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.

Well, going in expecting nothing but hoping to enjoy myself, I put this movie into my blu-ray player. I've got a major Hammer DVD collection and this was one of the movies I hadn't seen before.Starting of with the main thing that defines this movie: When you've got a movie solely designed to show your Mummy killing people, you might want to invest time in developing your characters. This wasn't the case unfortunately and brings the movie down for me. The best thing in the movie though was Michael Ripper. The Hammer regular gave one of his best performances and was perhaps the most likable character in the movie. (perhaps because he got more opportunities to make his character seem emphatic than for example the underused Andre Morrell) Another great element in the movie was the musical score. I think, for me, this is one of the more memorable music cue's that Hammer produced for their movies. On another positive note, the way the Mummy sneaks up on it's victims were different in a creative way every time. Director John Gilling tried to visually make those sequences as interesting as possible. (although the Mummy suit looked like a worn-out pyjama ha ha) I'm a huge fan of the first Hammer Mummy movie and I also found Blood of the Mummy's Tomb pretty good. In comparison, this movie was a bit underwhelming. It could have done a little more with the content it had. This movie is a simple slasher. An interesting watch nonetheless and surely a fine addition to my Hammer collection.

The Mummy's Shroud is far from an awful film, I've yet to see an unwatchable Hammer film, even their lesser work. It is however an uneven film, with a number of strengths and an even number of big weaknesses, and one of Hammer's least accomplished.It looks good, some of the editing lacks tightness sometimes and the Mummy effects are not very good, but the photography is solid and often wonderful especially in the final thirty minutes, the lighting is suitably eerie and the sets give a sense of time and place very well while also looking great. The music score thunders thrillingly and doesn't feel stock and over-bearing, fitting with the atmosphere appropriately. The murders are inventive and quite grisly, while the first murder is the one with the most punch the most memorable being Longbarrow's. While the best The Mummy's Shroud gets is the final thirty minutes, which is very entertaining and legitimately scary.Casting and acting-wise, it is a rather mixed bag with a few coming off well. The best performance comes from Michael Ripper, I appreciated that his role was more substantial in comparison to some of his other roles, and he is excellent in it, the tragic nature of the character Longbarrow was so poignantly done and had such pathos that it was easy to feel sympathy for him. John Phillips also stands out as a suitably loathsome villain, while Barbara Sellars matches him more than ideally; the interplay between Phillips is very effectively played by both. David Buck is an appealing hero. Catherine Lacey tries too hard sometimes, but it is clear that she was having fun and she is enjoyable to fun as one of the film's more colourful characters.Others don't fare so well. Roger Delgardo has a tendency to over-compensate, that it takes one out of the film, his tongue-in-cheek comedic nature too much out of place. Andre Morell was a reliable actor but is completely wasted, no matter how hard he tried to give some serious depth to his character. As truly attractive Maggie Kimberly looks, her acting is very over-theatrical and melodramatic and it does hurt the film sometimes. Lastly the Mummy of the title is badly disadvantaged by the truly laughable and fake look it has(the Egyptians in the opening sequence are also very poorly made up), its far too late and far too short screen time and Eddie Powell's(even more lumbering and anaemic than the worst of Lon Chaney Jnr's interpretation) emotionless and un-menacing performance.The film takes far too long to get going, with an overlong(did it really need to be seven minutes?) and not always relevant opening scene, with the back-story rather unnecessary. Despite the distinguished delivery, the narration was not really needed, and it should have been a case of more show less tell. The script is very stiff and rambling, with a lot of talk that doesn't do anywhere. The first half is also let down by its draggy pacing, noticeable lack of suspense and horror and a very over-familiar story with a few subplots that either lead nowhere, add little or both.All in all, an uneven film and one of Hammer's lesser and least accomplished films, but by all means watchable, especially for the final thirty minutes and Ripper's performance. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Mummy's Shroud, The (1966) * 1/2 (out of 4)Hammer had great success at taking various Universal monsters and making them their own in a long running group of films. They did wonders with Frankenstein and Dracula but The Mummy, on the other hand, offered up more disappointments than anything. This time out we start off with some narration by Peter Cushing (rumored) who tells us of a young pharaoh who escapes persecution thanks to his slave. Flash forward to 1920 and an exhibition uncovers the tomb of the young boy. Like idiots and after being warned, they mess around with his skull, which sets loose the mummy to seek revenge. I guess this film is best remembered for being the last Hammer film to be shot at Bray Studios but it's surprising how poor all the sets look here. Usually you could depend on good looking sets but that's not the case here and this is easy to spot early on when we get the big battle but it's obvious that they'll all fighting on cardboard sets. Things don't improve as we flash forward as we get one long, boring dialogue scene after another and it gets so bad that you'll be wishing a real mummy will show up at your house and crush your skull just so you can quit watching this thing. The usually dependable Andre Morell comes off pretty boring here as does John Phillips and David Buck. Hammer regular Michael Ripper doesn't add anything either. The locations used here make you feel as if you're on a fake set, which is never a good things and there's zero atmosphere created by director Gilling. The entire movie moves as slow as Lon Chaney, Jr.'s mummy and that's certainly not a good thing. There are a few effective moments and the highlight is the final sequence with the mummy. I won't ruin how they destroy him but it's certainly a great looking sequence.