Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Paul Magne Haakonsen I stumbled upon "The Mummy's Shroud" one late night on some obscure TV channel. And not having seen this 1967 Hammer Horror movie before, I did of course take the time to sit down and watch it. After all, what am I if not a horror fan?Well, this was definitely not the most interesting or best of movies from the Hammer Horror vault.It had an adequate enough story, especially for a mummy movie - you know what I mean by that genre.The effects in "The Mummy's Shroud" were fair enough, taking into consideration the age of the movie.One of the better aspects of "The Mummy's Shroud" was the fact that they had some good acting performances by a fairly good cast. And that did indeed help to make this otherwise mundane and generic horror movie bearable to watch to the end.Having seen this movie once, I can honestly say that this is not a classic in any way, and it is not a movie that I will be returning to watch a second time.

TheLittleSongbird 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

Spikeopath The Mummy's Shroud is directed by John Gilling who also co-adapts the screenplay with Anthony Hinds. It stars André Morell, John Phillips, David Buck, Elizabeth Sellars, Maggie Kimberly and Michael Ripper. Music is by Don Banks and cinematography by Arthur Grant.Mezzera, Egypt, 1920, and an expedition to find the tomb of Pharaoh Kah-to-Bey gets more than they bargained for when they unearth a shroud adorned with the ancient writings of life and death...The third instalment of Hammer Films forays into Mumified based Egyptology, The Mummy's Shroud follows the standard formula but never the less entertains in undemanding fashion. Released as the support feature to Frankenstein Created Woman (not Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed as listed in some quarters since that was two years later), it's nicely photographed, stoically performed by the cast (especially by Hammer hero Ripper who gets a meaty role) and is pacey enough to uphold the interest. The violence aspects are strongly constructed, but kept mostly in suggestive terms as per visual enticements, and how nice to see the lead ladies here be more than token cleavage.This was the last Hammer feature to be made at Bray Studios, so it has some poignant significance in the history of Hammer Films. It's not a great send off for Bray, but it's unmistakably one of those Hammer Horror films that fans of the studio's output can easily spend the evening with and not feel it has been time wasted. 6.5/10

MartinHafer Hammer Films made a bazillion horror films from the 1950s-1970s. This is one of several mummy films they made during the era. It's not the best of their mummy films (this would be THE MUMMY, 1959), nor is it the worst (that would probably be CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB, 1964. In fact, it's very typical of a mummy film in most every way.The film starts with a long prologue about a young Prince whose throne is usurped. A faithful servant takes him into the desert and the boy dies. However, in death, the servant makes sure his master goes to the afterlife by having him buried. In 1920, an expedition finds both this mummified boy and the servant who is also a mummy (though they look very, very different). It's obvious that the servant is just some bozo in a cheap mummy suit (looking nothing like the great Universal films mummies of the 1930s and 40s). As for the boy, I thought it looked like a real dessicated dead kid, but my daughter (who has taken classes in archeology and has seen mummies up close) says it looked nothing like one. Either way, to the untrained eye, it's not bad--not a cheesy one like the servant.Later, some weirdos who are mummy cult members utter a long curse in order to bring the dead servant to life and kill those who desecrated the grave. Wow, you didn't see that coming...no wait, that's the plot of virtually EVERY mummy film! So, for the next 30 minutes, the mummy does some nasty killing. The first few are particularly nasty, though the really bad guy who DOES have it coming dies in an amazingly anticlimactic manner.The film has several pluses. The sets aren't bad and although the story is very, very familiar, it's handled well. Also, a few of the murders are clever and different. As for the minuses, it's not terribly original. Also, I don't know why Hammer did such a rotten job with their mummies--they just look terribly unrealistic and cheap--although the scene with the mummy at the very end was well done.Overall, very watchable for monster fans, but don't rush out and see this. It's a case of "been there, done that".