Highly Overrated But Still Good

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Blistering performances.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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 LeonThe Bad:Muddled storyThings I Learnt From This Movie:I get the impression Valerie Leon would be a big big star right now if she were this age

At the exact moment that Egyptologist Professor Fuchs (Andrew Keir) and party are opening the tomb of the Egyptian Queen of the Darkness, Tara, Fuchs' daughter is born dead in a London hospital. The two events are connected as Tara's spirit enters young Margaret Fuchs (Valerie Leon) and bring her back to life. Unaware of their connection, Margaret grows up to be the spitting image of Tara. Nearing her 21st (?) birthday, Margaret begins having unsettling dreams of Tara. Thus begins Tara's resurrection. To complete the transformation, Margaret/Tara must collect the artifacts from her tomb that are now in the possession of Professor Fuchs' colleagues who assisted in the original expedition. Collecting the objects will lead to a trail of bloody bodies, each with its throat ripped out.Writing that poorly worded plot synopsis was much more difficult that it should have been. The problem is that the plot in Blood from the Mummy's Tomb is a mess of ideas going in several different directions. It's entertaining, but it is admittedly a mess. I quite enjoy the story, but as I've written before, I'm a sucker for Egyptian mumbo- jumbo. Throw in some hokum about an evil queen, possessed artifacts, stars aligning in just the right way, and a traveling, disembodied hand and I'll eat it up. So, despite the many flaws in the plot, none of it really matters to me as I always have great fun watching Blood from the Mummy's Tomb. Watching the film last night for the first time in about 10 years, I realized I had forgotten much about the plot and really most everything else. One thing I hadn't forgotten was Valerie Leon. I defy anyone to watch this movie and not remember Ms Leon. I realize she wasn't hired for her acting ability, but she isn't all that bad. She may be a bit wooden in some scenes, but at worst, she's always watchable. I know Hammer used young women like Ms Leon, but at least Hammer provided her and others the opportunity to star in film. Hammer gave actresses like Ms Leon, Yutte Stensgaard, and Jennifer Daniel a chance for a role with some meat to it. None will be remembered as award caliber actresses, but all are memorable to fans in the various Hammer films/roles.Beyond Ms Leon, the rest of the cast is surprisingly strong. Andrew Keir was a real pro and is quite good as Professor Fuchs. James Villers, as the scheming Corbeck, is a scene-stealer. He's one part smarmy and one part evil. An entertaining combination. The rest of the cast is solid with Aubrey Morris, George Coulouris, and Mark Edwards giving memorable performances. To summarize, Blood from the Mummy's Tomb features a messy but very fun story, the memorable Valerie Leon, and a solid supporting cast. I'm keeping the 7/10 rating I gave it 10 years ago.

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.

To quote "South Park", when the film begins it's obvious that the film will feature lots of "awesome boobage", as the film seems to VERY prominently display the very well-endowed ladies in the film--though there is no actual nudity. In a way, they are sort of the co-stars in "Blood From a Mummy's Tomb"! This AIN'T the sort of film grandpa used to watch back in the good ol' days of Boris Karloff! Archeologists discover a queen buried in an ancient Egyptian tomb. Oddly, she was neither skeletal nor mummified, but looks as if she's still alive--all regaled like an Egyptian queen. It gets weirder when they see a severed hand and the stump on the body begins to bleed! Pretty weird, but weirder still, the expedition's leader's wife has a baby at the exact moment the tomb is opened and the baby grows up to be an exact duplicate of the dead woman. Later, you realize it has the dead woman's soul as well, as it goes about do bad things...very bad things indeed.If you are looking for mummies, the film, despite the title, has none. Instead, an incredibly voluptuous lady who kills along with the help of a weirdo who LIKES the idea of her running amok! Frankly, this film is an excellent example for why Hammer Films was having financial problems by the 1970s--their horror films were becoming rather bereft of ideas. This film is a far cry from the studio's original mummy film (which was awfully good) or the Frankenstein and Dracula films. Few, if any chills here--just lots of awesome boobage and a rather silly story. I give the story a 2 and Miss Leon's boobage a 9 or 10.By the way, in the final scene, look closely at the queen's teeth. you can clearly see modern fillings in them! Not bad for an ancient Egyptian!