just watch it!

Highly Overrated But Still Good

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

This remake of the remake is a Hammer Horror affair and the beginning of their own "The Mummy" franchise.Starring horror legends Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee it brings The Mummy tale into bold colour and it does the story many favours.Essentially it tells exactly the same story as the 1932 original but blends several moments from the 1940 and beyond remake franchise including a tweek on the part three very dark finale.With strong performances, a highly improved mummy and the usual Hammer Horror charm this is the best "The Mummy" film since the 1932 original.This has now wet my appetite for the other 3 movies.The Good:Couple of well made scenesThe mummy looks greatThe Bad:Very sudden endingA few of the negative Hammer Horror tropesThings I Learnt From This Movie:Mans best friend is a horseDrink driving wasn't a thing when it came to horse and cartsFez's are still a sign of evil

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.

Hammer Films' "The Mummy" was released in 1959 and stars Christopher Lee in the eponymous role stalking an archaeologist, played by Peter Cushing, because he was part of the party that desecrated the Egyptian tomb of his beloved, Ananka.If you're a fan of Hammer's horror line, like I am, you'll naturally want to see (or own) this one, but it's definitely one of their lesser films. On the positive side, Lee is very intimidating as the towering mummy and Cushing always makes for a worthy protagonist. In addition George Pastell is effective as the offended Egyptian and Yvonne Furneaux as Isobel/Ananka is stunning, although they don't do enough with her; in fact, her role is limited to portions of the last act.So what's the problem? For one, the entire first act takes place in Egypt, but it's an indoor set in England and looks like it. Remember those cheesy studio sets of the original Star Trek TV series? The Egyptian sets in this movie aren't much better -- the "outside" sets, that is; the tomb sets are actually good. Speaking of the tomb sets, how is it that there's proper lighting in a tomb that's been shut for 3000 years? It's never explained. Roll-your-eyes factors like this don't make for good movies. Thankfully, the locations switch to England in the second act.Secondly, there's just too much Egyptian ritual and citation of sacred scrolls. Some of this is understandable, of course, but there's so much in the movie that it feels like it's padded by at least 12 minutes. Lastly, it doesn't make sense that the Egyptian guy is adamant about having the mummy slay Cushing's character because he was laid-up in a tent when the tomb of Ananka was desecrated. He justifies it on the grounds that Cushing was a member of the party that broke into the crypt, but it just doesn't seem like he has a good enough reason to go through all the trouble when Cushing wasn't even near the tomb. Also, why not go after all the workers that helped the team break into the forbidden crypt? Why just go after the white dudes?The film runs 86 minutes and was shot in England.GRADE: C

Returning home from an expedition, a rash of strange deaths points to a revived mummy brought back to avenge the team's entrance to a sacred Egyptian tomb and must try to stop its' controller from finishing the rampage.This is one of the better entries in the genre with a lot to like. One of its better features is that there's a lot of screen-time given to the mummy itself which prompts a lot of good parts along the way. Besides the fact that we get to really feel for it's dangerous actions as well as the spectacular make-up for the being, there's some really well-done action scenes that are rather enjoyable. The initial attack at the nursing home, as the mummy breaks into the room of one of his victims who has seen him coming and is desperately trying to get away only for a savage assault before the inevitable happens, the back-story fill-on flashback on the father where we see the creature coming to life in grand fashion as well as the first assault in the study where it sneaks up on the victim who's completely unaware of it's existence and then starts a vicious brawl before being distracted by the wife each provide this with rather enjoyable moments that keep this going along nicely. The nursing home sequence gives it a sense of ruthlessness, there's a great nod to the history of the culture by showing what really happened on the trip and the several attacks in the study not only give this a pretty rousing series of attacks but also display the kind of emotion and heart which is required for these kinds of stories as, despite being caked in layers of muddy bandages, his frame and body language combine into one perfect image. As well, the extended and prolonged mummification flashback here is simply marvelous, far more detailed in here than in the original version as well as a little more bearable in that it has new ideas in it that helps separate this one as being not just another remake and gives this a different identity. As well, the set design is perhaps the best part of the film, as is the case with so many of the mummy films simply because of what has to be done to the set to make it believable. You would have to create artifacts, sculptures, tools, paintings, and other sort of details in the tomb, and what's seen here in the detail and design as being the most striking part of the film. While this one does tend to revert too often to the clichés of the franchise and never really does anything too original in that regard, far too much here overcomes that.Today's Rating/PG: Mostly off-screen Violence and implied Nudity.