Is it good & scary?


Is it good & scary?

"It's a good thing!"--Martha Stewart

reply

[deleted]

by callumr444 » 2 hours ago (Mon Jul 13 2015 11:00:03)
IMDb member since July 2013
No it's boring until the last five minutes.


Sounds like you disliked the movie. 

I don't think I've ever seen this one.

That's disappointing it's boring.

reply

Even though this movie has mild horror content, I reckon it's a decent film to watch. There are some really good sinister-looking Egyptian characters in this, especially the fortune-teller and her son.

reply

Old thread but I will go ahead and revive it -- it's not scary at all!

Nothing happens in terms of the actual mummy coming alive, for the first 51 minutes, which is a long time to wait for the "mummy action."

A very disappointing watch I would say; goes to show that not all the Hammer films are top-notch entertainment.

reply

It's not as good as the previous installment, "The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb" (1964), but it's a decent, if predictable, mummy flick from the mid-60's featuring the usual staples.

Human interest is wisely supplied with the conflict between the noble son (David Buck) and arrogant father (John Phillips), not to mention the wife’s lowkey frustrations (Elizabeth Sellars). The wife and son both understandably disrespect the husband/father, who constantly barks orders and seeks glory he hasn’t earned. Paul naturally looks up to his honorable mentor (André Morell). There’s also some sinister-looking Egyptian characters, like the fortune-teller (Catherine Lacey) and her son.

Movies like this obviously influenced the slasher genre a dozen years later. The mummy-creature is very similar to the unstoppable malevolence of Michael Myers or Jason. Slashers just changed the milieu to a cabin-in-the-woods or whatever and switched the victims to youths, plus upped the ante in the gore department.

Anyway, those who liked Hammer's "She" (1965) should appreciate this one since they're similar. I think "The Mummy's Shroud" is superior.

reply