Prehistoric Women AKA Slave Girls (1967)

A lame outing from Hammer that not only revisits the well they have been to on more than one previous occasion (with the likes of She and One Million Years B.C.) but crams the material into the kind of story any young pre-teenage boy could have written. Though they would have included some actual dinosaurs to add excitement.

The ridiculous plot sees a jungle guide (played by the bland Michael Latimer) seized by a tribe and readied for sacrifice to some white rhinoceros god. As things are about to get very, very bleak for the man it's fortunate that he instead ends up randomly transported through time to an age when one woman ruled all and men were their slaves. The woman, played by the beautiful Martine Beswick, stays in control while her maltreated subjects (including Edith Ronay) start to hatch a planned revolt.

Michael Carreras directs with no enthusiasm for his own, lame script and the only redeeming thing that the movie has to offer is the sight of fine women in fur bikinis. Yes, it's a completely shallow way of looking at the film but, believe me, it's also the best way. Beswick and Ronay certainly give more to the material than it deserves.

It's not dull, and there are a couple of surprisingly passionate tribal dance sequences, but it's really not worth bothering about unless you're a Hammer completist or a fan of the women on screen (and poor, sad wretch that I am . . . . I like to think of myself as both).

5/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Ultimate-Hammer-Collection-Disc/dp/B000HN31KQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377860664&sr=8-1&keywords=hammer+box+set

One Million Years B.C. (1966)

Take the eye-popping dinosaurs from Jurassic Park, add the violent apes from 2001: A Space Odyssey, throw in some tribal dancing from Apocalypto, narration from any BBC nature show and then add a pinch of symbolism with water being a portent for imminent danger and what do you get? Certainly not this film, although it does contain some of the aforementioned elements. That doesn't mean it isn't fun though.

This remake (and I haven't seen the original, a movie entitled The Cave Dwellers from 1940, so cannot compare - I didn't even know about it until checking out the details here) tells the tale of two brothers, both cavemen (so they have thick hair and beards, as does almost everyone else in the entire movie), who fight and grunt and generally get on each other's nerves as brothers do. When one meets another tribe he begins to discover new ways to handle situations and perhaps even a better way to deal with his own tribe. And dinosaurs fight each other or pick up some puny humans for dinner while people run around in fur pants or bikinis. That sums up the movie, basically.

There's also a love interest in the form of Raquel Welch, who is indeed beautiful (and absolutely iconic in that, arguably, most famous of movie posters), but I personally prefer the gorgeous Martine Beswick and hope other fans appreciate the charms of that woman. It's just a shame that director Don Chaffey and screenwriter Michael Carreras forgot to make an excuse to include any snoo snoo (Futurama fans should get that reference).

Poor John Richardson and Percy Herbert (who play the brothers, Tumak and Sakana, respectively), they must have known when they signed on for this film that they were going to be forgotten as soon as Welch and Beswick were onscreen.

So, you have a love interest, brotherly rivalry, peer pressure and dinosaurs. Nothing too impressive . . . . . but wait! Fans will be delighted to know that the dinosaur action is mainly provided by stop-motion legend Ray Harryhausen (though some are just provided by some trick photography) and very good they are too. It's not his finest hour but there are certainly enough little scenes in here to please those, like myself, who have always had a great affection for his work. It may be harder to appreciate in this age of such rapid technological advancement but it still retains a certain charm and care that, much of the time, a bunch of pixels can never replicate.

It's a lesser Hammer movie, but certainly not amongst the worst, and many people who grew up with the advertising imagery may well find they have an affection for the movie that has lain dormant until you end up seeing it once more, preferably on a big screen and with an understanding partner who will bravely model some fur garments afterwards.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Ultimate-Hammer-Collection-Disc/dp/B000HN31KQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369586652&sr=8-1&keywords=hammer+films

Blood From The Mummy's Tomb (1971)

Directed, with a distinct lack of flair, by Seth Holt (who died before shooting was completed so I will say no more as I don't want a bad reputation for speaking ill of the dead - some scenes in the film were shot by producer Michael Carreras), this is a bland Hammer movie trying to pretend it's something more exciting than it actually is. No, I was not expecting a bandaged, shambling figure to be centre stage here but I WAS expecting something with a bit of mystery and suspense.

The plot is all about lovely Margaret Fuchs (the beautiful Valerie Leon, not a great actress though), the daughter of Prof. Julian Fuchs (Andrew Keir, the man who stepped in after Peter Cushing had to leave the movie). Many years ago, the professor went on an expedition to Egypt and uncovered the tomb of Queen Tera, a woman interred after the removal of one hand. It was at the exact moment that Tera's name was spoken that his daughter was born and it has become more and more apparent over the years that the two are somehow linked. When the time is right, with thanks to her dad carelessly giving her a big ring found in Egypt, Margaret is possessed by the spirit of Queen Tera (you can tell because of the thin line of blood that starts appearing at her wrist) and seeks out the expedition members. She wants to reclaim the relics that were found in her tomb and to bring herself fully back to life.

There's really not a lot to be said about this film without turning things into some written form of monotone. It's as bland as bland can be. The acting is so-so; Keir is solid, Leon is not, James Villiers is good fun as a shady figure who knows what's going on, Hugh Burden is not given much to do except a little overreaction to get people's attention and Mark Edwards is just the standard class A ineffectual boyfriend. Nobody is memorable anyway.

The story is nothing new, especially to fans of any Mummy movies, and it's development is pretty clumsy and obvious. You know from the very first scenes exactly what is going to happen here, no subtlety or attempt to raise tension is used at all. I have no idea how close the script by Christopher Wicking is to the source material (The Jewel Of Seven Stars by Bram Stoker) but I'm going to assume that it's not half as faithful as it could be. Although it does show the seven featured stars on a few occasions.

Then we have the horror and scenes of bloodletting . . . . . . which count for nothing. There IS no horror here, nothing to instill fear in even the most sensitive of viewers and the death scenes are all shot without actually showing you anything that could provide some technicoloured entertainment. It's one of those many horror movies with a trailer promising so much and delivering so little. Nothing lurid, livid or lively here and it practically defines the word "insipid".

A disappointing Hammer movie, that at least features the lovely Leon as eye candy and has some nice moments of drama dotted there and there, and a disappointing Mummy movie. There is some appeal here for less discerning viewers, like myself, but it's extremely limited.

5/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-From-Mummys-Tomb-DVD/dp/B000KRMZCE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352930202&sr=8-1

The Curse Of The Mummy's Tomb (1964)

As mentioned in my review of The Mummy, I'm not a big fan of mummy movies. So the fact that I enjoyed that film and, to a lesser extent, this one too should bode well for those who like to see their bad boogeymen shuffling around while swathed in bandages.

Michael Carreras directs, and writes, this time around and the first half of the movie is very familiar territory. A tomb is opened, treasures are removed and deaths start to occur. The second half brings in one fresh idea but by then all the fun is to be had watching the mummy go about its business anyway (and I, for one, thought that this particular mummy had a great look to it . . . . . in as much as a mummy CAN look good).

The cast are a real mixed bag. Ronald Howard is the standard Hammer hero, a solid gentleman always ready to help a damsel in distress in between his academic pursuits. Terence Morgan is smooth as Adam Beauchamp, Jack Gwillim is okay in the first half of the movie but doesn't really convince in the latter half as his character becomes a bit of a drunkard, Fred Clark is great fun as an American entrepreneur wanting to make big money from the discoveries and George Pastell plays a character very similar, superficially, to the one he played in The Mummy. And Michael Ripper pops up, too. Oh, then there's Jeanne Roland, one of the most irritating women I have watched in a Hammer movie. I'm sorry to say it but her accent felt like nails on a blackboard to me. That may seem unfair, considering the fact that she was dubbed but her acting wasn't all that good either.

It's definitely not up there with the better Hammer horror movies but The Curse Of The Mummy's Tomb is a decent enough, consistently entertaining, entry in their extensive catalogue. Boredom never sets in and the ending provides a satisfying mix of tension and tragedy. Worth a look.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Curse-Mummys-Tomb-DVD/dp/B000HWXQHU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350997685&sr=8-1