The Mummy's Shroud Reviews

Page 1 of 2
Super Reviewer
½ October 19, 2010
The Mummy's Shroud is kind of a formulaic Hammer film which like most monster movies of this kind is somewhat dull, but has a few great scenes. Those scenes are mainly in the way of a sweet monster (one of the best mummies I've ever seen) and some great killings (the mousy Mr. Longbarrow's demise was as gruesome as it was magnificent.) The Aimee Mann lookalike and the direction didn't hurt even if the acting and the story didn't exactly help. I'm not the world's biggest mummy fan so my opinion shouldn't be the most trusted here.
Super Reviewer
April 25, 2012
Not a bad little addition to the Hammer catalogue. Like 'The Reptile', 'Plague of the Zombies' and 'The Witches' this film doesn't feature Hammer regulars Lee and Cushing but Morell is on hand for good support (although not for long!) and once again Ripper is given a decent amount to do and puts in the best acting performance. The mummy looks hust like a guy in a thin boiler suit and some of it is laughable but Phillips is good as the cowardly villain, it's nice to see Roger Delgado (aka The Master) chewing up the scenary and the final discintigration of the mummy is well handled. Not scary compared to horror today this is still pretty enjoyable.
½ October 18, 2014
Hammer Studios always gave much more of a story to their mummy films than did Universal in the classic series of B pictures that established the conventions of the mummy subgenre. This is perhaps the strongest example of that -- most of the usual mummy's revenge themes established in the Universal movies don't even begin until you are a substantial way into this film. It remains a less than classic movie but it does have an interesting story and one that is at least somewhat original for the mummy subgenre. The acting is decent, especially that of Michael Ripper as a much put upon lesser character. Decent entertainment of the 60s horror type.
½ May 18, 2015
It's pretty much the same plot as the previous films, but cheaper and with more more generic characters. There aren't any interesting twists or memorable kills, or anything that really could stand out. The Mummy's death sequence was pretty nice though.
½ October 18, 2014
not a bad film but not a good film. a follow-up to The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb(1964) which is a better film.
August 25, 2014
Quite possibly the best 'Mummy' movie ever made. Not that there's a huge amount of competition but this one is played dead straight and has a super mummy. Beautiful blu ray conversion too.
½ December 28, 2013
A rather turgid second sequel to Hammer's third monster franchise (appropriated from Universal). The usual Mummy elements are here: a curse, a foolhardy archaeologist, a rampaging mummy, and some stolen artefacts (or in this case, the corpse of a child pharaoh). Unfortunately, none of the characters on the expedition are particularly enjoyable to spend time with, least of all the financial backer who hogs most of the screen time. Of course, Hammer's mise en scene is still pretty detailed (if sometimes obviously a set ... or a quarry) and a creepy fortune teller (played by Catherine Lacey) offers some genuinely memorable moments. Otherwise ugh.
½ September 11, 2012
The Mummy's Shroud is like any number of a thousand and one other Mummy movies. A Mummy rises out of it's sarcophagus because of (insert lame reason here, this time it's because someone stole a shroud the Mummy used to cover the dead pharoah with out in the desert.) and goes on a killing spree. Who stole it? Why the priest who was supposed to be protecting the Mummy's eternal resting place. Why? I guess he was pissed because jumping out at the excavation party and shouting jibberish didn't scare them away. So somehow he used the shroud to activate the mummy to have him kill the excavation team who extracted the mummy and the Pharoah from the tomb. Not the dumbest reason a mummy has ever risen from it's grave (at least there aren't nine tanis leaves in this one or a priest who wants to kidnap the main character's love interest). Seriously, I think it would make a better plot device if the Mummy simple walked out of it's sarcophagus to go to the bathroom. It was interesting for the first 20 minutes or so, setting up a backstory that actually sounded halfway decent but it never went anywhere. All it turned out to be was a plot device explaining why the Mummy was killing people which they really didn't need, they could have just used the priest angle if that's all they were going to do. A pity because the acting was actually not completely terrible, there were a few characters who were somewhat developed enough to be slightly interesting. I think the biggest let down was the Mummy itself. First of all, I don't think film makers quite understand what a Mummy is supposed to be. It's supposed to be a corpse. This creature looked like Michael Clark Duncan dressed up like a mummy for a Halloween party. I wish I'd look like that after being dead for 3,000 years!! And maybe this is just a rant but really, this movie would have been so much better if the Mummy didn't come back from the grave and kill people, they could have used the Pharoah and his slave building an army to take back his throne from his usurping uncle (Hamlet, anyone?) or they could have stuck with the excavation team and showed us their exploits, they developed the characters enough (just to kill most of them off, so what was the point?) It's like halfway through the film they finally remembered they were supposed to be making a horror film and decided to throw the rest of it together at the last minute. If that's all the first part was leading up to why even bother? They could have just had the mummy chasing everyone around and killing them at the beginning, then at least the disappointment would have ended quicker. And remember I'm the Occult Horror Film Wizard, telling you the difference between horror and horrible.
April 23, 2012
great film,classic line of actors, most of whome sadly are no longer with us, but their work lives on , this was another great, from the hammer stable
½ May 3, 2006
The Mummy's Shroud
Starring: Andre Morrell, Elizabeth Sellars, Roger Delgado, and Michael Ripper
Director: John Gilling

When British explorer Sir John (Morrell) and his obnoxious American financier ignore the warning of a crazed tomb guardian (Delgado) and move the mummified body of an ancient child-king to a museum, they unleash a deadly curse... and, of course, a revived mummy bodyguard hell-bent on revenge.

"The Mummy's Shroud" is the worst of the Hammer mummy movies. Although it's got great performances by Morrell, Delgado, and Ripper (in a supporting role that's larger than what he usually gets--Gilling must have liked Ripper!) give great performances, most of the actors are average to bad. The script is also pretty awful, with uneven pacing and too few chills and scares to really sustain the film. (The most intense moments come when a feverish Sir John is wandering the darkened streets of Cairo, during the lead-up to his death.) Finally, there is the mummy. This film possibly features the WORST mummy costume ever put on film; even the awful direct-to-DVD "Mummy Raider" seemed to have invested more effort in their mummy costume than the production crew on "The Mummy's Shroud" did on theirs. The mummy here looks like a guy in a mask, wearing tan coveralls with some bandages glued on.

The only truly good thing about "The Mummy's Shroud" is the tagline on the lobby card reproduction included with the Achor Bay DVD release of the film: Beware the Beat of the Cloth-wrapped Feet. (And even that seems more appropriate as a promo for a horror comedy rather than a serious film like this one.)
July 3, 2005
If you can get past the asinine mummy costume, this film is as good as any other mummy movie. Unfortunately, that's very difficult to do. The costume is basically a set of white coveralls, and they're even baggy, not like the tightly wrapped bandages we've seen in other films, so it wreaks of inauthenticity, if there is such a word, and if not, i've got dibs on the copyright. Our intelligence is further insulted by gloves worn by the mummy, where a very poor attempt was actually made to make them look like bandages, undermining the inferior quality of the rest of the costume. Finally, the mask looks like a papier mache globe with a happy face crudely etched into it, and on closeups of the eyes opening we see a pair of very obviously fake doll's eyes, and they're blue! I can't say with any authority that there were'nt any blue eyed ancient egyptians, but I doubt it, and that doubt further inhibits my ability to suspend my disbelief for other things. Furthermore, I'm nearly certain that the actor playing the living version of the mummy in the flashbacks has brown eyes, and even if they are blue, they're a much darker shade than the doll eyes that we see in closeup later. Despite these flaws, I have seen this film three times, and will no doubt watch it again in the future. i credit that to a strong cast and a great story that succeed despite being hindered by crapspecial effects, and possibly sloppy editing.
The death scenes are all great, and they're mostly spaced out nicely, the first coming about halfway through the movie's running time, and the others occuring at roughly twelve minute intervals thereafter, except for the last which happens a little sooner.
The backstory this time involves a bodyguard charged with protecting the pharaoh's son just before his jealous brother usurps the throne. The prince dies later in the desert, but names the bodyguard as the new pharaoh. The bodyguard buries the prince in a makeshift tomb, and apparently continues to guard him even after his own death. Naturally a group of explorers discover the prince's tomb, and the mummy of the bodyguard hunts them down and murders them one by one.
Andre Morrell stars, and Michael Ripper puts in an appearance in a supporting role. Not the best Hammer, in fact probably the least of the Hammer mummy movies, but it definitely rises above alot of the Hammer films that came after it.
Page 1 of 2