Alicia I love this movie so much

Steinesongo Too many fans seem to be blown away

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

mark.waltz This B Universal horror film is pretty forgettable, in fact so much that when they did a sequel ("The Mummy's Tomb"), they had to give a prologue to indicate what had happened in the previous film to the characters played by Dick Foran, Peggy Moran and Wallace Ford. What they forgot was that the modern setting of the first film had a span of some thirty years going by into the second film, so the suspense of disbelief here and in the sequels is great. What is great about this film is the prologue where we are told about the history of Kharis, an Egyptian prince so in love with Princess Ananka that when she suddenly dies, he defies the gods of Egypt in trying to bring her back to life. This leads to his doom to spend eternity as a mummy, an undead soul with no rest. Suddenly, the blast of an Egyptian desert mountain opens his crypt, with the discovery of Kharis's tomb. Warnings from high priest Andoheb (George Zucco) puts them on the alert that their sins of blasting open Kharis's tomb will certainly spell their doom.This is an acceptable but inconsequential Universal horror film, entertaining for what it is, but something you'll instantly forget about once it is over. This will never be a replacement for the memory of the original "Mummy", so much more chilling than any of this series which continued on for three more films. A funny scene has the elderly Eduardo Cianelli as Zucco's father passing on the guardianship of Kharis to him, ironic because Zucco seems nearly as old as Cianelli's character. Ford provides some wise-cracking comedy, and the rhyming couple of Foran and Moran are the hero and heroine, destined to be star-crossed due to Moran's being put in peril when the mummy's revenge strikes. A few amusing moments with Sig Arno as a beggar are fun. But this is a second rate scare-fest at best, never convincing, and filled with a lot of plot holes. When the film is open, all plot threads seem to be tied up, so the idea of a sequel seems absolutely unnecessary.

TheRedDeath30 In the terminology of today's film industry, this movie would most likely be called a "reboot" of the classic Universal Mummy. At the beginning of the 40s, Universal was seeing change in its' management who were trying new approaches. This group had seen some prior success with relaunches like SON OF FRANKENSTEIN and decided to give the Mummy another chance.The film begins with an "origin" explaining how our Mummy came into existence. This is footage directly lifted from the original Mummy, only they have changed the names of characters (Imhotep to Kharis, Anunk-Su-Namon to Nananka). There is a small change in this footage as part features Tom Tyler (once the mighty Shazam in the Captain Marvel serials) to replace Boris Karloff, though you can still see Karloff in the group shots. Once our story is set, we meet our two American heroes, who discover an old urn in a village bazaar that sets them off on the movie's adventure.Beside the basic plot framework repeating from the original, there is actually very little that I find the two movies have in common. The first movie is often credited as being one of the most eerie and atmospheric horror pieces that Uni put together in their heyday. All of that dream-like tone is gone here, replaced more so with a sense of adventure, spiced with quite a few attempts at humor. Both movies focus quite a bit on the Egyptian relic's quest to punish those who have violated his tomb, though the original spends a great deal of time revolving around Karloff's obsession with the modern re-incarnation of his lost love. There is, really, none of that present here except for a brief unexplainable diversion where the high priest suddenly decides he is going to make our heroine immortal to be his bride. One of the things that I think this movie does better is more focus on the mummy, itself, in its' linen-wrapped glory. As a child, when I first discovered the Universal classics, it always disappointed me how little we got to see the mummy itself in the Karloff classic. They rectify that in this movie by putting the full focus on the creature, though that is both good and bad. The director does some nice creative work of blacking out the mummy's eyes and mouth in order to give it a more sinister look. On the other hand, Tyler does a rather poor job of "suit-acting" with lowered head and timid movements that make the mummy feel less monstrous than most other versions I've seen.As I stated before, the movie never really captures any of the essence of the original and never establishes any real atmosphere. In that regard, it feels much more like the Brendan Fraser modern remakes as action movie more than horror movie. I, also, found the comic relief sidekick to be very irritating. I don't know if his humor came across as more funny in 1940, but most of it fails for me, as a viewer, and contributes to the lack of any real mood.I have seen pretty much every Universal monster movie and all their sequels. All in all, this is one of the better sequels that I've seen. It just can't compare to the original, which is probably an unfair comparison to make in the first place.

AaronCapenBanner Christy Cabanne directed this loose remake of the Karloff classic(also produced by Universal Studios) Here, Dick Foran and Wallace Ford play Steve Manning and Babe Jenson, two unemployed archaeologists who get a magician named Solvani(played by Cecil Kellaway) to fund an expedition to excavate the Egyptian tomb of princess Ananka. His daughter Marta(played by Peggy Moran) is furious and skeptical about this, but goes along since the money is all spent. They do unearth her tomb, but also her protector Kharis(played by Tom Tyler) a living mummy who goes on a murder spree to avenge the violation of her tomb, since that is his mission, enabled by a cult of priests, the last of whom is played by George Zucco. Though fun to a point, with a good cast, this is hurt by far too much comedy relief with Babe. Not enough atmosphere to compensate either; worked much better with Karloff. Still, this was a hit, and followed by three sequels.

Robert J. Maxwell It's a kind of ragout of Hollywood genres -- murder mystery, spoof, romance, story of exotica. Dick Foran is an archaeologist who stumbles on an ancient vase with precious secrets encrypted in its hieroglyphics. Wallace Ford is his comic sidekick. George Zucco is the fez-capped, oleaginous villain. Cecil Kellaway is a good-natured stage magician who joins Foran and Ford in their search for the ancient MacGuffin. Peggy Moran is the female.By this time, Universal Studios must have just about reached pattern exhaustion in its monster series. Dracula and Frankenstein had appeared eight years earlier and -- well, how many times can you revive the good Count or the hand-crafted monster. What is there left for them to DO? The original mummy with Boris Karloff appeared in 1932 as well but hadn't been exploited so ruthlessly. Maybe they thought it was time to revive Kharis again. It was a mistake. An entirely new approach appeared in, I think, 1948, with "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein." Universal said, "To Hell with it," and threw together Frankenstein's monster, Count Dracula, and the Wolfman in a farce. It worked pretty well. But then Universal ran THAT pattern into the ground. In the next few years Abbott and Costello met every monster in the Universal franchise and some that weren't.This is an inexpensive production. It seemed to me aimed more at kids than adults. It's hard to believe that Mary Shelly's original "Frankenstein, Or The Modern Prometheus" was a serious look at the directions in which the scientific revolution might take us.