Pharaoh's Curse

I saw this film when I was just a little kid. I saw it close to the time that I saw "Curse of the Demon," and thoughout my life I always wondered if these two films were real films or some kind of nightmare I remembered that I just thought were movies. I found "Curse of The Demon" a few years ago for sale, and I was able to record "Curse of the Pharaoh" about a year ago when it was shown uncut and without commercial breaks on the Tele.

Now, as a grownup, I have a little of a hard time finding just what scared me so awfully much in "Curse of the Pharaoh." I guess I was very young at the time. However, I still rate the film as better than most others rate it and have watched it about four times since I recorded it. That compares with many of the new films on DVD that I have watched on once after purchasing them. Perhaps it is just that I remember it as such a good film from when I was little, but I still enjoy it today. Many of the early "classic" horror films are not as scary as it is, and they certainly move even slower. I feel that the audience for a good mummy film was not there when it was released back in the late 50's.

In closing, I can truthfully say that I enjoy an average horror film much more than an average film of any other genre. I can spend a whole evening watching horror and mystery movies. How weird?

I always find it a bit tricky to really be critical of older films. There's so much in them that may have perfectly fit that era that just don't work now. I don't even mean social or political issues so much as things like writing, acting, cinematography and plotting.

In the case of the Pharaoh's Curse, I think it does some things really well, like jumping right to things rather than having to spend a lot of time on pointless talking. It's so campy and cheesy though that it's hard to take seriously.

With something like this, I'm going with my gut and when the credits rolled I wasn't upset for watching it but it wasn't exactly a great time either. It's more fascinating just because of its age than the film itself, I think but it's not a bad watch. This is really only a movie for people that enjoy old cinema and movie buffs. There's nothing really exceptional here to make it worth the average viewer's time.

First up, the only reason I am writing this review is I fear the low rating the movie has will drive some viewers away. A 4.2 rating implies junk and that is not the case at all.

The opening sequence showing the civil unrest in Egypt is well done and gives a nice back drop to the ensuing story. I won't repeat the synopsis which many have covered, except to say it is a little different, which is welcomed. The leads, particularly Mark Dana were quite good and earnest in their performances. The film manages to build suspense nicely and the short run time is probably a help.

The negatives are it doesn't have the glitz of a Hammer flick and there is zero gore that modern horror fans require. Also the Mummy is not in the film at all during the first half of the picture. This is no masterpiece by any means, but it is a well made low budget monster movie from the 1950's. If you love old B movies from the 1950's then this is a nice way to spend 75 minutes.

Pharaoh's Curse (1957)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Disappointing horror film about a group of American scientist who find the tomb of Pharaoh. Of course, there are warnings not to open it but they do and this causes one member of their party to age rapidly into a mummy like creature. The film runs just 66-minutes but it feels like much longer. The mummy creature doesn't show up until after the forty-minute mark and none of the human characters are too interesting. The best scene in the movie is where the mummy gets his arm ripped off. The make up of the creature is also quite nice but I'm not sure those two things are worthy enough for you to search this film out.

Archaeologists in Egypt find one of their crew has been turned into a blood sucking mummy after they have unleashed a three thousand year curse by entering a Pharaoh's tomb.

The only person I know from this film is Les Baxter, who conducted the score. Not sure if that means anything... maybe these people were better known in the 1950s, or maybe they are all amateurs. I suppose I could check.

I expected, based on the plot, for this to be a ripoff of "The Mummy". Not so. While it does have a mummy's tomb, that is just about the only connection. Hammer films featuring mummies are more like "The Mummy" than this film is. (And, I should point out, this film is shot very crisp and acted fairly well... that it gets low ratings and is largely unknown seems unfortunate.)