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.
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.