originated to spin a "B" movie's tight budget out to feature length at minimum cost. In fact, Gilling's direction shows only three or four flashes of the atmospheric imagination that distinguishes some of the "B" movies he made on budgets much smaller than this. Admittedly, some of Arthur Grant's color photography provides a few good atmospheric effects, but mostly Grant's work here rates as competent but undistinguished. True, some of the special effects are mildly shocking, some of the sets show a teeny bit of Egyptian flavoring, and some of the actors try very hard – particularly Michael Ripper as a harassed, sycophantic press agent, and Richard Warner who actually makes a big effort to sound a trifle like an Egyptian police inspector. Other players, however, try too hard, particularly Roger Delgado as the mad guardian of the tomb (compare Boris Karloff's chilling but infinitely more restrained performance), and Catherine Lacey as his fortune teller accomplice. The mummy's make-up doesn't bear comparison with the 1932 film either. Mind you, a few thrills do manage to surface in the welter of marking-time dialogue, but this movie offers mild entertainment at best – especially for undiscriminating fans who wouldn't know Boris Karloff from Norman Wisdom.