GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

christopher-underwood I always tend to steer clear of 'Mummy' films, not for any Oedipal reasons, but because they can get a bit bogged down in Egyptian mythology and more particularly because the wrapped ones tend to move so slowly. In fact, in this one the movement is pretty good, its only a stunt man in there so no attempt at Shakespearean style overacting and generally he's okay. All around him it is very much , the 'B' team except for Jeanne Roland, who does well and looks lovely, but is lumbered with an awfully dubbed voice. The opening scenes with amateurish backcloths are risible and then the film stops for about fifty minutes before an excellent ending. The good old stunt man takes Jeanne down into the sewers and with excellent photography the film really comes alive. Bit late though and it is clear that this film made to fit into a double bill is fit for nothing else.

Leofwine_draca Even lower-end Hammer films tend to be worth a watch, and this follow up to THE MUMMY is no exception. Despite the extraordinarily slow pacing (the first hour of the film does nothing except to set up the various characters and their relationships), the production values – even in a film relatively cheap by Hammer standards – are top drawer, the costumes and sets are fun (love those Egyptian backlots), and there's even a smattering of graphic gore for those who enjoy that kind of thing. Imagine the year this film was made. Now watch the film complete with multiple hand-choppings, bludgeoning, beating and – most graphic of all – an offscreen but horrific (thanks to the sound effects guy) head-crushing underfoot – and you can imagine that the film must have been considered pretty terrible when it was first released. Sure, today it seems tame, but I still get a kick out of gruesomeness that is readily achieved WITHOUT excessive bloodshed and through imagination more than anything else.The storyline is very predictable and doesn't need re-telling here, other than it contains the usual themes of cursed siblings (one good, one evil), the mummy falling in love with a beautiful girl, immortality and the bumping off of those who first defiled the Egyptian tomb. The leading characters all seem pretty stuffy but the actors do manage to put in more than adequate performances (aside from Jeanne Roland, who's pretty but hopelessly miscast). Terence Morgan is devilishly evil as the slick bad guy; Ronald Howard more than acceptable as the decent hero; Fred Clark steals the show as a P.T. Barnum-style sideshow hustler who wants to get the mummy working for HIM. Then there's a trio of great supporting performances from George Pastell, Michael Ripper (killed all too early), and Jack Gwillim.The mummy makeup is imposing but not necessarily all that scary, and an interesting touch has the mummy heavy breathing as he goes about his business, kind of like a prototype Darth Vader! After the slow first hour, things pick up for the climax, throwing in some genuinely nasty shocks (one death scene is one of the juiciest in the whole Hammer repertoire) and a climax that must have seemed good on paper but doesn't work all so well. Would sewers really collapse that easily? Still, despite the ambiguity of the climax, this is a fun enough ride for genre fans content to happily sit through well-done ripe dialogue and costume drama to get to the good gruesomeness.

SanteeFats This is obviously an old school horror movie from Hammer Studios. It starts out a little slow but picks up as it goes on. One of the opening scenes is a bit confusing with one of the archeologists tied to two posts. A nomad (?) shows and knifes the guy and then cuts off his left hand. The hand and knife show up a little later in the research teams tents. Discovering the tomb of an Egyptian prince. They excavate the tomb find the mummy and other artifacts. The financial sponsor for the dig, an American showman, decides to take the whole shebang on a tour of America. Well it leads to several dead witnesses of the opening of the sarcophagus. Turns out Ra's younger brother who actually responsible his murder has been cursed with eternal life unless Ra kills him with his own hand. Well this happens and taking the necklace with the "Words of Life" on it he then destroys himself.

Spikeopath The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is out of Hammer Film Productions and written and directed by Michael Carreras. It stars Terence Morgan, Ronald Howard, Fred Clark & Jeanne Roland. Music is by Carlo Martelli and cinematography Otto Heller. It's shot in Technicolor using the Techniscope format. Plot sees three British Egyptologists discover the tomb of Prince Ra and under guidance from their showman benefactor bring their discovery back to London. Once in London the Mummified body of Ra starts killing people, it seems someone has the know-how to resurrect the creature for evil doings.It doesn't actually feel like a Hammer Horror movie, except for Roland's cleavage that is. The cast are largely unfamiliar Hammer performers and you sense that the casting is a deliberate attempt to detract from a very salient point. As a story and how it's strung together, The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb is pretty much an uncredited remake of Hammer's own, excellent, first foray into Mummy world in 1959. Once mooted as that film's sequel, it has since been distanced as such because of the similarities. Which means to judge it as a standalone or a remake (which makes it a lazy cash in then) is the question. Fact is, tho, is that either way it's a distinctly average film from a narrative view point. The acting is fine enough, tho Roland really is only there for said cleavage, and the sets and vibrant colour make it very pleasing to the eye. But it takes an age to get going and the unoriginality of the script only hastens the feeling of, well, boredom setting in.Wrapping up (bad pun I know), it's watchable and better looking than the other Mummy film's that Hammer released after it. But really it all feels lazy and pales in comparison to the first film in 1959. 5/10