Badmovies.org Forum

- There will be spoilers -

I had heard a little about this movie, mostly to the effect that this movie's mummy was more akin to the Terminator than to the slow, shuffling sod in the Universal movies from the '40s.

Well ...

Kharis does bust through a few doors and strangle a few people but it's nothing spectacular.  I mean, come on, strangle?  Strangle?  At least have him break some necks!  And I don't want to hear any of that hogwash about how Hammer films were violent or gory for their time.  The 50s saw all number of monster movies that dealt out much more ghoulish fates to victims than Horror of Dracula, Frankenstein, or this movie.  There isn't even any blood or anything in this movie.  Well, there might have been.  I fell asleep for a little bit during the middle so I might have missed it.

Honestly, I pretty much lost interest when I found out Kharis was going to be controlled by, er, that other guy.  Up 'til then, I had the idea Kharis would be acting on his own to get revenge on those British snots who disturbed his tomb.  That might have been interesting.  But once whatshisname read the scroll to reanimate Kharis, I knew the only thing I'd have to look forward to was him losing control of Kharis and getting killed.

The only thing The Mummy has going for it is Christopher Lee.  Frankly, I think the man was wasted in Horror of Dracula.  The part was far beneath his talents (Rarrr!  Hisssss!  Hisssss!  Rarrr!).  He fares better here, out acting the entire cast with only his eyes, and he at least gets to whomp on Peter Cushing instead of being defeated by him.  Cushing was a good actor to use for intellectuals and effete aristocrats but an action man he wasn't.  I think a strong wind could have kicked Peter Cushing's ass.

Anyway, Christopher Lee is very good as Kharis.  Watch at the end when the girl asks to be put down.  Kharis knows she's going to run away.  He knows she isn't really the woman he loved in his previous life.  And he's sad.  He doesn't care that he'll get gunned down as soon as she's out of the way; he wants to die again.  Lee communicates all of this with a single look.

Unfortunately, that's not enough reason to watch this thing.

Coincidentally, I watched this DVD Saturday night (I bought it about a year ago and just got around to watching it).  It's okay, but most of the Hammer Frankenstein and Dracula movies are a lot better.  I thought the flashbacks to ancient Egypt were more interesting than the modern day scenes.  Not terrible, but I can't recommed it.

     Even if I do agree with practically everything you say, I STILL think this worth watching, precisely BECAUSE of Lee & Cushing --
     Say what you will about cinema de poopoo -- and isnt' that why most of us are here? -- sometimes sheer Star Power alone can make an otherwise mediocre film worthwhile.
     See, I'm extremely gald you mentioned that "look" of Kharis -- It's heartbreaking and affecting in ways many actors would die for.  On that note, I wish Daniel Day Lewis would do horror.  He'd be the best Mummy ever, and possibly the best Dracula -- I did not see Jeremy Brett's (Sherlock Holmes) Dracula on stage, but this one suppposedly set the acting bar pretty high for a horror show.
     No, I would agree with everthing you say but for the final sentences, which I would modify to read that yes, this performance ALONE makes the movie worth watching --
     Also, a seminal film in that Lee gave himself a permanent back injury that plagues him to this day from slogging through the prop mud with the heroine in question.
peter muddy mummy/denny sue for back injury

I thought it was f**king great, one of Hammer's best movies. The atmosphere and the pace hold up well enough, better than in other Hammer films, and the script is quite clever. Take Cushing's character. He's not a villain, but his expedition entering the tomb did a lot of damage, damage he's not even aware of when the mummy starts killing.

And the mummy itself is a quite sad creature, not only he's suffering a disproportionate punishment for his actions while alive, but he's unable to control his acts.

I strongly advise you, though, don't watch the sequels. They're downright awful stuff.

Once again Peter/denny has basically described my entire feelings on this film.  :thumbup:

He breaks Mehemet Bey's back at the end (Bey being "that other" who was controlling him), although it took me a couple viewings to figure this out since there's no sound effect for the break (!).


One thing, though. It wasn't actually Kharis' tomb that Stephen Banning and Joseph Whemple disturbed, but that of Princess Ananka, of which Kharis was the guardian.

However, Bey is important to the story, moreso than being simply the guy who orders Kharis around. The movie is really Kharis' story, if you think about it. Bey, as a worshipper of Karnak, represents the kind of people who condemned Kharis to eternal living death for his affair with Ananka and his attempt to resurrect her. As a living mummy, he allows Bey to boss him around until he thinks Isobel Banning is Ananka reincarnated, whereupon he decides not to take any more s**t from Bey.

Addmittedly, this kind of makes Kharis a pitiable and tragic character rather than the fearsome monster you're looking for, so obviously this isn't the Mummy for you.


That's kind of the point. Why else do you think they went the extra mile and also had John Banning suffer from a broken leg for half the movie? Although the protagonist of the story, his bum leg means he's in constant danger of being easily snuffed out by Kharis, even moreso than his father and uncle who were trapped with nowhere to go and taken by surprise respectively.

One criticism I have with the movie, now that I think about it, is I'm not entirely sure why Kharis (or Bey, for that matter) wanted John dead along with Stephen and Joseph. The latter two were the ones who actually entered the tomb; we're never given any indication that John went in, and, in fact, at the beginning, the first time I watched the film I was pretty sure they were going to use John's hurt leg as an excuse to keep him out of the tomb, and thus exempt him from the curse, but this doesn't prove to be the case.

Oh, and in one of the many flashbacks in this film, it's revealed that the reason Stephen survived his initial encounter with Kharis is because Bey stopped him. Why? Why, if he wants the desecrators killed as much as Kharis does, does he stop him, only to send Kharis to kill him later on in Engerfield?

One positive point in this film, and one I don't see brought up too often, is the character of Inspector Mulrooney, played by Eddie Byrne. He could've been the typical "skeptical cop character," and to some extent he is, but he's portrayed as listening quite intentively to everything John has to tell him, and he doesn't ignore the mounting evidence that there is in fact a mummy walking around. Better still, he actually survives the movie, which I liked because I always felt bad that his character Dr. Landers died in Island of Terror.

I was wondering if that's what actually happened, myself.


I realized my mistake after I posted but I was too lazy to fix it.  Thanks for pointing it out, though.


I got a little sidetracked and was talking about Cushing as "man of action" Van Helsing in Horror of Dracula, not in this movie.  Sorry, but I just can't be too afraid of a Dracula that can be defeated by Peter Cushing (even if he does have two candlesticks).  I have no issues with Hammer's use of Cushing in The Mummy.  Like I said, I was glad that Lee got to beat on him.


You know, you're right!  I was so uninterested in the movie I hardly noticed, but the Inspector wasn't a complete idiot.  For any movie (especially for European movies, I'm noticing) that's a rare thing.

This is a big favorite of mine.  I guess I'm biased because I love mummy movies and I love just about anything by Hammer.  I mostly watch Hammer stuff because of the Gothic atmosphere;  that alone is enough to keep me interested.  Hammer does Gothic better than anyone else.  It's from a different era and requires that you sit back in your easy chair and enjoy the mounting suspense.  I really don't have any problem with the plot, it moves along well enough and has enough action to keep me interested.

I have to agree about Cushing though, he's just never impressed me much.  This is probably the best thing I've seen him in.  Normally they seem to give him the role of the action hero, and there's very little action when it comes to Cushing.  He seems to play precisely the same character in every movie and there's just not much depth there, he's this elegant, sophisticated person and that's about it.

On Cushing:
     In the Hammer Frankenstein films, Cushing's character devolves into a very evil man indeed, not merely elegant, though he does bring a sinister elegance to the picture.
     I would say that Cushing's Sherlock Holmes in "Hound of The Baskervilles" is a very different character indeed than Dr. Frankenstein.
     Here you get into the problem of ability vs. casting,which can haunt any actor.  I think that the reason you don't see much of a change in Cushing's roles is that very often he was typecast as the "elegant gentleman", but he could do a lot more than that.  I would say his Rev. Syn as the Scarecrow of Romney Marsh -- though I forget the title of the Hammer production -- was quite a change & showed he could do action.  Ditto his explorer in "The Abominable Snowman", with Forrest Tucker.
Cushing could fence with the best of them & I think his grand leap to the curtains in "Horror of Dracula" is quite athletic.  It's tempting to dismiss him as frail, given those cheekbones & his skeletal weight, but he could show quite a different side, especially in his earlier roles.
     One thing we don't see in America is Cushing's omnipresence in British Television, wherein he played Cockney toughs, illiterate thugs, fey shopowners, driven military men, and a wide variety of roles.  In film, however, not being a star, as such, he took what he was offered:  Elegant Gentlemen and Scholars.
peter cheekbone/denny slender

  Cushing's Frankenstein was the main reason that I enjoy the Hammer Frankenstein series!
 Unlike the Universal series,which was all about the Monster...(who degenerated into a mindless robot to be used and -eventually-laffed at in ABBOT and COSTELLO meet FRANKENSTEIN and the Munsters TV series)...Cushing had one thing in mind as the truly mad doctor: to create life...to become a God,even if it means taking the life of others. What better place for the 'mad' doctor to end then in an insane asylum in FRANKENSTEIN and the MONSTER from HELL-which-despite it's expliotative title, is a good movie. (For me,at least!)

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg-Le_N2TNE

The "Frankenstein" films are easily my favourite Hammer films. If I had to pick just one of them it would be a tie between Frankenstein created woman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0EQG3UMubs) and Frankenstein must be destroyed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46iOtCkBAZA)

All five pairing Peter Cushing and Terence Fisher are must see, really. The horror looks tame for today's standards, but they all are incredibly fun to watch. They've got gothic, bad makeup and, above all, great turns by Cushing as the increasingly corrupt and sleazy Dr. Frankenstein. His plans are always so extreme and convoluted that, combined with Cushing's performance, they almost make you root for him. Which probably it's what the people at Hammer wanted, as his victims are often quite idiotic.

As for Cushing's athletic qualities, he sure did look frail, but he did well enough in the Hammer films, which often called for him to be involved in brawls.