A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

A movie from the 70s ... for some that may seem like ancient stuff (no pun intended). And you can say that movies have come a long way. In many aspects not just effects, but in many regards. But the 70s began to point at things. We have a strong female character, that shows skin on one hand, but has all the power in her hand (seduction and otherwise).While the acting may seem ... wooden (and there is a lot of evidence pointing in that direction), the script has gaps as if it was Swiss cheese, there is a lot of fun to be had. If you just enjoy this romp for what it is, and consider the time it was made ... well I know this is a lot to ask for, but remember that this was stuff people ran and watched back then. And it has pretty good production values (again considering the time and the studio at the time) ... So sit back and get ... seduced

This is an astoundingly bad film, even by mummy movie standards.Problem one is that there's no mummy, insofar as there is no bandage-wrapped gent shambling after the next hapless victim. There's a sort-of mummy, who just happens to be perfectly preserved young woman with big boobs. The plot is ludicrous and the script is laughably bad.The direction, such as it is, is trite and amateurish, with no real attempt to set the appropriate mood other than using an intrusive musical score of dubious merit.The acting ranges from sub-par to utter ham. Not worth the time it takes to see it.

"Blood From The Mummy's Tomb" is a film that has its qualities - the doubtlessly most convincing one being the incredibly beautiful Valerie Leon in a double role. Yet I have to say that this film ranks among the lesser ones from my beloved Hammer Studios, as it is not very suspenseful and lacks the intense atmosphere that we all love about the films from this brilliant British production company. Based on the almighty Bram Stoker's novel "The Jewel of Seven the Stars", "Blood From the Mummy's Tomb" is one out of three Hammer films directed by Seth Holt, the others being the very good "The Nanny" (1965) and the presumably great "Taste of Fear" (1961) which I haven't yet seen. Sadly, Holt died in while he was working on this film in 1971, at only 48, and the film was completed by Michael Carreras, who must be seen as a pioneer for directing one of the earliest Eurowestern, "Tierra Brutal" in 1961. Being a huge fan of the Hammer Studios I tend to love their later films, such as "Vampire Circus", "The Vampire Lovers" or "Frankenstein and The Monster From Hell", from the early 70s especially, because they usually mix the elegant Hammer-typical Gothic atmosphere with 70s-typical sleaze and gore. This is also the case here - "Blood From The Mummy's Tomb" has some of Hammer's goriest moments - but the suspense was obviously not sufficiently focused on here. It does have some highly atmospheric scenes, but then, there are hardly any outdoor shots and typical Hammer style elements such as foggy grounds etc. appear only a few times in the film.The film tells a very classic Horror story, of a young beauty who happens to bear a stunning resemblance to a vicious she-demon - in this case a blood-thirsty Egyptian Queen... I love classic Horror material like this, but, sadly, it isn't delivered too well here. The film isn't too suspenseful, as one simply doesn't care about the characters. Valerie Leon ("Never Say Never Again") is stunningly beautiful (and shows some flesh) in her double leading role as the Egyptian Queen Tera and the archaeologist's's daughter Margaret Fuchs. Miss Leon is truly ravishing and her presence alone easily is reason enough to watch the film. The great Andrew Keir ("Quatermass and the Pit", "Dracula, Prince of Darkness") plays her father Prof. Fuchs. Funnily, Margaret's boyfriend's name is 'Tod Browning' - a tribute to the genius director of such gems as "Dracula" (1931), "Freaks" (1932) or "The Devi-Doll" (1936), the immortal Tod Browning. "Blood From The Mummy's Tomb" has its moments - as said, Valerie Leon is by far the most convincing reason to watch it, and the film has some stylish moments as well as some very well done gory ones. However, it does get boring in-between, and that is something extremely rare with a Hammer film. Overall it must be said that, while Egyptian Mummies are generally fascinating creatures, their representations in cinema are often quite weak. The only true Mummy-Masterpiece I've seen is Karl Freund's brilliant "The Mummy" of 1932 with the immortal Boris Karloff in the lead. My second-favorite is Hammer's 1959 remake "The Mummy" with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. "Blood From The Mummy's Tomb" is still 100 times better than these crappy new Mummy films which consist of CGI only, but it's definitely one of Hammer's weaker films and mostly interesting for the gorgeous Valerie Leon.

It appears I am in the minority as I thought this film was just plain boring and pretty awful. It is easily the worst of Hammer's four Mummy entries and has all the bad trademarks of Hammer's seventies film cycles: a greater reliance on sex and violence then on story, mid-range acting talents as leads and virtual unknowns as leads, lesser directorial talents, a dubious urge to try the most ridiculous story plots conceived. In point of fact - to move away from what worked for the previous two decades. I understand that the studio was losing money and trying to compete with lots of competition, but it didn't need to churn this kind of stuff or most of its seventies films did it? (I don't expect YOU to answer.) What is wrong with Blood from the Mummy's Tomb? Well, for starters the story makes very little sense and even is executed in a more intangible way. I know that some out there will say that they understand it perfectly and that it takes a higher level of thinking, etc... to fully understand this mishmash of a script. These are the same folks that think James Joyce's Ulysses IS the greatest book ever written too! A female mummy looks exactly as she did at death and all we get for explanation is astral plane bunk - I can't hurdle that leap of faith and still have two legs left. Or how about missing relics(that look brand new)which mysteriously are needed in order for this malevolent mummy to return to life just pop up on shelves in Andrew Keir's cellar? How about the deaths of the Mummy's wrath - what wrath? All we see is her laying in a tomb with her hand cut off and blood recirculating somehow in the severed arm. All the while the Mummy is practically naked and her breast bottoms conspicuously framed. I am sure the crew had a tough time concentrating on having her keep still and not breathe to avoid having her ample bosom heave. The rest of the film is riddled with such inconsistencies of logic. Director Seth Holt died while filming and was replaced by Michael Carreras. This DOES explain some of the inherent problems of the fluidity of the film and coherence of the story and actor motivations. The acting is pretty poor as well. Sure, character actors like Aubrey Morris, James Villiers(as the "real" villain I suppose), and George Coulouris are serviceable and workmanlike, but Andrew Keir is very weak by his standards and the two young leads are horrible actors. Mark Edwards as Tod Browning(I liked that touch!) has no range and Valerie Leon is void of any acting talent whatsoever. She is; however, a treat to see for her voyeuristic charms. Her breasts are so big and bouncy that they are hardly contained in the sexy black negligee she wears throughout much of the film. They are the focal points of virtually all of her screen time, and though I appreciate the aesthetic qualities of such pulchritude - large, heaving bosoms do not a good horror film make. Not even close. It is as if this film were made by a couple of boobs! Did I like anything about the film? The flashbacks used were effectively shot and the scenes with Coulouris in an asylum were quite chilling. Beyond that nothing really juts out other than Valerie's bosom buddies.