The Mummy [1959] (REGION 1) (NTSC)

Amazon.co.uk Review

Hammer's remake of the horror classic has been accused of falling between the simple integrity of the Karloff original and the swashbuckling, SFX romanticism of the 1998 version, but it has real strengths of its own. Principal among these is Christopher Lee, haughty and brutal as the High Priest and sorrowful, pathetic and menacing as the living mummy he has become for his crimes; his eyes convey a depth of dumb suffering and passion. Peter Cushing has rarely been so charismatic and elegant as he is in his role as the lame Egyptologist Banning, and veteran Felix Aylmer is touching as his doomed father. In the underwritten role of Banning's wife, with her strange resemblance to the dead Egyptian princess whose unearthing the Mummy is avenging, Yvonne Furneaux has at once charm and authority--she is plausibly a woman who might stop the avenging Mummy in its tracks. Terence Fisher directs with his usual efficiency and Gerard Schurmann contributes an atmospheric score, as effective in its high Egyptian pomp as in its sense of the English countryside. --Roz Kaveney

Customer Reviews:

lacking that special ingredient........2006-08-07

the mummy films have never been hammer's most successful franchise, even though this one has peter cushing and christopher lee in it.
the plot is rather vague and too little happens until about the last 25 minutes, then suddenly the film picks up.
to be fair, there are some good scenes. it somehow feels reassuring to see christopher lee have some dialogue before he becomes mummified; the music is better than i thought; peter cushing is his usual dependable self.
however, despite the fact that the 1932 version by universal has its shortcomings, that film had boris karloff to help make it a success. karloff gives THE definitive portrayal of the mummy/high priest. he easily made it his own, but christopher lee is perfectly alright.
it seemed an age before the film was made available on video and then d.v.d, but it was worth the wait.
i wouldn't place this in the "hammer classics" category, but it's still good.

Teaching Universal........2000-11-21

This is not only the best mummy movie ever made, it's also one of the finest films the Hammer studio ever gave us. Every shot in this film is like a beautiful painting, and everyone involved (cast & crew) are at their horror peak. Cushing is immaculate as always, and Lee is without comparison the ultimate bandaged one; simply the fastest and most furious mummy in movie history. A true monster classic all the way.

The Curse Of Frankenstein/Horror Of Dracula /The Mummy [1959]

Average customer rating:

CHRISTOPHER LEE'S DRACULA
Dracula (1958) (aka: 'Horror of Dracula')
Cushing vs. Lee classic!
Outstanding British adaptation of Stokers Gothic masterpiece
Hammer's best

The Curse Of Frankenstein/Horror Of Dracula /The Mummy [1959]
Starring: Peter Cushing , Christopher Lee , Yvonne Furneaux , Eddie Byrne , and Felix Aylmer
Director: Terence Fisher
Manufacturer: Warner Home Video
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

All Classics | Classics | Categories | DVD | Video

Horror & Suspense | Classics | Categories | DVD | Video

All Horror | Horror | Categories | DVD | Video

Vampires | Horror | Categories | DVD | Video

DVD | Format (binding_browse-bin) | Refinements | DVD | Video

Box Set | Format (binding_browse-bin) | Refinements | DVD | Video
Similar Items:

ASIN: B00006JY20
Release Date: 2002-10-21

Customer Reviews:

CHRISTOPHER LEE'S DRACULA.......2008-01-19

One of the GREATEST DRACULA FILMS OF ALL TIME. When this film was first released in India, in 1960, it created a SENSATION! People(particularly Keralites) had a new star. CHRISTOPHER LEE! Even now, 48 years later, the name on people's lips the moment one mentions 'DRACULA' is CHRISTOPHER LEE. Mr.Lee is the perfect Dracula. With dripping fangs and blood shot eyes, he is, in my opinion, the Dracula, Bram Stoker created. Pure Evil. No Love-lorn weepie weepie 'Count'.

Dracula (1958) (aka: 'Horror of Dracula').......2007-10-08

Dracula (1958) (aka: 'Horror of Dracula')

This is going to be a tricky one from the point of view of reconciling the fact that this film is a total bastardization of Stoker's novel, & the fact that i've loved the Hammer films since i was a kid, & along with the sequel, 'Dracula Prince of Darkness', it was the Hammer Draculas that got me into the whole thing in the first place. Although to be fair, the film only claims to be based on Bram Stoker's book, it does take some major liberties with the characters & their functions.

From the start, the film cuts straight to Jonathan Harker's arrival at Castle Dracula, with a bit of background given via narration from Harker's journal, which immediately gives away the fact that he is there for a specific purpose, with unpoken implications posed by it's grave & determined tone. All this is implicitly totally different from the character in the novel within the opening few minutes.
As Harker enters the castle, we see a domain depicted differently again. This is not a dark, dank, & decrepit place, full of cobwebs and rats, but a rather medievalesque, but well kept looking castle, boasting ornate carvings & furniture, with a huge, sturdy oak table, & a big open fire in front of which lies a big furry bear rug.
Then there enters not three, but a single 'bride of Dracula' who rather mysteriously implores Harker for help, at which point he establishes a major diversion from the novel, - He is not here to help Dracula purchase a property in England or indeed Bremmen as in 'Nosferatu', or anywhere else. Instead he's here as a librarian, employed by the Count to catalogue his library. Despite these divergences, these first few minutes are deeply atmospheric, & helped by a suitably sinister score by James Bernard, a strong sense of foreboding is established before the appearance of Dracula himself.

Dracula's entrance is one of my favourite scenes, largely because Christopher Lee gets to use that wonderfully sonorous voice of his, as he actually gets a fair bit of dialogue, rather than the just the hissing & snarling that he was usually reduced to later. I also like it because the viewer is kept guessing slightly. We see Harker's fearful face as the camera pans round until we see a tall shadowy figure at the top of the stairs. As the figure still in the shadows, descends the staircase, seemingly threateningly, to a full close up of Lee, it seems like the prelude to an attack. But instead, the Count merely offers the crisp greeting of a cordial aristocrat. There's almost a lightness of tone here which to my mind, fits perfectly with the sentence from Stoker's novel which i quoted as a comparison to Lugosi's introductory scene. This gives the character of Dracula a much more ambigious slant like Stoker's novel portrays, leaving the audience uncertain how to react, which IMO is much more effective than Lugosi's rather one dimensional villian. To my mind, though there are significant differences to the novel, everything about the film so far, has an all important flavour of 'English gothic', which captures the feel, of Stoker's work, in spite of the divergence in the details of the novel.

After Dracula has shown Harker to his room, there are yet more differences to the novel. We discover that Harker appears to be some sort of vampire slayer who's real purpose is to destroy Dracula, & his fiancee is not Mina, but Lucy. We later learn that it's not Lucy Westonrau, but Lucy Holmwood, & that Arthur Holmwood is not her suitor or husband, but her brother, who is married to Mina! I'm not really sure why Hammer felt it neccesary to change all these details of these various characters, except perhaps to make it more economic, but it still manages to maintain the correct feel to the film, which is perhaps more important. This is illustrated to great effect in Dracula's next appearance, as his 'bride' is about to bite Harker. Gone is the courtly, aristocratic Count of earlier, to be replaced by a snarling, red eyed vampire. Completely at odds with the first gentlemanly appearance of the Count, we have now seen the two sides to Dracula. Whereas Lugosi merely waves away the 'bride', the monstrous Lee throws the bride across the room in a fit of hissing rage, then half strangles Harker. The look on the Count's face as he does so, is one of sheer malevolence that totally eclipses Lugosi's portrayal, & in the first 15 minutes of the film, he is replaced by Christopher Lee in the popular imagination of Dracula for the next several decades.

When Harker awakens, he finds that he has been bitten, & resolves to destroy Dracula. Although it does seem slightly contrived that he just happens to awaken so close to the sunset. He's find the lair of Dracula & his bride, who are lying in their respective coffins, & perhaps foolisly stakes the bride first. (Why not Dracula?) Then of course the sun just happens to go down in the space of a few seconds, which always makes me grin when you think how gradual a sunset is. But i can forgive it for the sake of cinematic drama, & also because i love the scene! As we see light disappear through the tinted glass, James Bernard's music is stridently emphasising the danger, & whilst Harker's back is turned, Dracula, after we see him deliver the slightest of grins, makes his escape, only to appear at the top of the stairs to confront the terrified Harker...... I love it!

From this point on, the Hammer Dracula takes on another variant. Dracula does not travel to England, & this is a pity because i would like to've seen what Hammer would've done with the scenes aboard Dracula's 'ship of death'. Instead, the Lucy, Mina, Holmwood, etc... are living in the north east european town of Klausenberg, which not too far from the vincinity of Dracula's castle. Most of the Hammer Dracula's have a similar setting, & in a 19th Century period, which once again gives the productions that distinctly 'English Gothic' feel, that comes across as almost an allegory for Victorian England, despite the european locale. It's here that we meet the film's other principal character, Dr.Van Helsing, superbly played by the legendary Peter Cushing.
Cushing's Van Helsing is far more dynamic than any of his predecessors, or their allegorical counterparts. Like Van Helsing in the novel, he places equal importance in both the mystical, and in the scientific. Whilst he's dishing out the garlic on one hand, he's using a comtemporary dictaphone for recording his notes, which is carried over from the novel.
In another deviation from the novel, Van Helsing stakes Harker, & makes his way to his home to deliver the news to his family. It's here that we meet Arthur Holmwood, who becomes Van Helsing's somewhat unwilling assistant. Here his sister Lucy has been receiving nightly visits from Dracula, & eventually Van Helsing is called in to help, but alas he is too late to save Lucy, who convinces Gerda the housekeeper to remove the garlic that Van Helsing gave intructions to be used to protect her, But it's only after Holmwood reads Harker's diary, given to him by Van Helsing, that he starts to become convinced of his sister's fate.

This is followed by another favourite scene of mine, where the little girl Tania meets her Aunt Lucy, who is now a full vampire. This scene is a deiliciously creepy night time scene, which has an undertone of grave danger for the child, because the implication is that 'Aunt Lucy' would quite happily vampirize her own young neice. This is something that Ann Rice's work touches on even more strongly. In 'Interview With A Vampire', Kirsten Dunst plays a vampirized child, & the message is that nothing is sacred to the vampire......
Luckily for young Tania, Lucy is spotted by Holmwood, who can't believe that he's seeing his sister, & she quickly tries to turn this to her advantage, but Van Helsing intercedes holding out a cross & burning her forehead with it. Not only does Carol Marsh make an excellent job of playing the vampirized Lucy, but Cushing's look of grim determination as he advances on Lucy & eventually goes on to stake her, makes his Van Helsing wholly convincing. Only Michael Gough lets the side down slightly IMO, with his static & rather hammy portrayal of Holmwood.
Meanwhile, whilst Van Helsing & Holmwood begin to make efforts to track down Dracula, they soon discover that the cunning Count has made Mina his next intended victim.

Up to now we've seen hints of the Count's sensuality in Lee's performance, but nothing explicit. Dracula as written by Stoker did indeed have a sensual & possibly even sexual side to his nature, but as i remember, he was always portrayed as slightly abhorrent at the same time. Beguiling, but never really 'attractive'. Some people dislike the fact that Hammer went against this factor, & gave Christopher Lee's Dracula a certain sexual attraction. Lee has the combination of being quite good looking, but in a slightly demonic way, & Hammer definitely used this appeal.
When we see Dracula make his moves on Mina, this is the first time the Count is seen with these distinctly sensual/sexual overtones. Melissa Stribling who plays Mina, whilst successfully getting across Mina's fear of Dracula as he approaches her, also manages to give off a marvelously subtle sense of anticipation in her facial expressions. Lee for his part, is both malevolent & dominating, but before the Count goes for the neck, he tantalizingly plays about Mina's face. Almost, but not quite kissing her, seemingly sniffing at her skin. It's all marvelously seductive & yet at the same time, it never lose the sense of danger. I think it's a combination that works really well, even if it was never quite like that in the novel.

Mina is saved only when Van Helsing performs a blood transfusion from Holmwood, & after Van Helsing discovers Dracula's coffin in the cellar, Dracula abducts Mina & makes off back for the castle, before dawn breaks. After a frantic coach & horses chase, there's a final confrontation between Dracula & Van Helsing in the castle. Dracula of course has great strength, but the wiley Van Helsing feigns unconciousness, & so catches Dracula off guard. In a fantastic, edge of the seat climax to the film, which in striking contrast to the feeble, anti-climatic ending to the Universal production, Van Helsing launches himself across the top of the huge oak table, & as if egged on by James Bernard's dramatic music, lunges at the great curtains, tearing them down with his body weight.
As i noted in my 'Nosferatu' review, sunlight did not destroy Dracula in Stoker's novel, he was only weakend by it, but perhaps Hammer took their cue from Murnau in making sunlight deadly to Dracula. It has certainly become an ingrained part of the vampire mythos in films.
As the shaft of sunlight penetrates the room, Dracula's foot is caught, & Van Helsing forces the disabled Dracula fully into the sunlight by advancing on him with two candlesticks held together in the shape of a cross. Dracula's body collapses like a deflating balloon, & disintegrates to a fine ash in what i think is a brilliant ending to this pacy, gutsy adaptation.

Hammer would eventually follow up with several sequels, which i'll touch at some point over the next week. Whilst some of the latter sequels were getting rather poor, particularly IMO, when they tried to move Dracula out of the gothic setting & into the contemporary era, they a created a Dracula in Christopher Lee that was to become totally iconic, & is still arguably the most popular & memorable portrayal to date. Despite the fact that techinically, this first film is probably the most unfaithful of all the adapatations of Stoker's novel, It still remains my personal favourite, & there wouldn't be a contender to it's crown until another certain adaption which i adore, was made many years later. The Hammer era for me is the equivalent of the Pertwee era in terms of personal nostalgia, & you all know how much i love that! So for me, this film gets 9.5/10 based on pure enjoyability factor.

Cushing vs. Lee classic!.......2006-12-24

Far and away the best Dracula movie yet made, this is a classic piece of cinema that in my view ranks as the finest gothic horror film. If Hammer hadn't made any more Dracula movies after this one, these days it would be viewed alongside David Lean's Great Expectations as one of British cinema's great literary adaptations. Instead, it is simply remembered as the first in a series of exploitation movies that went downhill with every subsequent episode, ending with some real dreck in the early 1970s. But Fisher's film, only his second gothic horror, did justice to the story in a way that no other filmmaker has been able to repeat. It's scary, sexy, action-packed, laced with atmosphere, and shows no signs at all of the low budget it was made under. The photography is gorgeous, the sets even better, and the music just perfect. The ending, a violent piece of hand-to-hand combat between Count Dracula and his nemesis Dr Van Helsing, was unlike anything else seen in British cinema up to that point, and the special effects still impress today. But what really makes the film work are the performances of Christopher Lee and (especially) Peter Cushing in the lead roles. Lee's star-making turn here ensured his status as a cinematic villain, and has typecast him for the rest of his career. Cushing meanwhile, enjoys one of his two signature roles (the other of course being Baron Frankenstein), and he provides us with by far the strongest and most impressive Van Helsing on film. His vampire-buster is a dangerous, Christian fanatic, a celibate, lonely scientist who battles Dracula not for personal reward but because he knows he is the only man strong and wise enough to be able to do so and survive. This Van Helsing doesn't provide comfort and advice to violated women and their weak husbands; he simply gets on with the job of hunting down and destroying the vampire, and is utterly merciless in doing so.

Outstanding British adaptation of Stokers Gothic masterpiece.......2006-08-02

In the mid seventies when I was thirteen or fourteen years old I saw Dracula, or Horror Of Dracula to give it it's American title , and to this day I still think it's the best cinematic ( or televisual ) interpretation of Bram Stokers novel I have seen.....and I've seen just about all of them. Not only that it remains one of the finest vampire movies ever made and by some distance the most pre-eminent movie that the Hammer studio put its name too.
Released the year after (1958) "The Curse Of Frankenstein "Dracula was the film that really put the Hammer studio on the map and establish its place in Anglo- horror history and achieve a measure of sacrosanct nobility in the process. Though it takes liberties with Stokers novel, missing out estimable chunks of the narrative due to pacing issues and more pertinently budgetary concerns (There is no Renfield or the asylum and no landing at Whitby alas) it ostensibly remains true to the source. It also undermines classical vampire mythology by limiting Dracula's supernatural powers. Van Helsing asserts at one point "it's a common fallacy that vampires can change into bats and wolves"
What made Dracula such a shock to fifties audiences, apart from the use of colour and more liberal use of gore, was directors Terence Fishers savy perception of the novels sexual undertones something he utilises in the film, portraying the Count as an irresistible sexual predator laviciously plundering virginal heroines who even though they are subconsciously repulsed by his advances are erotically charged by his ministrations. This was played more explicitly in the Francis Ford Coppola version of Dracula and was one of that films real successes, the image of Sadie Frost as Lucy glorying in her rampant libidinous femininity is one of the films most memorable along with its stylistic flourishes.
However that modern adaptation lacks one vital element - truly memorable performances - and in this film we have two. Most significantly 6 foot five Christopher Lee with a mesmerising performance as Dracula. From an austere nobleman demonstrating suppressed power and grace to a snarling feral monster with bared fangs and blood red eyes Lee is unsurpassed as a screen Dracula. To audiences used to Bela Lugosi, s hammy stiff turn as The Count Lee must have been a revelation and once again it's down to Fishers perspicacity, the director stripping the story of its unyielding theatricality and gothic romanticism and making a lean hard thriller, but vitally retaining the stories core and the elements of fear and portentous atmosphere. Its not subtle and who knows if the budget had been greater( The film nearly ran out of money ) Fisher may have made a more faithful version but what Fisher put on the screen belies the lack of money.
Peter Cushing portrays Van Helsing as a man of science as much as a man of superstition or religious persuasion and strips him of the eccentricities later depictions would rely on but his steely authority and resolute intelligence shine through and though Cushing is no action hero he proves himself adept enough for the films memorable climax, which Cushing himself suggested, using the term "doing a bit of a Douglas Fairbanks". Michael Gough later to play Batman's butler Alfred provides great support as the bewildered Arthur Holmwood. The film lacks a truly convincing Mina but Melissa Stribling is still superior to Winona Ryder from the 1992 version. And of course there is no Keanu Reeves as Jonathon Harker to drag the films credibility down.
A series of ever diminishing sequels followed with Lee, the films greatest asset, becoming an increasingly marginalized figure. Nothing however can diminish the fact that this is a landmark movie. Taking the horror genre on from the Universal films of the 1930,s and imbibing it with more contemporary gloss and velocity. The script by Jimmy Sangster is pared down but still lyrical and the lighting and sets are first rate. A truly great horror film, Horror Of Dracula will always be in my top ten of that particular genus. It revitalised the British film industry and breathed empowering fetid breath into the undead in more ways than one.

Hammer's best.......2006-02-14

This is the greatest Hammer film ever made. Starring the two mainstays of British Horror Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.
Terence Fisher (the best Hammer director) directs with style and James Bernard produced a score that would be used in variations by many Hammer films over the years. For any musicians out there the chord Bernard uses to signal Dracula's presence is an augmented chord...

Christopher Lee is magnificent as Count Dracula. Bela Lugosi may have starred in the role first but Lee is vastly superior in every respect: He has more screen presence (helped by being 6' 5"), is better looking and most crucially unlike Lugosi he can act.
As Van Helsing Peter Cushing is mesmerising. Whether he is carrying out a blood transfusion or dictating into an early phonograph recorder, the script is delivered with absolute conviction. I always end up believing vampires exist after watching this film!

The ending to this film is perhaps the single greatest moment in the entire history of Hammer films. While the special effects look dated now the realisation of the ending is just a great piece of film making.

Average customer rating:

Mummy dearest
Make supple the limbs
One of the best mummy movies ever
Highly recommended - classic Brit horror!

The Mummy [1959]
Starring: Peter Cushing , Christopher Lee , Yvonne Furneaux , and Felix Aylmer
Director: Terence Fisher
Manufacturer: Warner Home Video
ProductGroup: DVD
Binding: DVD

All Classics | Classics | Categories | DVD | Video

Horror & Suspense | Classics | Categories | DVD | Video

All Horror | Horror | Categories | DVD | Video

DVD | Format (binding_browse-bin) | Refinements | DVD | Video
Similar Items:

ASIN: B0002VF5LG
Release Date: 2004-10-11

Customer Reviews:

Mummy dearest.......2006-02-13

There are been many mummy’s over the years; they change their names. Some with one arm, some with two. Some talk some do not. Some are wet, some are dry. Some use Tanna leaves some do not. They all like cute young girls.

However by far the one the version that all others are gagged by is this one.

The tomb of Im-ho-tep is found. In the tomb is a box that you can not resist opening even when you are warned by a curse. Yep it has the Scroll of Thoth. Long before Viagra this scroll can bring the dead to life. So what ever you do don’t mouth the words. Oops too late. Frank Whemple (David Manners) could not read silently and you know who went for a little walk.

10 years later Ardath Bey (Boris Karloff), who could use a little moister lotion, shows the English archeologists where to dig up Im-ho-tep’s girl, Princess Anckesen-Amon. Then the fun begins.

Personaly I do not think Helen Grosvenor/Princess Anckesen-Amon (Zita Johann) looks a bit Egyptian. Then again nether does Im-ho-tep.

Make supple the limbs.......2006-02-03

In the world of horror, the mummy sits right next to vampires and werewolves -- creepy supernatural things that can rip you to bits.

And they are rarely scarier than they are in "The Mummy," a classic horror movie with no blood, no gore, not even any curses. Yet this is creepier -- and more frightening -- than any dozen fright flicks from Hollywood now. Of course, having Christopher Lee lurching through locked doors helps.

A pair of archaeologists uncover the tomb of Egyptian Princess Ananka, but once inside, Stephen Banning (Felix Aylmer) collapses into gibbering madness. Three years later, a mysterious box arrives in England, at the same time that Banning tells his son John (Peter Cushing) that something is coming to kill him. He's found strangled in a padded cell.

It turns out that Stephen was murdered by a "living mummy," a disgraced priest who was buried alive in Ananka's tomb to protect his beloved. Now a zealot has brought the mummy to England, and is using it to kill off anyone who dared go into the tomb. Now John must stop them both, using his wife's resemble to Ananka...

"The Mummy" got a big-budget, low-talent remake in the late 90s, which shares a few things with this movie, but the Hammer Horror version is probably the most memorable and well-made. Partly that is due to the hulking, silent, menacing mummy, and partly due to solid scripting and some very good acting.

Okay, the Egyptian sets are hokey, and the Hammer people had little knowledge of ancient Egypt ("Karnak" is a place, not a god). But the film blossoms as it gets back to England, full of misty bogs and dark country mansions. It's an unlikely spot for a 4000-year-old Egyptian to wreak havoc, but it works surprisingly well.

The script injects a poignancy to the mummy's story, since he suffered a fate worse than death for love, and even now gets all mushy over a woman who looks like Ananka. At the same time, he's also a ruthless killer who strangles his victims without batting an eye.

Cushing plays the role, again, of a man who battles the forces of evil, no matter how bizarre or out-there they may be. And he does a solid job. Lee is outstanding, especially considering that his head is covered in papier-mache. The change of expression whenever he sees Isobel, a dead ringer for Ananka, is magnificently poignant.

"The Mummy" remains one of Hammer Horror's best films, with its solid acting and taut direction. Still creepy after all these years.

One of the best mummy movies ever.......2005-06-03

This is one of the best of the Hammer Horror mummy movies which stars Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee in the title role. Lee gives one of his best fine screen performances as Kharis the mummy who is trying to revive his lost love the Princess Ananka with the scroll of life.

Highly recommended - classic Brit horror!.......2005-01-20

Put simply this is a true British horror gem.

'The Mummy' formed part of a classic monster 'trilogy' along with 'The Curse of Frankenstein' (utterly recommended...GO BUY!) and 'Dracula' - all of which featured the archetypal pairing of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Here Christopher Lee plays Kharis - an Egyptian priest who, through his wrongdoings, becomes mummified and is resurrected to kill those who have despoiled the ancient resting place of the Princess Ananka. The film moves along at a leisurely place and doesn't contain any ambiguity as such - it's just not-so-clean and not-so-wholesome horror-fun. Granted - it has aged in many ways yet the special effects of the Lee's 'Mummy' itself are still impressive. It's great to see him burst through doors and windows in a menacing fashion! In some ways it looks like the film was made some time after 1959.

DVD:

DVD List

DVD