The Mummy's Hand (1940) User Reviews

The Mummy's Hand (1940) ***

[JoeKarlosi · 7/10 · 16 February 2005]

Not a sequel to Boris Karloff's THE MUMMY (1932), but the start of an entirely different series of unrelated films featuring a new mummified prince called Kharis. A group of amateur but likable treasure seekers search for the tomb of an ancient princess, but they encounter the still-living mummy instead, bent on destroying anyone who would dare defile the ancient Egyptian gods.

While not a great Universal horror movie by any means (one critique would be the re-usage of the same exact shot again and again of Kharis shambling about in the wilderness) this was the first and best of four Universal films featuring the mummy Kharis. At this stage of the game the formula was still fresh and not at all clichéd or monotonous, so that already places HAND at a distinct advantage over its other sequels and spin-off's. Tom Tyler makes one very creepy mummy, all arthritic and twisted, with weird eyes that are optically blackened out for full effect in chilling closeups (albeit the same repeated closeup). George Zucco takes top honors as the deliciously mad High Priest who keeps the mummy alive and killing via the sacred brew of nine ancient tana leaves. Dick Foran, Wallace Ford, Cecil Kellaway and the perky Peggy Moran are all very pleasant as the awkward explorers who stumble upon Kharis' cursed tomb. Comic relief is well used throughout, but never becomes intrusive, as the action always remains dead serious whenever the mummy takes center stage.

*** out of ****

Easily the best of the Universal Kharis films

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 10 May 2015]

The other three Universal Kharis films succeeding were pretty uninspired and uneven, though not without their good parts, however The Mummy's Hand while less than perfect and not exactly great is actually rather decent. Universal are nowhere near at their best here and The Mummy with Boris Karloff also from Universal from eight years earlier is the better film, but of the four Universal Kharis films The Mummy's Hand is easily the best of the four and the only one to come close to a good film.

It does start off rather sluggishly and takes too long to get going, it's all relevant but one does wish that the film got to the point quicker than it did. Two performances didn't come over so good, Wallace Ford's bumbling gets irritating after a while and Eduardo Ciannelli is for my tastes rather stiff. And I do have to agree about some of the comedy, some of it is witty and amusing but too much of it was intrusive and unnecessary so it felt more annoying than funny.

Visually however The Mummy's Hand is a solidly made film, the best-looking of the four Universal Kharis films most certainly, everything's professionally shot, moodily(appropriately) lit and crisply edited, the sets are suitably atmospheric and it's clear what the time and place is meant to be. The score fits well and is haunting, again the best score of the four films, being very stock in the other three. The story while not much new is interesting and doesn't try to do anything too simple or complicated, while it has more than one type of film genre it didn't feel muddled or have the feeling of not-knowing-what-it-was-trying-to-be and once it gets going it is quick moving and is pretty exciting and atmospherically spooky. The direction is decent and while none of the performances are award-worthy the performances are solid enough, George Zucco's excellent(brimming with sinister authority) performance standing out. Cecil Kellaway is very likable and Tom Tyler is surprisingly good as Kharis, he's actually genuinely unnerving(particularly the eyes). Dick Foran is amiable and Peggy Moran brings charm and spunk to her role.

Overall, a decent if not great film and easily the best of the Universal Kharis films. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox

The Mummy's Hand: Passable stuff

[Platypuschow · 5/10 · 14 May 2018]

One of a long long list of remakes of the original The Mummy (1932) and the first of 4 movies within the first Mummy franchise.

Now what struck me immediatly was the fact that the production values and general appearance of the movie are considerably weaker than the original which you wouldn't expect since it was made almost a decade later.

Second though advertised as a horror it most certainly isn't, this is closer to a comedy by far especially since our two leads crack wise from start to finish and much of it is really quite ahead of its time.

Once again we see an expedition go terribly wrong as a mummy rises from the dead and.........you know the rest.

Though it all looks pretty terrible the acting and writing is better than the original and though I'd certainly not say The Mummy's Hand is a good film I can definetly see the appeal.

The Good:

Some great characters

Some great writing and great comedy

Has a real charm

The Bad:

Looks even more dated than the 1932 original

Fall apart in the final act

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Even our comedic leads were more convincing than Tom Cruise in the 2017 remake

Universal Tea Time - Just Don't Use 9 Leaves!

[BaronBl00d · 29 June 2003]

Easily the best of the four "Kharis" films made by Universal as follow-up to their 1932 original The Mummy. The film differs dramatically in scope and mood from the original. Whereas the original was darkly romantic, mystical, creepy, this first sequel goes more for humour than suspense and romance. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford are two archaeologists out of work in Egypt who come across some pottery that leads them to the final resting place of the Princess Ananka. Just made High Priest of Karnak, George Zucco has pledged his life to defend the secret of her resting place. What ensues is a good, interesting, sometime humourous tale of Zucco trying to thwart Foran, Ford, and their backers, Cecil Kellaway and Peggy Moran. Obviously not backed with a huge budget, this mummy film is fun. Foran is very good as the male lead. Ford is bearable at best, but Kellaway is as always a charming, affable presence on the screen. Moran is beautiful and effective in her role. But it is George Zucco's film, as he utters the great lines that have come to be associated with the "legend" of Kharis. Zucco has great screen persona and this is really one of his great roles. Tom Tyler, a western star, plays the bandaged one with reasonable aplomb(okay, effectiveness if you prefer). Although nothing in stature to Karloff's interpretation of the Mummy, Karl Freund's methodic direction, and the dark atmosphere of the original The Mummy, The Mummy's Hand is enjoyable and has given us the story of Kharis.

good mummy movie with some comedic elements, but definitely a horror film

[FieCrier · 7/10 · 30 June 2005]

An Egyptian man is told by is father an account of a Priest named Kharis who was in love with a Princess Annanka, and wanted to bring her back from the dead by stealing Tana leaves. There's no indication that she was in love with him. He is caught, and his tongue cut out, and buried alive with Tana leaves. The Egyptian man in the current day made high priest and is given the responsibility of keeping Kharis semi-alive with doses of three liquefied Tana leaves. If the Princess' tomb is going to be violated, then Kharis is to be revived with nine Tana leaves to destroy those responsible.

I found it odd that a man who was going to desecrate Annanka's grave was given the responsibility of guarding it. Perhaps it was poetic justice, and he lacked the ability to want to try to bring her back to life again. Indeed, the mummy of Kharis lacks the ability to do much more than move and carry out orders, and desire Tana leaves almost like a junkie.

Two men from Brooklyn stumble across a vase with a clue as to the whereabouts of Annanka's tomb. They see the opportunity to become rich and famous. They run it by the head of the Egyptian museum, who is the high priest, as it happens. He tries to dissuade them. His dual identity reminded me of Karloff's dual identity as mummy and scholar in The Mummy, to which this is only thematically a sequel.

The Brooklynites manage to get funding from a fellow Brooklynite and stage magician. After some trouble with his daughter, who was led to believe they were frauds, they go to find the tomb. (Oddly, one of her lines seems to have been dubbed in "I'll fix them with my trick revolver," to what purpose I'm not sure.) This of course means that a mummy is going to come to life! The mummy is given creepy jittery all-black eyes which was neat.

Not What I Expected, Including One Shocking Scene

[ccthemovieman-1 · 6/10 · 25 March 2009]

I was a looking for a short, intense, scary horror film. Instead, I got an Abbott & Costello-like film, with a mix of comedy, horror and suspense. Well, if it was entertaining, I could adjust and still enjoy it.....but it wasn't all that good. It was filled with too many movie clichés of the day (with one exception) and the humor wasn't very strong. Nonetheless, it was passable....enough to stick with it.

By the three-quarter mark of the film, I was rooting for the mummy, which tells you how much interest I had in all the characters, even the nice guys.

Wallace Ford, a Lou Costello wannabe, as "Babe" was kind of stupid. Cecil Kellaway as the magician "The Great Solvani" was entertaining. Kellaway was such a likable actor I don't know if I ever saw him in an unlikable role.

Peggy Moran is the lone female in here, the magician's pretty daughter who you know (because it always happened) is going to for the manly serious guy of the leading twosome. In this case, that would be Dick Foran as "Steve Banning."

George Zucco looked pretty convincing as the bad guy. He was the most interesting guy in the film. His demise in this movie came as a shock - one of the few times I've seen any classic-era film go completely against the usual. The goofy "Babe" had a gun on him and threatened to shoot the villain at point-blank range with the standard, "Three.....two.....one....and then - to my utter surprise - bam, he actually shot the guy! The villain went tumbling down some long stairs, apologized to his god, and died. It was amazing, and totally unexpected. The villain, I don't think, was even armed.

Well, at least the film will be memorable for if, for nothing else, that one scene. I'll never take for granted anymore that the good guy won't do something shocking and against character! Hey, we're all capable of doing bad things.

The first of the 1940s "Mummy" films.

[alexanderdavies-99382 · 6/10 · 18 May 2017]

"The Mummy's Hand" is actually quite a good film but it takes a bit of a while to warm up. The build-up takes up about 25 minutes or more but still good.

George Zucco - excellent as villains - is on good form as the evil Egyptian High Priest who plans the destruction of the people who desecrate the tomb of an Egyptian princess.

Tom Tyler is OK in the title character (now called Kharis).

Released in 1940, "The Mummy's Hand" was one of the earliest horror films from the second cycle from "Universal" studios.

Pretty Good "B" Horror Film

[bsmith5552 · 6/10 · 8 October 2001]

Around 1940, Universal began a new series of "B" horror films. Most ran just over an hour and featured the studio's cast of monsters. "The Mummy's Hand" (running 78 minutes) and better than most of the series, brings back the Mummy, who had last appeared in 1932 with Boris Karloff in the title role. This time the role is filled by veteran western performer Tom Tyler who gives a chilling performance as Kharis the mummy.

Dick Foran (also a veteran of ridin' the range) as an out of work archaeologist and Wallace Ford as his partner (and comic relief) set out to finance an expedition to find the lost tomb of an ancient Egyptian princess and all the riches therein. Along for the ride are Cecil Kellaway as the expedition's backer and Peggy Moran as his daughter and Foran's love interest. The venerable George Zucco plays the High Priest and villain of the piece. Eduardo Ciannelli has a nice bit as the old High Priest who hands over his power to Zucco.

The film suffers from its "B" mentality and budget limitations but the mummy sequences are among the best that Universal has ever done. The temple setting is also very impressive. Universal would replace Tyler as the Mummy with Lon Chaney Jr. for three subsequent and inferior sequels.

Still and all, "The Mummy's Hand" ranks as a pretty good "B" horror film.

First Of Four Kharis Films.

[AaronCapenBanner · 5/10 · 24 October 2013]

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.

Seen on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater in 1966

[kevinolzak · 7/10 · 26 February 2014]

1940's "The Mummy's Hand" was not a sequel to Karloff's 1932 "The Mummy," but a reworking of certain elements, creating the enduring image of the murderous mummy stalking victims on a bad leg, and strangling them with its one good hand. By far superior to its three followups, we begin with the introduction of George Zucco's Prof. Andoheb, secret High Priest of Karnak, whose duty is to protect the resting place of the Princess Ananka by maintaining the existence of the 3000 year old mummy Kharis, through a serum brewed with a specific amount of now extinct tana leaves. There are two basic reasons why none of the sequels measured up, first that this title was set in Egypt, utilizing stock footage from the 1932 original (which only reappears in the last, "The Mummy's Curse"), and second that Tom Tyler's mummy is actually scary, his eyes and mouth effectively blacked out in chilling closeups (poor Lon Chaney always wore a mask). George Zucco enjoys his most indelible role, repeated briefly in the following two entries, and veteran Charles Trowbridge endures the series' best remembered murder, unable to escape the grasp of the death dealing monster. With all the mayhem, the upbeat spirit never flags, with Dick Foran and Wallace Ford repeating their roles in the direct sequel "The Mummy's Tomb," set 30 years later. Included in Universal's popular SHOCK! package of classic horror films issued to television in the late 50s, "The Mummy's Hand" made five appearances on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater- Feb 12 1966 (following 1955's "Bride of the Monster"), Mar 1 1975 (last of a rare triple bill, following 1966's "Cyborg 2087" and 1945's "Captain Mephisto and the Transformation Machine"), July 24 1976 (following 1969's "Daughter of the Mind"), July 29 1978 (following 1935's "Bride of Frankenstein"), and Jan 22 1983 (solo).

Couldn't quite get into this mix of comedy and "horror"

[lemon_magic · 5/10 · 27 December 2015]

To get one thing out of the way up front, this movie scored as well as it did because the cast is so likable. Yes, the characters they play are idiots, but the actors do a fine job of inhabiting their roles and all the "good guys" mean well and try to do well. And George Zucco gives one of his best performances as the evil priest who wants the secret of the Mummy kept secret.

Alas, the movie's attempt to mix comic relief with horror didn't work for me. Half the time I felt as if I was watching "Abbott and Costello" instead of an actual horror film. If I wanted light hearted tributes to the old Universal horror icon's I would seek it out - here it is unwelcome, at least to me.

Not a bad movie by any means - but not one I really want to watch again.

just plain old fashioned fun

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 30 March 2006]

This movie marked the beginning of a new series of Mummy films from Universal Studios--seven years after the original Boris Karloff classic, THE MUMMY. This was the one mummy film starring Tom Tyler as the monster, but it is a really good film--so good that it inspired three followup films.

The real star of the film isn't Dick Foran or his pal, Wallace Ford,...nor is it Tom Tyler. No, the guy who really steals the show is the ever-campy George Zucco. In traditional films I don't know if Zucco would have succeeded, but in B-horror flicks, he was great--with his cool accent and crazy eyes. It seems that madman Zucco (that's not much of a stretch) is leader of a weird cult and he is trying to revive the mummy, Karhis, using the dreaded Tanna Leaves! Can he be stopped in time or will this horror be unleashed on the infidels?! Tune in and see.

I love this film not because it is great art but because it is great entertainment and is a great example of the Saturday morning B-horror films of yesterday. Kids and adults loved them despite their predictability--because they were just plain escapist fun! This movie has it all!

The Mummy's Hand (1940) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 5 August 2005]

One of the best Universal horror films of the 40s and a worthy follow-up to the 1932 original, even if it wasn't directly related to it and actually spun a series of its own. While in essence no more than a B-film, it's solidly made on all fronts: the plot, unlike that of its sequels, is fresh and exciting and it boasts four likable protagonists, as well as a wonderful trio of 'villains' - Eduardo Ciannelli (appearing briefly as the dying High Priest), George Zucco (as his evil successor, in one of his finest performances) and Tom Tyler (as the maimed but relentless revenge-seeking Mummy, who's as good in the role as Boris Karloff had been earlier and Christopher Lee would be in the 1959 Hammer remake, of this one more than the original). The film's first half features a healthy dose of comic relief which I found in no way distracting, as it had proved to be in other horror films of the period; in fact, this element only helps accentuate the effectiveness of the latter sections of the film which offer more standard thrills, culminating in a superb climax - where Kharis has to literally crawl for his life-preserving tana fluid!

"Who shall defile the temples of the ancient gods, a cruel and violent death shall be his fate."

[classicsoncall · 5/10 · 28 November 2004]

"The Mummy's Hand" opens with scenes lifted from the 1932 Universal film "The Mummy", and that remains about the only connection to the original. George Zucco as Professor Andoheb is entrusted with the secret formula that will bring the dead back to life, but it must be strictly followed, or the result will be uncontrollable power in the Mummy so revived.

Not one, but two veteran B Western stars are brought aboard for this erzats followup to "The Mummy" - Tom Tyler as the bandaged one, and Dick Foran as the central hero Steve Banning, leading an expedition into the Egyptian desert to locate the lost tomb of Princess Ananka. He is assisted by comic sidekick Babe Jenson (Wallace Ford), magician Solvani the Great (Cecil Kelloway) who finances the expedition, and Solvani's daughter Marta (Peggy Moran), at first skeptical but then a more than willing love interest for Foran's character. But the best performance of the lot goes to George Zucco as Andoheb, who takes control of The Mummy, sending him on a mission to maintain his revival by locating the fluid extracted from tana leaves which accompanied his burial. In addition, Andoheb plans to make himself and Marta immortal as his own personal high priestess - what a guy!

When the tomb of Ananka is eventually discovered, it brought me a chuckle. It's HUGE and an elaborately done set, but Banning and his team are constantly frustrated by their inability to find it!

Pay attention during a conversation following the discovery of the Mummy's second victim Ali, the foreman of Banning's digging crew. The name Ali must have been on Dick Foran's mind, because he calls Marta "Molly".

Have fun with "The Mummy's Hand", along with the other Universal "sequels", but don't expect any to come close to the mood, atmosphere, or conviction of the original. Even Lon Chaney couldn't work that magic in "The Mummy's Tomb", "The Mummy's Curse", and "The Mummy's Ghost".

More fun than frightening

[drmality-1 · 27 May 2005]

This movie wisely decides to proceed on a different track entirely than the masterful Karloff "The Mummy". Very few horror films could match the earlier entry for sheer atmosphere and dreamy menace.

Instead, "The Mummy's Hand" opts more for adventure, with a generous helping of laughs thrown in. We follow the trail of two American treasure hunters as they seek the lost tomb of Ananka. Little do they know that the tomb is protected not only by a fanatical cult, but also the living mummy Kharis, who has become the guardian of the woman he once loved. Dick Foran is extremely likable as Steve Banning and seems like a regular guy. As wise-cracking sidekick Babe, Wallace Ford sometimes annoys but not to the point where you actually want to see him get killed. Peggy Moran is fiery and most attractive as Marta. Naturally she winds up butting heads with Steve and naturally they are attracted to each other.

Two grand old actors really liven things up. Cecil Kellaway is delightful as the scatterbrained magician the Great Solvani who bankrolls the expedition. And George Zucco has a signature role as Andoheb, sinister high priest of the cult of Karnak who controls Kharis. Much time is devoted to the workings of the Karnak cult and the mechanisms that animate Kharis. The lore of the tanna leaves starts here. Nine are needed to fully animate Kharis, but if he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, "he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen". Sadly, we never really see what Kharis would be like with an overdose of tanna leaves.

Cowboy star Tom Tyler makes for a creepy mummy in his few scenes. Totally lacking the charismatic presence of Karloff, he instead opts for the familiar crawling lurch that would later become a parody. His blacked out eyes are particularly unnerving.

A little bit too much comedy and not quite enough Kharis keep this from being really top notch, but it's still quite an enjoyable programmer.

The Mummy's Brew: Got Tana?

[simeon_flake · 7/10 · 13 June 2005]

This is Universal's introduction of what would become the defining cultural image most people recall when they think "mummy"--Prince Kharis, a shuffling brute who never shed his bandages & dragged a bum leg behind him. Supposedly his right arm was also useless, yet it never hampered him when it came to the task of scooping up some nubile woman--clad in a form-fitting white gown--in his arms.

A secret order known as the "Priests of Karnak", keep the mummy alive by feeding him a brew made from the ancient tana leaves during the cycle of the full moon so that he may bring death to any infidel who dares to violate the tomb of Princess Ananka. In the film's opening section, in which Kharis' origin is being explained & a new high priest is being anointed, a tantalizing little nugget is thrown out by the screenwriters: Kharis must never be fed more than nine leaves per night or he will become an uncontrollable killing machine. Unfortunately, this potential plot-twist never goes anywhere in 'Hand' or the subsequent sequels.

To my surprise, the first Kharis outing is able to overcome the woefully unfunny antics of Joe Pesci look-alike Wallace Ford and the standard dry-as-toast performance from the male lead & be an entertaining 67 minutes of classic B-horror. George Zucco--The King of Poverty Row Horror--turns in a perfectly sinister performance, and Tom Tyler makes for a more than adequate monster, in a role not requiring a whole lot of dimension or nuance.

Beware of what you search for.

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 8 November 2000]

A couple of archaeologists are searching for the tomb of an Egyptian princess and have to deal with an embalmed priest serving as her guard.

Very interesting and sometimes comical. Very good as far as 'mummy' movies go. Worth a peep and see.

Ensemble cast include: Dick Foran, Peggy Moran, Cecil Kellaway, George Zucco, Wallace Ford and Tom Tyler.

Light hearted and surprisingly good

[NLawing · 7/10 · 3 November 2006]

I found this to have the same upbeat , adventuresome sort of tone that The Mummy remake with Brendan Fraser had. Comic relief abounds between Wally ford and Cecil Hallaway. Something interesting is that the opening scenes and sequences are almost identical to the Boris Karloff Mummy. Even down to the same Nubian's carrying the sarcophagus. Theyretold the tale somewhat, but actually it's not a bad premise.This is not a movie for those of you who can't get past special effects. The effects are decent for the time period, but if you compare it to today- don't waste your time watching it. But if you're in the mood for a laugh , a fight or two, and a little bit of scare, then this is the movie for you.

Eyeless near Gaza

[Spondonman · 7/10 · 23 May 2004]

This was the first of the 4 Universal Mummy follow-ups to the original in 1932 with Karloff. Of a 65 minute film the first 10 are taken up with flashback recaps of this and a long winded transfer of High Priest power ceremony to Zucco. The next 10 are mainly comedy bordering on slapstick from Foran, Ford & Kellaway, and the introduction of the damsel to be in distress Moran. Pretty short film, eh?

But the various components including the set design and music hold together very well to result in an enjoyable film that you can applaud and ridicule at the same time. The first time you ever see the Mummy turning and "staring" at you it can be unsettling but after the fourth time the shot was used you shouldn't flinch an inch. I wonder if Foran would have cut the mustard in the 1999 remake: he's very chunky and pedestrian in comparison with Fraser, but I do prefer my heroines less like Weisz. Not to mention my films without brutal senseless violence! To me that's a plus - you can't imagine anything horrible really happening to our fearless four, but maybe any atmosphere would have been ruined if Foran had gone too far being pleasant and burst into song trekking to the Tomb They Never Found!

Along with The cat and the canary, one of George Zucco's finest performances, beautifully slimy and sinister throughout.

Pretty Much an Average B-Movie

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 27 May 2013]

Two Americans stumble upon a vase in a bazaar in Egypt which has a map inscribed upon it leading to the tomb of Princess Ananka who was buried 3000 years ago. They eventually obtain financing and set out to excavate the treasures within it. What they don't realize is that the High Priest of Karnak has sworn not to allow the tomb to be desecrated and he has the mummy of Kharis to assist him. Now, all things considered this isn't a bad plot to build a horror film around. However, rather than adhering to a specific horror scenario, the director (Christy Cabanne) also decides to throw in some comedic relief as well. This was a big mistake in my opinion because as a horror film it had some serious potential. Instead, the movie ended up being more suitable for a matinée than anything else. Throw in some very basic acting and the end result is pretty much an average B-movie. And that's a shame because it could have been much better.

This is a fun flick.

[gazzo-2 · 7/10 · 25 October 2005]

This was preferable to the first Mummy flick-though that Does have the great Karloff, alotta it was slowwww w/ people just standing around in a room together. This one they moved, they travelled, there were some laughs, etc. Just move alive overall. And that is good.

Dick Foran is a block of wood, but I enjoyed Wallace Ford's proto-Joe Pesci/Jack Oakie/Lou Costello routines. He's a lot of fun here, and doesn't over-do it(much)amidst the undead goings ons. George Zucco was in a role he was born to play, while you get to enjoy Peggy Moran in one of her better roles(why was she only in films up to age 24? odd...)as well.

You can certainly see where Stephen Sommers got his Brendan Fraser Mummy ideas, esp. here.

I also liked Cecil Kelloway as the 'Magician'. Good stuff! *** outta ****.

It's OK At Best - But It Is OK!

[sddavis63 · 4/10 · 15 October 2010]

Universal Studios certainly milked the monster cow through the 1940's. They had several well-received horror movies in earlier years, with Dracula (1931), The Mummy (1932) and The Wolfman (1941) being the best remembered, and then chose to create sequel after sequel with the latter two (Dracula - arguably the best of the bunch - having been left out of the sequel business for some reason.) This particular "sequel" isn't really a sequel, of course. It's just another "Mummy come to life" story that has to stand on its own. It can't escape comparisons to the 1932 movie, I suppose, but it is its own movie. Compared to the '32 picture (which I personally didn't think was great) this does some things right and some things wrong.

It opens with a long (approximately 10 minute) narration explaining the background of the story and the origin of the yet to be introduced mummy. The narration was too long. It might have served its purpose a little better if the story had been unfolded in a way that would have let the narration be offered piece by piece rather than in that opening block. After that there's an extended period of what came across more as a comedy than a horror movie, revolving around the two main characters of Steve and Babe (Dick Foran and Wallace Ford) - a couple of out of work archaeologists who stumble upon a treasure. At times it seemed as though I were watching a variation on "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy" rather than a quasi-follow up to the original "The Mummy." The cast was weaker than in 1932, and no one brought the presence to this movie that Boris Karloff brought to that earlier movie.

There were some positives, though. I liked the mummy in this one. The problem in 1932 was that the mummy wasn't a mummy. He came back to life then dropped the linen wrappings and fit right into "modern" (ie, 1932) Egyptian society. Here, the mummy is a mummy - and therefore more of a quintessential "monster." Once he starts to play his role (unfortunately, perhaps, restricted largely to the last 20 minutes or so) the nature of this monster adds a horror-type creepiness to this movie (the scene in which his shadow creeps along outside Marta's tent comes to mind.) The climax to this was also pretty good.

There were a lot of plot holes that puzzled me throughout; too many to really go into in detail but I found myself scratching my head too often trying to figure out this or that turn the story took. This was OK. It's not great. It's a B-movie, nowhere near the quality of Universal's earlier horror movies, but still OK.

More Mummy, Less Atmosphere

[TheRedDeath30 · 8/10 · 14 August 2014]

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.

The best of the Universal Mummy sequels

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 6 October 2018]

It is the first of the Mummy sequels with Tom Tyler as the Mummy that has always been a favorite of mine. The film has atmosphere and light comedy relief, and an above average cast for a "B" effort. And those closeups of Kharis' face, with his pupils missing, scared the heck out of me when I was a kid. (Okay, okay, they still give me the shivers today).

Charming leading lady Peggy Moran had a relatively short Hollywood career, leaving the film industry after marrying director Henry Koster for a happy union that lasted almost 46 years until his death. Peggy would later go to some film conventions and sign autographs for the fans. There was no other film in her career to which she received as much feedback as The Mummy's Hand, a little bit to the lady's annoyance.

Universal re-utilized one of the same sets in this film for their 1940 jungle adventure Green Hell. But then Universal was still trying to get its bearings after a complete turnover in ownership and talent due to the bankruptcy of the studio in 1936 and loss of control by the Laemmles.

Better paced mummy movie but still the same storyline...

[dwpollar · 4/10 · 29 May 2009]

1st watched 5/25/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir- Christy Cabanne): Better paced mummy movie but still the same storyline as the original mummy movie made eight years earlier. Boris Karloff is also no longer the mummy in this follow-up. The movie follows a kind of cheap Hope-Crosby duo as they try and uncover a princess's tomb. The same story is told thru the magical cauldron of the initial incident that entombed the mummy but they replace Karloff with the new actor. This is very lame, but maybe people didn't haven't memory back then??(just kidding)Anyway, there is the death to whomever opens the tomb when they finally find it, and of course they open it and the mummy is revived this time with the juice of tanna leaves. He starts his onslaught of killing mainly because of the placement of the juice by his master near those he wants him to kill. This juice gives him strength to survive and grow stronger, so it's definitely his master's manipulative diabolical plan to make him kill. Then there is, of course, a girl who gets in the way and the master wants to make her immortal with him(this seems also to be a running theme). This version of the story is more Hollywood-like but it doesn't make it any better. The monster is still pretty lame compared to the other Universal monsters but they still make 3 more early movies!! Whoo Hoo !! Maybe one of them is actually bearable to watch, maybe.