MisterWhiplash Terence Fisher may not be that slam-bang action type of filmmaker that modern audiences might be used to know with blockbusters (such as decent ones like the 1999 Mummy, or bad ones like the 2017 Mummy), but he was an ideal choice for these color-filmed, handsomely mounted though modestly budgeted horror films from Hammer in the 50's. Following his great success on Dracula, it stood to reason he should do the Mummy, and what he came up with was at times creepy - and, I imagine if you saw this as a kid or decide to show this to small children, scary at points, like when the Mummy crashes through the window into the padded room at the asylum - and deliberately paced. In other words, it moves a little slow, but that's not to the detriment of the film; it's more your problem than the movie's if you find yourself frustrated, and unlike even the 32 Mummy, this doesn't lack a good many memorable sequences and visuals (the 32 Mummy did have some, but not enough).In this you also get of course Cushing and Lee, and I really liked their physicality in the movie. Cushing's character, the son of an archaeologist that has a history with the red-fez wearing Master-of- the-Mummy in this story, is hobbled with a bad leg, and this isn't just something that the writers give Cushing for as some crutch, no pun intended. Instead this ends up becoming important when the Mummy comes in ready to strangle people, and seeing Cushing moving about, whether it's in an action-y moment or otherwise, is fascinating in how he puts his body into things, as any good actor should. Lee, too, is thoughtful in what is a character with no spoken lines (if Lee does speak, I don't remember it, and I just watched the film), and he is remarkable perhaps due to limitations with his costume or injuries on set or what have you, and he makes him as memorable as the Karloff Mummy; you feel his presence in a room and his eyes do a lot of good work as well.There is a point midway through the film when Cushing reads from the history of this Karras character from thousands of years prior in Egypt when everything went down, and this is the one part of the movie that dragged for me. it's not to any major detriment of the film, but it's the one time I felt Fisher's style, which I otherwise loved in the film (i.e. that scene where the casket falls off the wagon, falls in the mud pond, and then when the character comes over later to say the things that make Karras come out of the ground, beautiful), start to get a little long. But this is a minor complaint in what is otherwise the best of the Mummy movies; it has a strong musical score, the acting is quality (yes, even the typical types you get in Hammer movies like the local British drunks at the bar), and the ending is almost bordering on tragic if you think about how this character has been depicted (the Mummy is the horror movie icon that doesn't have his own agency, or at least as much as the others).

Nick Duguay A masterfully crafted classic in every sense of the word, my only complaints are that there is so much time given to the 'legend' backstory when it really adds no enjoyment to the plot of the present day and simply seems like filler; also that protagonist's wife was introduced so randomly in the middle of the film. The mummy looks absolutely amazing.

Squrpleboy The Hammer horror films of the '50's - '70's hold a special place in the hearts of those who love the classic genre, but the reality is that they truly are outdone by the original Universal Pictures predecessors in every way.With this version of The Mummy (1959) we are treated to a "re-imagining" of the story of the eerie, and macabre love story of an ancient Egyptian priest who will sacrifice everything for the forbidden woman of his desires, ultimately becoming the undead creature that is the (movie) Mummy. As it happens, it is a fairly mundane and hackneyed plot that has seen itself used many times before and since with one "monster" or another transposed in the lead villain role. This is the just first sign of a studio looking for a quick buck, in my opinion.Where the film succeeds is in the wonderful sets and vibrant, Technicolor film process. Artifacts from ancient Egypt look real, the swamps dank and dreary, the interiors and costuming are wonderful with everything popping for the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the main character's performance or physical image.Christopher Lee's portrayal of the Mummy flat out stinks. It's nice to know that by the time he was making films with Lucas, Burton and Jackson he had attained that level of consummate and revered acting, but he certainly did not have it here. Putting aside the fact that he had several mishaps and accidents on the set of this film which "supposedly" impeded his performance I don't buy that that is what you are seeing in this film; he was hired for his menacing height and little else. His movements come off not only as awkward but laughable at times, his make-up leaves almost no room for emoting and even his eyes seem to emit little of the inner turmoil he is supposed to be going through. (Yes, he has to be somewhat stiff and undead but let's be honest here, really.) This is the director's fault; you shoot scenes until you have something believable, not just to get them "in the can". Peter Cushing gives his usual, reserved and genuine performance, but the Mummy's role itself is a mess.The worst part of the whole thing is that the Mummy costume and make-up are just terrible. Whereas the make-up used on Boris Karloff in the original The Mummy (1932) still holds up even by today's standards for authenticity, ghoulishness and wonderment, Christopher Lee's character is given something that looks like a kid smeared a concoction of mud-pie and plaster over his head. The details are negated and lost in rudimentary form. The bandages that should have wrapped his body for 4000 years are quite obviously a dirt-covered body-suit all fitting comfortably into separate legs, torso and arm pieces ---- you can even see a zipper-seam in the back! Preposterous.This version of The Mummy will remain a "classic" by default, whether for time-won nostalgia or the simple love of the title character amongst the pantheon of old-time movie monsters, in general. Having seen it though, I can't recommend it or re-watch it knowing there have been superior versions both before and since.

Lucabrasisleeps I am not so satisfied. Personally I thought some of the corny Egyptian stuff fell pretty flat for me. I think Hammer films are more at home when dealing with British style vampire flicks or other thrillers. Not some movie about a mummy. Christopher Lee doesn't have many lines but that is fine. I agree that he is suited for this role because of his height. But the corny Egyptian rituals and the scenes towards the end were a little irritating for me. Again and again, Peter cushing's character is close to death and finally because of some ridiculous likeness, he gets away. It got a little stupid towards the end because of these factors. And how did the mummy die anyway? I thought he couldn't die? He was shot at close range by the protagonist previously. George Pastell as Mehemet was also quite annoying. There are long scenes with rituals and descriptions which we could do without. Sure that is important for the story but the scenes themselves made me cringe. So cheesy. I think maybe my greatest problem was with the concept itself of mummy coming to life or whatever. It may be done better if they had a bigger budget or whatever. There are some atmospheric scenes like the scene when Kharis comes out of the swamp. For that I need to give it credit but overall I was unsatisfied. It didn't bore me though so that is a positive aspect.5/10