The Mummy's Shroud - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Mummy's Shroud Reviews

Page 1 of 2
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.
November 12, 2014
not so much i think the worst hammer pic hear
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 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 March 11, 2014
Awwww Hammer Films... Gotta Love 'Em--this is a GREAT Mummy movie!
January 10, 2014
An odd movie that concentrates more on the characters than the creature and they are not all that interesting. Some good performances though in a tried and tested formula with a solid finale but it just seems to drag its feet to get there.
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 October 4, 2013
Pulpy fun but little else. Has an amusingly long-winded backstory prologue.
August 28, 2013
Lackluster Hammer-horror. There's already a lack of names for this one so the fact that the story holds minimal interest value means it's passable.
½ June 10, 2013
Talk, talk, talk, with a mummy that wouldn't scare a fly.
½ February 11, 2013
The third in Hammers Mummy movie series falls into the same trap as the previous entry, way too much back-story, lots of filler and a lot of boring scenes... The only time the film shines is when the Mummy is on screen, but unfortunately the make-up/wardrobe job was awful this time around and the Mummy looked rather ridiculous! Unless your a mummy fanatic I would pass on this one!
September 20, 2012
There are some decent chills to be found in here, and the makeup for the titular creature is great, but the cast is bland and the script is uninspired. A definite step down from Hammer's first MUMMY film.
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.
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.
April 24, 2012
From Hammer, at the peak of their powers at that time, they created this horror-adventure based on a story by Hammer veteran Anthony Hinds and directed by Hammer regular John Gilling (The Plague of the Zombies (1966) and The Reptile (1966)), it should have been a good film, but it ends up being lop-sided and unsure of what it wants to be. In the 1920's, it has a group of explorers looking for the tomb of the boy Pharaoh Kah-To-Bey (Toolsie Persaud), whose backstory is explained in a prologue. The expedition is led by Sir Basil Walden (Andre Morell) and Stanley Preston (John Phillips). They find the tomb of Kah-To-Bey, and his manservant Prem (Dickie Owen) is mummified as well. Even though local Bedouin Hasmid (Roger Delgado) warns them against moving the bodies, they do so. Walden is bitten by a snake, and it drives him to a gibbering wreck while Preston ends up taking the credit for Walden's hard work, much to the anger of his son Paul Preston (David Buck) and Elizabeth (Elizabeth Sellars). But Hasmid resurrects the Mummy of Prem as an act of revenge. It promises so much, but it plods along with it's dull adventure (shot in a quarry in England somewhere) and moments of quite uninspired horror which all comes too little too late. For a Mummy film, it should be more epic, but this reeks of being cheap and nasty.
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
February 23, 2012
Possibly one of the weaker hammer films. The scenes involving the mummy aren't that bad but just not enough of them as in between these scenes is rather dull to be honest.
½ December 28, 2011
The final (I do believe) entry into the Mummy genre by Hammer is quite a talky affair.. Indeed for about 45 min to an hour in we get people yapping away. Oh sure, we get the usual. You know, Egyptian expedition, desecrated graves, how the mummy came to be etc. Indeed, this is nothing you've seen before, and it's quite... repetitive. The mummy here looks pretty shoddy. The only saving grace is the ok death scene at the end, but by the end you'll be lucky if you're still around.
½ April 23, 2011
Silly use of the shroud. "Stop that, it's just silly". Watchable though, but poor entry.
Page 1 of 2