Blood from the Mummy's Tomb

The first thing I noticed when watching this movie is the gaping distance between this and the horror movies of today. There are two glaringly obvious differences.

Firstly: Scope. This film takes you to Egypt and the tombs of the Pharaohs where we see the Queen being interred in her tomb and the rights the priest's carry out, along with the beginnings of her curse. We then move to England where the action continues between three different locations. In modern horror films, the story usually takes place in one location in one time period.

Secondly: Story. There's more going off in this film than most of today's horror. I know this is based on an actual novel where most of the modern films are based on the director's ideas. The end product can also suffer from budgetary issues which may restrict them to one location and hence hinder the story.

The other differences are acting talent and direction. I have to admit that Hammer used to get some pretty top notch actors in their films. Even the bit-parts are covered by a better-than-average cast and this is the case in this film. Due to that fact, this is a highly enjoyable and believable story that I found myself fully immersed in. It also didn't hurt that Valerie Leon is one of the most beautiful actresses on the planet and does a great job in the lead role as Margaret Fuchs and the Egyptian Queen Tera. Along with Andre Keir, who people from Dr Who: Dalek's Invasion Earth 2150AD and Quatermass and the Pit, and James Villiers this is a strong cast.

As for the directing, it was an absolute blessing not to see shaky cam. I do wish that more directors would invest in fixed and smooth-moving camera mounts. I remember there being some negative input for the Evil- Deads shaky cam through the woods - now that is some of the smoothest camera work when compared to today's efforts. Also, all the scenes are watchable in daylight. Dark scenes are lit and visible, with the director using lighting to build mood and atmosphere; the viewer doesn't have to turn off any lighting even ambient just to make out what's happening - just because a scene is shot in total darkness doesn't make it scary. There's also no grey filters, which are so overused today, everything is shot in glorious colour. This actually helps the film as it doesn't make the audience depressed and sad.

Though the special effects are outdated by today's standards they are few, as the director uses the story and the atmosphere to build up the tension, suspense, and horror. Though the effects that are used are passable. I did love the severed hand - you can't beat a good severed hand - and the constantly bleeding stub its decapitation left behind.

This is one truly lush and lavish, well shot and acted horror film which still has strength in today's horror market. I would recommend everybody to watch this film as it's one of the best Hammer released. I would even watch this one again... and probably sooner rather than later.

It's been many years since I read Bram Stoker's 1903 novel "The Jewel of Seven Stars," but what I mainly recollect is a feeling of great disappointment; the book is all buildup, with very little in the way of payoff. The 1971 Hammer filmization, renamed "Blood From the Mummy's Tomb," can be accused of the same unfortunate misdemeanor, but still has much to offer. It tells the tale of Tera, an ancient Egyptian sorceress who had been executed back when, had her hand dismembered and her body encased in a tomb. Centuries later, that tomb is discovered by a researcher named Fuchs, whose daughter is the very image of the priestess. It would seem that Tera is about to be finally reincarnated.... Taking place in an indeterminate year (the clothing and furnishings are modern, yet the automobiles are vintage), "Blood From" boasts some mild gross-out FX (that severed hand, and Tera's many throat rippings), an interesting enough story, adequate sets and--typical for a Hammer film--fine acting from its second-tier cast. In her dual role as the "slumbering" Tera and Fuchs' possessed daughter, Margaret, actress Valerie Leon literally stands out in this cast. A stunning-looking woman even today, her, um, mUmmarian protuberances are amply brought to the fore here in any number of negligees and low-cut gowns. As Tera, she is found completely unswathed; I suppose even the ancient Egyptian priests felt that her body was too impressive to be kept under wraps! In any event, Valerie's presence is reason enough to give this film a recommendation. The film's story line presents some unanswered questions (Just how does the Corbeck character plan to control Tera once she "awakens," for instance? And that ambiguous ending is anybody's guess!), but I must say that I enjoyed this film more on a repeat viewing, with lowered expectations. It's a fun latter-day Hammer flick, shown to good advantage on this great-looking Anchor Bay DVD.

This is by a long way the best of the three adaptations so far of Bram Stoker's complex and disturbing novel of an Egyptologist's obsessive desire to revive an evil ancient Egyptian queen. (The novel was so worrying in 1903 that the ending was changed for the second edition: this movie keeps mainly to the original ending.) The cast ranges from competent to quite good, with the Queen/daughter suitably seductive but unreadable. The appearance is handsomely and oppressively Edwardian - the ancient Egyptian is rather silly - and the direction firm. Try this as a better taste of Stoker's obsessive psychological horror than any of the versions of "Dracula" except the long British TV adaptation.

As almost always was the case with Hammer, this is a rather studiobound, but still lavish-looking movie (shot by the always reliable Arthur Grant who had almost a midas-touch when it came to cinematography), despite it's low budget. You also get a long list of old pros like Andrew Keir and Rosalie Crutchley in important parts plus the sultry charms of Valerie Leon, former model and star of british sex-comedys. She is not the greatest actress in the world but does a very competent job with her part, managing the sudden moodswings convincingly. The story is based on a lesser-known Bram 'Dracula' Stoker novel, filmed two more times ('The Awakening' is big-budget but does nothing with all those bucks, just manages to be mostly boring even in the murder-scenes). It does not feature the usual, gauze-wrapped, mummy but it is instead a tale of possession. It is maybe a bit talky in places, but the atmosphere is always right and menacing. Main director Seth Holt died during the last days of shooting so producer Michael Carreras had to do the scenes in the asylum and they are among the most impressive. Horrormovie-fans today will probably find this movie incredibly old-fashioned, but if you are tired of the hundreth film about Jason, Freddy or your average neighborhood slasher, give this a second glance.

Blood from the Mummy's Tomb is the 4th and final movie from Hammer Horrors "The Mummy" franchise and stands out from the rest due to the distinct lack of erm....a mummy!

The plot is a bit of a mess but the creators do a competent enough job of making the best of it and to their credit it comes off passable.

Starring the alarmingly beautiful Valerie Leon it barely feels like a mummy movie at all.

With the questionable storyline, the baffling ending and some seriously hokey performances it's sad to see a franchise end on such a note.

It however is not bad, it's just unusual, unexpected and an odd choice.

Passable Hammer Horror effort, but more of a standalone film than the rest of The Mummy franchise.

The Good:

Valerie Leon

The Bad:

Muddled story

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

I get the impression Valerie Leon would be a big big star right now if she were this age