This film isn't Hammer's best film but it's an OK film - mediocre to me. The film lacked some personality to me, someone or something more to "spice it up". I was thinking Peter Cushing - then I read on the film and found out that Cushing was filming this when his wife took ill and left to be with her - understandable. Andrew Keir took over Cushing's role as Julian Fuchs. Cushing's presence and charm would have really given this film what it needed.Also director Seth Holt died of a heart attack about 5 weeks into filming this so Michael Carreras directed the final week's filming. ~ Wikipedia article on the film states. So Carreras directed the final week but it seem to have not helped or hurt the film.The asylum scenes were pretty good - I really liked the filming down the hallway being warped looking while all the hollering and laughter was being heard - nice touch.The story is just so-so - not one of the better Mummy stories from Hammer but not a down right bad one either.5/10

...This film should be essential viewing, for one reason only. It has the best cinematography I have Ever seen, and I am a big Bladrunner fan. the scene comes half way through the movie, when the Tera-force has killed the guy to reclaim the wolf sculpture, and her fiancé is walking through an alleyway, about to discover the body.The camera tracks him slowly moving forward, toward a high street with a phone booth, and then tracks back with him to a junk yard where he sees the shadow of a wolf scurry away. 1) everything is in Vivid, Precise focus - the foreground, the subject, the far background - picking out every greasy smear and rough texture in that alley, and 2) its all in Heightened Saturated colour - a Gloomy rainbow of muted blues and invading greens, all created from scratch, in broad daylight in a pokey little British studio - lovingly crafted and set-dressed over what must've taken hours to get that outside look. But consider that the camera is moving a large distance as well - there's none of this shaky steadicam or abrasive cutting that used to plague budget old films like this - the whole scene is smooth, fluid and graceful, like only an Enormous Budget and the Best Crew could produce these days. And finally, and most importantly, 3) throughout the entire shot there is an isolated, hanging Miasma of Mist, slowly morphing and twisting in space, just in front of the Character, almost as if they have caught the apparition of a ghost live on film - it provides a shifting, sinister focus and, even today, I'm not sure most filmmakers would know how to begin creating such an effect, more less actually film a prolonged, kinetic sequence of acting around it. truly remarkable.Hammer Studio's was always about Control like this - the loving care and attention to the sets and scenery and photography and staging of the scenes to be shot - and this film is the antithesis. Of course, it was also the studio's downfall, because tastes in the 70s then progressed to raw, rough and real-looking filmmaking, as in the Exorcist and Texas Chainsaw ... But for old school Mastery and Expertise, this film showcases some wondrous talent

To quote "South Park", when the film begins it's obvious that the film will feature lots of "awesome boobage", as the film seems to VERY prominently display the very well-endowed ladies in the film--though there is no actual nudity. In a way, they are sort of the co-stars in "Blood From a Mummy's Tomb"! This AIN'T the sort of film grandpa used to watch back in the good ol' days of Boris Karloff! Archeologists discover a queen buried in an ancient Egyptian tomb. Oddly, she was neither skeletal nor mummified, but looks as if she's still alive--all regaled like an Egyptian queen. It gets weirder when they see a severed hand and the stump on the body begins to bleed! Pretty weird, but weirder still, the expedition's leader's wife has a baby at the exact moment the tomb is opened and the baby grows up to be an exact duplicate of the dead woman. Later, you realize it has the dead woman's soul as well, as it goes about do bad things...very bad things indeed.If you are looking for mummies, the film, despite the title, has none. Instead, an incredibly voluptuous lady who kills along with the help of a weirdo who LIKES the idea of her running amok! Frankly, this film is an excellent example for why Hammer Films was having financial problems by the 1970s--their horror films were becoming rather bereft of ideas. This film is a far cry from the studio's original mummy film (which was awfully good) or the Frankenstein and Dracula films. Few, if any chills here--just lots of awesome boobage and a rather silly story. I give the story a 2 and Miss Leon's boobage a 9 or 10.By the way, in the final scene, look closely at the queen's teeth. you can clearly see modern fillings in them! Not bad for an ancient Egyptian!

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.