Writer Jimmy Sangster, director Terence Fisher, and stars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee returned together for the third time in as many years for Hammer's next re-hash of a Universal classic, this time "The Mummy". Unfortunately, the weak points that were beginning to show in "Dracula" the previous year finally buckled the production. Sangster's script was fairly mediocre for "Dracula", which was only saved by Fisher's superb directing and Lee's undeniable presence and the horror imagery, and his script for "The Mummy" was so weak that it left Fisher virtually nothing to work with and it completely inhibited the film and made it the empty, slow-burner that it is. Cushing is solid, as usual, while Lee is the most unrecognisable that he would ever be in a Hammer production where he plays the monster, hidden away under all them rotten bandages. But his lanky gait and towering presence would give him away any day!
The low-budget really shows here. But it makes for delightful, cheap sets. The film opens in Egypt in the last decade of the 1800s but it is clearly just a set design with a few potted palm trees and jungle shrubbery thrown about. I thought that this had a nice, cosy effect to it, and I would never criticise a Hammer film for its low production values, because all that aside the studio single-handedly saved the horror genre from fading away when it injected the life back into it. A family of archaelogists, among them Peter Cushing, locate and break into a long fabled tomb of an Egyptian princess. They take the loot and the body and return (thankfully, for the production's sake) back to England. You could write it yourself from here... we end up having a mummy hulking and lumbering around the English countryside, seeking vengeance for the violation of its tomb.
"The Mummy" is one of the lesser Hammer Horror films, in my opinion. There is little scares and it all just trudges along slowly, like the titular monster. Some excellent imagery - such as the scenes in the swamp - save the film from a lower rating, but overall, Sangster's script was very poor and it left the rest of the film with nothing to work with and this was the disappointing result.
The low-budget really shows here. But it makes for delightful, cheap sets. The film opens in Egypt in the last decade of the 1800s but it is clearly just a set design with a few potted palm trees and jungle shrubbery thrown about. I thought that this had a nice, cosy effect to it, and I would never criticise a Hammer film for its low production values, because all that aside the studio single-handedly saved the horror genre from fading away when it injected the life back into it. A family of archaelogists, among them Peter Cushing, locate and break into a long fabled tomb of an Egyptian princess. They take the loot and the body and return (thankfully, for the production's sake) back to England. You could write it yourself from here... we end up having a mummy hulking and lumbering around the English countryside, seeking vengeance for the violation of its tomb.
"The Mummy" is one of the lesser Hammer Horror films, in my opinion. There is little scares and it all just trudges along slowly, like the titular monster. Some excellent imagery - such as the scenes in the swamp - save the film from a lower rating, but overall, Sangster's script was very poor and it left the rest of the film with nothing to work with and this was the disappointing result.