Rating: 
Summary: A real chiller of the old school of filmmaking
Review: A great film, just as good as the Karloff original. I get a really chilling sensation every time I watch it. A film well worth getting for your collection. The photography, sets, and acting top notch, another Hammer triumph! Don't miss it!
Rating: 
Summary: Stylish Hammer horror with some good moments
Review: After a succession of masterful gothic horrors (Curse of Frankenstein, Horror of Dracula, Hound of the Baskervilles), Hammer Studios next turned their attention to the infamous Mummy.
In my opinion, this lacks the brilliance of Hammer's earlier genre offerings, but is most notable for several unforgettable images that remain imprinted on the mind long after the film is over. Apart from the striking visuals, this is a solid, but fairly standard slice of Hammer horror.
Rating: 
Summary: One of Hammer's most stylish and effective horror films
Review: After Hammer Studio had such success with their versions of Dracula and Frankenstein, it was inevitable they would tackle another one of the classic monsters of Universal's horror pantheon. By granting Universal the American distribution rights, Hammer was allowed to create their own screen versions of the Mummy movies from the 1930s and '40s (never mind Universal ripped off an Arthur Conan Doyle short story "The ring of Thoth" in the first place). Hammer's 1959 (yes, that's the CORRECT date) film "The Mummy," directed by Terence Fisher, actually ends up being one of the studio's best horror films. Set in 1895, English archaeologists uncover the tomb of the Egyptian princess Ananka (Yvonne Furneaux). When Stephen Banning (Felix Aylmer) enters the tomb, ignoring the warnings of the Egyptian Mehemet (George Pastell), he is driven mad. Of course, he has encounter Kharis (Christopher Lee), the living mummy. Three years later, Stephen warns his son John (Peter Cushing) that the mummy is after them, but the warning is ignored. Mehemet arrives near the asylum and sends the mummy to slay the half-mad Stephen in his padded cell. Following his father's murder, John learns the legend of Kharis and Ananka, the high priest who loved the princess so much he tried to bring him back from death with the Scroll of Life and was entombed as a living mummy for his sacrilege. When Kharis strikes again, John learns the legends are true. But then Mehemet orders the mummy to kill John's wife Isobel, who is the living image of Kharis' beloved Ananka (because she is also played by Furneaux. At this point, the Mummy refuses to obey and we are well on our way to the requisite tragic ending. "The Mummy" is one of the better looking Hammer films, thanks to Bernard Robinson's production designs and Jack Asher's cinematography, the high point of which is the lengthy Egyptian flashback sequence. Peter Cushing plays John Banning the hero with a sense of melancholy attributable to not only his crippled leg but sadness over the tragic consequences of their treasure expedition. George Pastell's Mehemet is one of the most thoughtful and pious villains you will ever find in a horror film. As Kharis, Christopher Lee has another silent role that forces him to communication his longing for Ananka through his eyes and gestures. Lee's mummy is much more muscular and athletic than Karloff's original. No slow shuffling monster here, the scene where Kharis smashes through the sanitarium window to attack Stephen Banning is one of the best action sequences in Hammer's history. It is not surprising Lee suffering physically because of this film. "The Mummy" stands out from other Hammer films not only because the monster is different this time around, but more because it does present the black and white division between Good and Evil we come to expect in Fisher's films. After all, Kharis has suffered for ages in unspeakable torment and kills only to protect Isobel thinking she is Ananka, so there is a degree of pity involved, while we have some feelings of disgust towards the archeologists who are so dismissive of native beliefs. Clearly there is more depth here to the characters than we find in the contemporary block busters where the appeal is pure special effects.
Rating:
Summary: Hammer's Version Produces Good Chills, but is a Little Slow
Review: As I wrote in my previos review for the original "Mummy," my favorite film is the 1999 version of "The Mummy." After I saw it, I quested after the original, which was great! I loved it's moody atmohsphere and fantastic performances. I loved the latest version of the story for it's humor, action, beautiful score, excellent performances, first rate visual effects and lightning pace. And it was around the time "The Mummy" was about to be released on video (September 28, 1999) that I rented the 1953 Hammer version. And I enjoyed this version quite a lot as well! One of the things that impressed me most about this film, was the musical score. It's quite epic for a somewhat clostrafobic film like this, but it still works with the shots and the story. The performance given by Peter Cushing on this movie was in my opinion one of his best. He was much more layed back, and even tough in this movie! The sets for the flash back and excavation scenes are like something out of a "Gilligan's Island," episode however - but it doesn't really effect the film overall. The plot developes a little slowly, but Christopher Lee as the mummy is truly terrifying. I mean scary! With his huge strides and quick swipes at his targets, he is a menace to be reconed with. And, he's the only mummy BEFORE Arnold Vosloo (in the 1999 version) that breaks into a sprint, adding to the terror. The only thing I really had a problem with was the films climax, which replecates the ending of "Revenge of the Creature" (the sequel to Universal's 1954 smash "The Creature from the Black Lagoon") right down to a few camera angles. Plus, at it's end Lee is killed with incredible ease. But none the less, I still liked this film very, very much. I recomend it highly to anyone who loved the original or the '99 version.
Rating:
Summary: Hammer's Version Produces Good Chills, but is a Little Slow
Review: As I wrote in my previos review for the original "Mummy," my favorite film is the 1999 version of "The Mummy." After I saw it, I quested after the original, which was great! I loved it's moody atmohsphere and fantastic performances. I loved the latest version of the story for it's humor, action, beautiful score, excellent performances, first rate visual effects and lightning pace. And it was around the time "The Mummy" was about to be released on video (September 28, 1999) that I rented the 1953 Hammer version. And I enjoyed this version quite a lot as well! One of the things that impressed me most about this film, was the musical score. It's quite epic for a somewhat clostrafobic film like this, but it still works with the shots and the story. The performance given by Peter Cushing on this movie was in my opinion one of his best. He was much more layed back, and even tough in this movie! The sets for the flash back and excavation scenes are like something out of a "Gilligan's Island," episode however - but it doesn't really effect the film overall. The plot developes a little slowly, but Christopher Lee as the mummy is truly terrifying. I mean scary! With his huge strides and quick swipes at his targets, he is a menace to be reconed with. And, he's the only mummy BEFORE Arnold Vosloo (in the 1999 version) that breaks into a sprint, adding to the terror. The only thing I really had a problem with was the films climax, which replecates the ending of "Revenge of the Creature" (the sequel to Universal's 1954 smash "The Creature from the Black Lagoon") right down to a few camera angles. Plus, at it's end Lee is killed with incredible ease. But none the less, I still liked this film very, very much. I recomend it highly to anyone who loved the original or the '99 version.
Rating:
Summary: 50's Horror at its best
Review: Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. How can you go wrong with that pair in a horror picture? Wide screen, color viewing of a 50's horror masterpiece. While the mummy wraps arnt as good as the Karloff monster its still a great film of the era. Any fan of vintage horror should find this entertaining. The DVD plays clean and crisp.
Rating:
Summary: ...with the single-mindedness of Michael Myers...
Review: Even if you've never seen this movie you probably already know the plot:Archaelogists desecrate ancient tomb...Mummy hunts down the desecrators one by one...Mummys' downfall comes at the hands of a woman who looks eerily like his dead queen. One point I wanted to make about this film involves the mummy, played brilliantly by Christopher Lee.Im a huge fan of the Halloween movies and I couldnt help but notice the similarities between Lees' mummy and Michael Myers. With face hidden "behind a mask";Lee bends steel bars,busts through doors and takes gunshots to the chest with barely a flinch.Never in a hurry but very single-minded in his mission,he kills with brutal efficiency.With throttling his victims being his prefered method of killing;he still finds the time to get creative.One example being the man whose back gets snapped in two.Ouch! Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee have starred in many horror films together and I can say without hesitation that this is my favorite. If your a Hammer Films fan,a mummy fan,or even a Michael Myers fan you cant go wrong buying this movie. This is a VHS review.
Rating:
Summary: reviewers who think they know something about aspect ratios
Review: fact number 1:in order to be "enhanced for 16:9" the picture "has" to be 16:9-that works out to 1:78 aspect ratio. fact number 2:fisher was working with 35mm film stock wich was then matted at 1:66 , the most popular format all over europe. fact number 3:the north american standard for non-scope films was 1:85 witch is the full 35mm aspect ratio. fact number 4:warner is not in the habit of taking inferior euro-transfers (4% too fast as a half-assed way of synchronising
celluloid with video)ex:the mummy on pal video is 85 mins insted of 88(correct running time for both celluloid & NTSC). fact number 5:there is always a little more picture on the film stock then will ever be seen in theaters or video.otherwise the number of goofs reported would astronomical. so in conclusion don't be alarmed by naysaywers bitching about aspect ratios , 9 times out of 10 they know less than you.
Rating:
Summary: reviewers who think they know something about aspect ratios
Review: fact number 1:in order to be "enhanced for 16:9" the picture "has" to be 16:9-that works out to 1:78 aspect ratio. fact number 2:fisher was working with 35mm film stock wich was then matted at 1:66 , the most popular format all over europe. fact number 3:the north american standard for non-scope films was 1:85 witch is the full 35mm aspect ratio. fact number 4:warner is not in the habit of taking inferior euro-transfers (4% too fast as a half-assed way of synchronising
celluloid with video)ex:the mummy on pal video is 85 mins insted of 88(correct running time for both celluloid & NTSC). fact number 5:there is always a little more picture on the film stock then will ever be seen in theaters or video.otherwise the number of goofs reported would astronomical. so in conclusion don't be alarmed by naysaywers bitching about aspect ratios , 9 times out of 10 they know less than you.
Rating:
Summary: reviewers who think they know something about aspect ratios
Review: fact number 1:in order to be "enhanced for 16:9" the picture "has" to be 16:9-that works out to 1:78 aspect ratio. fact number 2:fisher was working with 35mm film stock wich was then matted at 1:66 , the most popular format all over europe. fact number 3:the north american standard for non-scope films was 1:85 witch is the full 35mm aspect ratio. fact number 4:warner is not in the habit of taking inferior euro-transfers (4% too fast as a half-assed way of synchronising
celluloid with video)ex:the mummy on pal video is 85 mins insted of 88(correct running time for both celluloid & NTSC). fact number 5:there is always a little more picture on the film stock then will ever be seen in theaters or video.otherwise the number of goofs reported would astronomical. so in conclusion don't be alarmed by naysaywers bitching about aspect ratios , 9 times out of 10 they know less than you.
| 
