I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Blistering performances.

Unfairly put upon by critics and fans alike, THE MUMMY'S SHROUD remains a classic Egyptian adventure which will greatly entertain when given the chance. The plot is unremarkable - even clichéd, a simple variation every mummy film has ever used since Karloff's original classic, but the strength of the film lies in the characterisations, especially that of Stanley Preston, a superb performance by John Phillips (who has one of those familiar faces) of hypocrisy, greed, contempt, and sheer unfeelingness.A lot of the film concentrates on his relationship with the poor assistant, played by Michael Ripper, and the two spark each other off nicely in their many conversations. These scenes, although brief, are numerous and hugely enjoyable. Andre Morell also stars as a father-like figure, this time with his hair floured grey, and he comes off the worse for wear. Maggie Kimberley is the token blonde bombshell, but remains an intelligent character, while the villain of the piece is played by non-other than Roger Delgado, the Master himself from DR WHO! It's good to see Delgado in another typically villainous role, even if his stereotypical mad Arab is a somewhat racist portrayal.The mummy story is familiar to horror fans, even down to the Egyptian flashback, but a nice score complements the action as it unfolds. This time the sets are also different, as the location is Egypt, instead of the fog-bound London we have in CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB (which, incidentally, is inferior to this film), which makes a refreshing change. The deaths in the film, although few and far between, are spectacular.The highlight of the film is the smashing ending in the museum, where the survivors battle the invincible mummy, using axe and gun to no effect as it rampages through the cases and other antiques. The final disintegration is also superb, one of the best deaths I've seen in a Hammer film, and also pretty macabre (just what I like to see). THE MUMMY'S SHROUD will win no awards for originality but it remains a thoroughly enjoyable, and old-fashioned, horror romp.

Returning from an expedition, the crew members who brought a royal mummy back to town find themselves being stalked and killed by the revived mummy and try to stop its deadly rampage.This one actually turned out to be quite decent overall as there's a lot to like here but does have some big flaws here. One of the biggest pluses to this is the rather enjoyable action scenes that have a lot of rather kinetic, enjoyable fun to them, whether it's the opening assault taking place in historical Egypt or the exploration of the tomb, as both of these manages to feature some enjoyable and surprising aspect to not only keep them moving along but also feature some suspenseful moments to match the spectacle. Other action scenes, especially the resurrection flashback which utilizes the great eye-moving trick before getting out of the coffin while the unaware victim keeps reading off the scroll until the fateful attack, the first attack in the gypsy's' lair as it appears behind the beaded door and especially the second attack in the photography studio where the reflection in the solution lead to a wild brawl that gets quite fun throughout the rather brief time but ends on a blast with the flaming acid signaling a rather impressive scene. As well, the finale here works incredibly well by featuring the appeasement attempt before it resurrects and begins brawling and chasing them around the exhibit before finally having the fun of getting the mummy turned to stone so there's plenty of exciting action placed there to get this one on a high-note. Still, there's a few things that hold this one back, most notably the subplot about the doctor being placed in an asylum which has little if anything to do with the film itself and isn't really given any sort of justification why. It plays it off as if that was how the end result for him all along was going to play out, yet then has him break out anyway which causes a series of logic problems with incarcerating him in the first place. Likewise, it's all part of the problem with this one as it really holds off the mummy getting involved until really late into this one by being resurrected pretty late and note really getting a lot to do with this scenes of the crew waiting around for it to come to life. That it has to go back to resting instead of going out as a hunter for the full-time does make this tend to feel a bit repetitive having to go into the resurrection each time out, but overall isn't all that bad.Today's Rating/PG: Violence.

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.

After a needlessly elaborate prologue narrated by (I think) Peter Cushing this opens in 1920 Egypt--although everybody dresses in 1960s clothes and fashions. The plot is a boring by-the-numbers number about people desecrating the tomb of some Egyptian king (or something) and the mummy coming to life to kill them. A minor twist is that someone must have the mummy's shroud in hand and say a particular phase to animate him and send him out to kill. This is just barely a horror film--the mummy doesn't even start moving until 45 minutes in! It's mostly a dull drama of people standing around and discussing why people are being killed and by who. All the attack scenes are short and distressingly non-bloody (except for two) and the mummy looks pretty silly (even though it was based on how actual mummies look).Some good acting saves this from being a total disaster. David Buck is good as Paul and Maggie Kimberly is just OK as the love interest Claire. John Phillips is terrible as the main villain Stanley but Elizabeth Sellars seems very amused as his wife. Also Hammer regular Michael Ripper is excellent and Catherine Lacey chews the scenery as Haiti. Also there's a thundering music score to keep you awake. A deadly dull Hammer film with nothing new to offer. The third and probably the worst of the four mummy films they did. A 2--mostly for the acting.