Fun, typical Universal"B".. In what must've amounted to a cost-cutting measure, over 10 min. of the film's 60 min. running time, is made up of scenes from 1940's The Mummy's Hand"!! This flick would mark Chaney's first of 3 appearances as Kharis. Look for Glenn Strange[Frankenstein's Monster from '44-'48]in an unbilled "bit" as a farmer calming a horse, during the Mummy's first attack sequence.
69 Reviews
The Mummy's Tomb (1942) **1/2:
Bunuel19765 August 2005
When I first watched this, some 4 years ago, I remember being very disappointed with it and recall labeling it a lazy overall effort, especially as it heavily borrowed footage not only from the previous film - THE MUMMY'S HAND - but also FRANKENSTEIN (1931), BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) and THE WOLF MAN (1941) for its mob scenes at the climax! However, coming back to it now - and despite having just watched the other "Kharis" films - I found it to be quite enjoyable, atmospheric and competently handled (especially during Chaney's various rampages and the fiery finale). It was nice to see Dick Foran, Wallace Ford and George Zucco (why on Earth did he wait 30 years to exact his revenge?!) reprise their roles from THE MUMMY'S HAND, if only briefly, as it was to have Mary Gordon - Mrs. Hudson of Universal's contemporaneous "Sherlock Holmes" series - as one of Chaney's victims. As for Chaney himself, I thought that his first stab at the role wasn't bad at all: suitably brutish when required but with a hint of emotion seeping through the wrappings on occasion to provide a balance (especially when Turhan Bey, yet another misguided High Priest of Karnak, is liable to jeopardize their 'mission' of restoring Princess Ananka to life by conveniently falling for leading lady Elyse Knox).
poor sequel to The Mummy's Hand: inconsistent, too many archive clips, but still fun
FieCrier1 July 2005
This movie starts out with about ten or twelve minutes devoted to recapping the events of the prior film, The Mummy's Hand. I hadn't seen something like that since watching Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2.
This one is supposed to be taking place thirty years after that film, which if it took place in 1940, places this one in 1970. No effort is made to make it appear to be set in the future, apart from aging the characters from the first movie.
In The Mummy's Hand, Babe shoots four shots at point-blank range into an Egyptian High Priest, who then falls down a long flight of stone steps. Even though we are shown this clip, later in the movie we see that priest as an older man, initiating his son, the way he'd be initiated in The Mummy's Hand. He claims he'd only been shot once, in the arm. Yeah, right.
The Mummy is also back, after having been shot at and burned in the prior film. The only difference seems to be that he has no eyes now (I'm not sure how he gets around, maybe by sound like The Blind Dead, who director Amando de Ossorio thought of as mummies, not zombies?). He's got old bandages wrapped around him. His old bandages should have burned, so presumably he was re-wrapped with old bandages (since if new ones were used, he wouldn't be as scary). Additionally, while Kharis needed to have potions of Tana leaves planted on the premises of people he was supposed to kill in the last film, here he can be sent out without that.
The young Egyptian gets a job as a cemetery caretaker in America, where the Banning family lives, so he can set the mummy on them for having violated Princess Annanka's tomb. He doesn't seem to have any plans to try to get her or her treasures back from the museum, which is never seen. He seems set on killing the Bannings, apparently not knowing about Babe - who had shot his father! He only goes after Babe after Babe shows up and figures out the mummy is back, and the priest overhears him. Likewise, the priest doesn't seem to know or care about finding out what happened to the magician and his daughter. The daughter, we learn, died, but the priest never hears that. The magician, I suppose, disappeared.
This Egyptian priest, like his father before him, and like Kharis before them, falls in love with a woman who does not have any feelings for him. Like his father, he uses the mummy to try to retrieve her.
Seeing the mummy hobbling about in suburban American neighborhoods seemed fairly absurd. It would have been easier for the priest to go into the homes of the people he wanted dead and shoot them! Also absurd is the point at which all the townspeople go hunting for the mummy with torches! Would anybody in 1970s American be able to produce and light a torch at a moment's notice, like nineteenth century European villagers in a Frankenstein movie? They also start to burn a house down to get the mummy, thinking nothing of destroying the house. They don't try to kill him in a more efficient way, and seem to give no thought to the welfare of the mummy's captive. Some also try shooting him when he is struggling with someone, giving no thought to the bullets passing right through him. Of course, no one is harmed. Additionally, while the mummy seems afraid of fire, torches are thrown at him to no effect, and he also walks through fire a few times without burning.
Overall, this is a pretty flawed movie. Still, watching it was sort of fun, and it's hard to dislike a classic Universal monster movie.
This one is supposed to be taking place thirty years after that film, which if it took place in 1940, places this one in 1970. No effort is made to make it appear to be set in the future, apart from aging the characters from the first movie.
In The Mummy's Hand, Babe shoots four shots at point-blank range into an Egyptian High Priest, who then falls down a long flight of stone steps. Even though we are shown this clip, later in the movie we see that priest as an older man, initiating his son, the way he'd be initiated in The Mummy's Hand. He claims he'd only been shot once, in the arm. Yeah, right.
The Mummy is also back, after having been shot at and burned in the prior film. The only difference seems to be that he has no eyes now (I'm not sure how he gets around, maybe by sound like The Blind Dead, who director Amando de Ossorio thought of as mummies, not zombies?). He's got old bandages wrapped around him. His old bandages should have burned, so presumably he was re-wrapped with old bandages (since if new ones were used, he wouldn't be as scary). Additionally, while Kharis needed to have potions of Tana leaves planted on the premises of people he was supposed to kill in the last film, here he can be sent out without that.
The young Egyptian gets a job as a cemetery caretaker in America, where the Banning family lives, so he can set the mummy on them for having violated Princess Annanka's tomb. He doesn't seem to have any plans to try to get her or her treasures back from the museum, which is never seen. He seems set on killing the Bannings, apparently not knowing about Babe - who had shot his father! He only goes after Babe after Babe shows up and figures out the mummy is back, and the priest overhears him. Likewise, the priest doesn't seem to know or care about finding out what happened to the magician and his daughter. The daughter, we learn, died, but the priest never hears that. The magician, I suppose, disappeared.
This Egyptian priest, like his father before him, and like Kharis before them, falls in love with a woman who does not have any feelings for him. Like his father, he uses the mummy to try to retrieve her.
Seeing the mummy hobbling about in suburban American neighborhoods seemed fairly absurd. It would have been easier for the priest to go into the homes of the people he wanted dead and shoot them! Also absurd is the point at which all the townspeople go hunting for the mummy with torches! Would anybody in 1970s American be able to produce and light a torch at a moment's notice, like nineteenth century European villagers in a Frankenstein movie? They also start to burn a house down to get the mummy, thinking nothing of destroying the house. They don't try to kill him in a more efficient way, and seem to give no thought to the welfare of the mummy's captive. Some also try shooting him when he is struggling with someone, giving no thought to the bullets passing right through him. Of course, no one is harmed. Additionally, while the mummy seems afraid of fire, torches are thrown at him to no effect, and he also walks through fire a few times without burning.
Overall, this is a pretty flawed movie. Still, watching it was sort of fun, and it's hard to dislike a classic Universal monster movie.
"Kharis still lives, lives for the moment he will carry death and destruction to all those who dared violate the tomb of Ananka."
classicsoncall29 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
"The Mummy's Tomb" takes place thirty years following the events of "The Mummy's Hand", recounting the events of that earlier film in a series of flashbacks as narrated by expedition leader Stephen Banning (Dick Foran), bearing an uncanny resemblance to Martin Mull. We also come to learn that the Mummy from the prior film was only "seared", and it's mentor Andoheb (George Zucco) was only shot in the arm and actually survived the first film. If you're ready to accept that, you'll be able to swallow the rest of the story, as the aging Andoheb entrusts the Mummy's safekeeping to a new caretaker Mehemet Bey (Turhan Bey). Now there's a great coincidence, the Boris Karloff character in the original "The Mummy" was known as Ardath Bey!
Mehemet Bey's avowed mission is to bring the Mummy to Mapleton, Massachusetts to avenge the desecration of his holy tomb, by destroying the members of the original expedition and their families. But like his mentor before him, Mehemet is deterred from his mission by the sight of a pretty girl, in this case the fiancé of John Banning, Stephen Banning's son.
Wallace Ford is on hand in this sequel as well, but without the comic nuance of the earlier film. In a continuity goof, Ford's character is called Babe Hanson, and not Babe Jenson as in "Hand". It was a rather dramatic oversight, as the name Hanson is given prominence in a newspaper headline following his demise in the film.
The story writers also take liberty with the legacy of the tana leaves that are instrumental in keeping the Mummy alive. In "Hand", much was made of the fact that nine drops of liquid extracted from the leaves were necessary to resurrect the bandaged one; here three leaves keep him alive, and nine are needed to give him movement. I know, it's only a movie, but gee, let's keep our monster continuity intact.
I've yet to research Lon Chaney's involvement in this and the subsequent Mummy sequels, but I question why a name actor would have been called upon to portray a character that's never seen in his real guise; why not save the bucks and have a starving newcomer take on the role? If the Chaney name was a hook to bring in the moviegoers, who would ever know the difference?
Mehemet Bey's avowed mission is to bring the Mummy to Mapleton, Massachusetts to avenge the desecration of his holy tomb, by destroying the members of the original expedition and their families. But like his mentor before him, Mehemet is deterred from his mission by the sight of a pretty girl, in this case the fiancé of John Banning, Stephen Banning's son.
Wallace Ford is on hand in this sequel as well, but without the comic nuance of the earlier film. In a continuity goof, Ford's character is called Babe Hanson, and not Babe Jenson as in "Hand". It was a rather dramatic oversight, as the name Hanson is given prominence in a newspaper headline following his demise in the film.
The story writers also take liberty with the legacy of the tana leaves that are instrumental in keeping the Mummy alive. In "Hand", much was made of the fact that nine drops of liquid extracted from the leaves were necessary to resurrect the bandaged one; here three leaves keep him alive, and nine are needed to give him movement. I know, it's only a movie, but gee, let's keep our monster continuity intact.
I've yet to research Lon Chaney's involvement in this and the subsequent Mummy sequels, but I question why a name actor would have been called upon to portray a character that's never seen in his real guise; why not save the bucks and have a starving newcomer take on the role? If the Chaney name was a hook to bring in the moviegoers, who would ever know the difference?
a slight step down in quality but still wonderful fun
planktonrules30 March 2006
Okay, so this is pretty familiar stuff once again--you know, mad Egyptian cult leader and his resurrection of a mummy to exact revenge on those who have desecrated ancient tombs. About the only big differences here are having Lon Chaney, Jr. play the mummy for the first time and the action is moved to America (despite this making little sense). While this is far from the best mummy film, it is good old fashioned fun and I enjoy this much more than the overly special effects enhanced mummy films of the last decade because of the fun factor. The campiness and the whole ambiance are just so wonderful--and they remind you that the term "B-movie" isn't such a bad thing. Watch it and let yourself go--and have FUN!
The Mummy's Tomb: Passable sequel
Platypuschow15 May 2018
The Mummy's Tomb is the 2nd part of the original "The Mummy" franchise following on from The Mummy's Hand (1940).
It's set 30 years after the events of the first film and the mummy has returned under new guidance, this time to kill off all surviving members of the Banning family who were responsible for foiling the evil plans in the first movie.
This time there is no comedy, the entire tone of the movie is considerably darker!
For this reason it doesn't have the same charm as the first movie but it makes up for this with better cinematography and continues the story perfectly.
It does suffer all the tropes of movies of this era (And there are many) but it could have been considerably worse. For fans of classic horror cinema this is a watchable continuation of the franchise.
The Good:
Looks better than the first part
Follows on very well
The Bad:
Remaking scenes from the earlier film is a tad silly
Very cliched
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Mummys are excellent climbers
If in doubt, cry witch!
Playing dead works against Mummys
It's set 30 years after the events of the first film and the mummy has returned under new guidance, this time to kill off all surviving members of the Banning family who were responsible for foiling the evil plans in the first movie.
This time there is no comedy, the entire tone of the movie is considerably darker!
For this reason it doesn't have the same charm as the first movie but it makes up for this with better cinematography and continues the story perfectly.
It does suffer all the tropes of movies of this era (And there are many) but it could have been considerably worse. For fans of classic horror cinema this is a watchable continuation of the franchise.
The Good:
Looks better than the first part
Follows on very well
The Bad:
Remaking scenes from the earlier film is a tad silly
Very cliched
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Mummys are excellent climbers
If in doubt, cry witch!
Playing dead works against Mummys
The Mummy's Tomb (1942) **1/2
JoeKarlosi2 October 2006
This 61 minute sequel begins with roughly about 10 minutes of stock footage from the previous film (THE MUMMY'S HAND), but it should be taken into account that these first two Universal installments were released a couple of years apart back in their day, and it was during a time in our history when we didn't have the luxury of television, much less "home video". Today we can watch these films over and over, and back to back; but in the early '40s it wouldn't have been so easy to recall where the story of Kharis the mummy left off two whole years ago, and that's in the context that this repetitive footage should be considered.
After being refreshed of the last films' Egyptian exploits of novice archaeologists Steve Banning and Babe Jenson (now mistakenly referred to as Babe "Hanson", an error which is NOT as easily excusable!) we move ahead 30 years where the mummy of Kharis (newly played by Lon Chaney) is stuck in America with current high priest Mehemet Bey (Turhan Bey). Why it's taken so long is anyone's guess, but Mehemet now has a vengeance mission to unleash the mummy on Steve and Babe (Dick Foran and Wallace Ford, reprising their parts in senior citizen's makeup) for daring to defile Kharis' tomb three decades earlier.
This is strictly a "B" level programmer without many trimmings, but it's still a fairly entertaining one . Lon Chaney looks menacing in his ravaged mummy outfit which properly shows some of the effects of the fire which consumed him once upon a time. Chaney absolutely hated playing the restrictive part of Kharis, yet he wound up grumbling through it for two more sequels following this one. Harold Young's pedestrian direction is nothing much to get excited about, but we do get some chilling sequences of Kharis creeping around modern-day Mapleton, Massachusetts on dark and windy evenings, which are a plus. Turhan Bey is perfectly cast as the mummy's foreign protector, and lovely Elyse Knox is easy on the eyes as the pretty love interest to John Hubbard, who doesn't leave much impression as Steve Banning's son. One can nitpick on the inconsistency of these mummy sequels forever; for example, even though TOMB occurs thirty years after HAND and should therefore be set in 1970, everyone still dresses and acts like it's 1942. But what the hell -- taken for what it is, THE MUMMY'S TOMB is a fast and fulfilling hour of mindless fun.
**1/2 out of ****
After being refreshed of the last films' Egyptian exploits of novice archaeologists Steve Banning and Babe Jenson (now mistakenly referred to as Babe "Hanson", an error which is NOT as easily excusable!) we move ahead 30 years where the mummy of Kharis (newly played by Lon Chaney) is stuck in America with current high priest Mehemet Bey (Turhan Bey). Why it's taken so long is anyone's guess, but Mehemet now has a vengeance mission to unleash the mummy on Steve and Babe (Dick Foran and Wallace Ford, reprising their parts in senior citizen's makeup) for daring to defile Kharis' tomb three decades earlier.
This is strictly a "B" level programmer without many trimmings, but it's still a fairly entertaining one . Lon Chaney looks menacing in his ravaged mummy outfit which properly shows some of the effects of the fire which consumed him once upon a time. Chaney absolutely hated playing the restrictive part of Kharis, yet he wound up grumbling through it for two more sequels following this one. Harold Young's pedestrian direction is nothing much to get excited about, but we do get some chilling sequences of Kharis creeping around modern-day Mapleton, Massachusetts on dark and windy evenings, which are a plus. Turhan Bey is perfectly cast as the mummy's foreign protector, and lovely Elyse Knox is easy on the eyes as the pretty love interest to John Hubbard, who doesn't leave much impression as Steve Banning's son. One can nitpick on the inconsistency of these mummy sequels forever; for example, even though TOMB occurs thirty years after HAND and should therefore be set in 1970, everyone still dresses and acts like it's 1942. But what the hell -- taken for what it is, THE MUMMY'S TOMB is a fast and fulfilling hour of mindless fun.
**1/2 out of ****
You Can't Keep A Good Mummy Down
bkoganbing13 October 2010
As Dick Foran and Wallace Ford put the torch to Kharis the Mummy in The Mummy's Hand there's no way that Universal Pictures was thinking about a sequel. Otherwise they would have made sure to identify the fact that the action was taking place in 1912 and had everyone wear costumes of the period.
So it looks a little ridiculous to have Dick Foran and Wallace Ford now elderly beginning The Mummy's Tomb made up as elderly gents with Foran reminiscing about those days on that dig in Egypt where he bested the cult of Kharis and Princess Ananka and brought back the Princess Ananka's mummy with the treasures of her tomb. The first 10 to 12 minutes of this film is a flashback synopsis of the previous film.
But it turns out that Wallace Ford didn't really kill George Zucco with those bullets fired at point blank range. George has been waiting for 30 years, but he and the cult want some payback. Kharis survived too and Zucco before he dies turns him over to a new handler in Turhan Bey. They've even got a cover story with Bey getting a job as cemetery worker, the better to bring Kharis over from Egypt.
The Mummy's Tomb takes the unusual step of having Kharis kill the heroes of the previous film. But Foran left a grown son in John Hubbard who has taken up the fight against the undead. And Bey deviates from the mission because he's decided he wants Hubbard's intended bride Elysse Knox all for himself and he sends Kharis out to arrange it in his inimitable fashion.
I think you see where this one is going, but Universal did this one in their usual Gothic horror style. But The Mummy's Tomb is not as good as its predecessor and none of those films involving Kharis are anything approaching light years as good as Boris Karloff in the original The Mummy. Universal did not do as good as it did with Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolfman.
Mummy films are the runt of Universal's litter.
So it looks a little ridiculous to have Dick Foran and Wallace Ford now elderly beginning The Mummy's Tomb made up as elderly gents with Foran reminiscing about those days on that dig in Egypt where he bested the cult of Kharis and Princess Ananka and brought back the Princess Ananka's mummy with the treasures of her tomb. The first 10 to 12 minutes of this film is a flashback synopsis of the previous film.
But it turns out that Wallace Ford didn't really kill George Zucco with those bullets fired at point blank range. George has been waiting for 30 years, but he and the cult want some payback. Kharis survived too and Zucco before he dies turns him over to a new handler in Turhan Bey. They've even got a cover story with Bey getting a job as cemetery worker, the better to bring Kharis over from Egypt.
The Mummy's Tomb takes the unusual step of having Kharis kill the heroes of the previous film. But Foran left a grown son in John Hubbard who has taken up the fight against the undead. And Bey deviates from the mission because he's decided he wants Hubbard's intended bride Elysse Knox all for himself and he sends Kharis out to arrange it in his inimitable fashion.
I think you see where this one is going, but Universal did this one in their usual Gothic horror style. But The Mummy's Tomb is not as good as its predecessor and none of those films involving Kharis are anything approaching light years as good as Boris Karloff in the original The Mummy. Universal did not do as good as it did with Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolfman.
Mummy films are the runt of Universal's litter.
Mrs Hudson deserved better than strangulation!
Spondonman22 May 2005
Well, I like it anyway! As before, the first 10 minutes are spent in a series of flashbacks, this time out of a total running time of 57 minutes.
30 years on the Mummy and Zucco have actually "survived", Zucco enrols Bey to take the Mummy to Hicksville, America and eliminate the surviving tomb raiders. The plan is carried out but derailed by Bey's instant lusting for the heroine, much to the Mummy's disgust. It's an utterly preposterous (and monstrous) plot of course, and without the usual nominal Universal production values would not even have the charm I like in Golden Age movies. In 1952 this would have been an out and out clinker, a Plan 9 competitor. But with those production values also come the familiar nitrate film/atmosphere/sets/actors and decent photography that I love to watch over and over again. The crematorium in The Black Cat was used, and in this they even set fire to the Winslow house - would that Hugh Herbert's character had been inside! That was never Lon Chaney Jr playing the Mummy, and it was Tom Tyler in the flashbacks, they just used Chaney's name to help sell the picture.
The local doctor examining the mould from a victim of the Mummy announced that they "were in the presence of the living dead" - sadly I get that feeling every time I trot an old Hollywood film out!
Like I said, I like it but frankly I think I'm in a tiny minority!
30 years on the Mummy and Zucco have actually "survived", Zucco enrols Bey to take the Mummy to Hicksville, America and eliminate the surviving tomb raiders. The plan is carried out but derailed by Bey's instant lusting for the heroine, much to the Mummy's disgust. It's an utterly preposterous (and monstrous) plot of course, and without the usual nominal Universal production values would not even have the charm I like in Golden Age movies. In 1952 this would have been an out and out clinker, a Plan 9 competitor. But with those production values also come the familiar nitrate film/atmosphere/sets/actors and decent photography that I love to watch over and over again. The crematorium in The Black Cat was used, and in this they even set fire to the Winslow house - would that Hugh Herbert's character had been inside! That was never Lon Chaney Jr playing the Mummy, and it was Tom Tyler in the flashbacks, they just used Chaney's name to help sell the picture.
The local doctor examining the mould from a victim of the Mummy announced that they "were in the presence of the living dead" - sadly I get that feeling every time I trot an old Hollywood film out!
Like I said, I like it but frankly I think I'm in a tiny minority!
Shadow Sequel
Cineanalyst7 October 2018
If you liked "The Mummy's Hand" (1940) - I didn't - then you might like this, its sequel, "The Mummy's Tomb," since it's largely the same film. Even the first 10-or-so minutes of it are mostly comprised of clips from its predecessor as recollected by one of its survivors. While the footage is cannibalized from the prior installment, the remembered narrative device itself is a lesser variation on "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), which included the framing story of Lord Byron recapping the 1931 "Frankenstein" before the original author Mary Shelley told the new main story. Fortunately, the narrator's remembrances here don't include the awful comic relief of "The Mummy's Hand," and this sequel is devoid of such stupid attempts at humor. Memory is a faulty thing, though, and despite carrying over one of the same writers, this one changes the last name of Babe from Jenson to Hanson ("Dracula's Daughter" (1936) likewise screwed up the name of "Von" Helsing) and retroactively pushes the setting of the prior film back 30 years so that this one may be set in contemporary time and still be 30 years later than its predecessor.
After the cheap B-picture expediency of recounting the last film, "The Mummy's Tomb" moves on to re-enacting "The Mummy's Hand," with an elderly high priest once again passing the torch and control of the zombie mummy Kharis to a younger man. While seeking revenge, once again, the lascivious foreigner priest falls for the girl (there's a laughable series of superimpositions to represent his newfound love), has the beast Kharis carry the screaming-and-fainting beauty to him so that he can strap her down--the same damsel-in-distress bondage stuff from the last film. Also repeating itself is a foot-dragging and slow-moving Kharis only being able to attack anyone because they're all incapacitated, either physically or mentally--because all you need to do to avoid this monster's clutches is walk away. He's that slow. There's a new emphasis here, carried over some in the subsequent films in the series, on the mummy's shadow, which seems appropriate given how much this sequel shadows the prior mummy movie. The main difference this time, besides the absence of comic relief and shadow business, is that the colonialism is reversed, with the Egyptians invading America rather than the Americans looting Egypt last time. There's also the addition of that Universal shocker staple of a mob hunting the monster, and there's what would become a horror film cliché of teenagers in a parked car being interrupted by the fiend.
After the cheap B-picture expediency of recounting the last film, "The Mummy's Tomb" moves on to re-enacting "The Mummy's Hand," with an elderly high priest once again passing the torch and control of the zombie mummy Kharis to a younger man. While seeking revenge, once again, the lascivious foreigner priest falls for the girl (there's a laughable series of superimpositions to represent his newfound love), has the beast Kharis carry the screaming-and-fainting beauty to him so that he can strap her down--the same damsel-in-distress bondage stuff from the last film. Also repeating itself is a foot-dragging and slow-moving Kharis only being able to attack anyone because they're all incapacitated, either physically or mentally--because all you need to do to avoid this monster's clutches is walk away. He's that slow. There's a new emphasis here, carried over some in the subsequent films in the series, on the mummy's shadow, which seems appropriate given how much this sequel shadows the prior mummy movie. The main difference this time, besides the absence of comic relief and shadow business, is that the colonialism is reversed, with the Egyptians invading America rather than the Americans looting Egypt last time. There's also the addition of that Universal shocker staple of a mob hunting the monster, and there's what would become a horror film cliché of teenagers in a parked car being interrupted by the fiend.
Decent Mummy sequel that's fairly entertaining WARNING!!!!!!! SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!
callanvass9 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Decent Mummy sequel that's fairly entertaining and well made. this is definitely an improvement over the rather weak Mummy's Hand due to the fact that's it's very well paced and only a couple of dull moments plus Lon Chaney Jr. played the best mummy since Christopher Lee Arnold Vosolo and Boris Karloff. the performances are a lot better this time around although it's a shame we only see George Zucco once in this film he is such a great actor. The script is also a lot better this time around and it does not feel so rushed and it had a couple of surprisingly suspenseful moments. The Acting is good. Lon Chaney Jr. as i said is the best mummy since Lee Vosolo and Karloff and is WAY better then Tom Tyler Chaney is such a versatile actor and can play any role that he is given. Dick Foran does well with his limited screen time. John Hubbard is good here as one of the main leads and is pretty likable. Elyse Knox is pretty and has good chemistry with John Hubbard and is also very likable. Wallace Ford is only there in flashback scenes (thankfully) from what i could see. Turhan Bey does what he has to do well. but does not compare to George Zucco. Overall this is worth the watch and i will probably watch it again sometime. **1/2 out of 5
The the 2nd one is scarier then the 1st one.
jacobjohntaylor128 June 2017
This is a sequel to The Mummy's hand. It is scarier then The Mummy's hand and that is not easy to do. The Mummy's ghost is scarier. The Mummy cures is also scarier. This is a horror classic. 5.8 is a good ratting. But this such a great movie 5.8 is underrating it. This is a 9. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It also has great special effects. If this movie does not scary you no movie will. This is scarier then The Shining and that is not easy to do. This is scarier then A Nightmare on elm street and that is not easy to do. This is scarier then Friday the 13th and that is not easy to do. Harold Young is a great film maker. This is one of the his best movies. See it.
Decent entry, if not overtly spectacular
slayrrr66628 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"The Mummy's Tomb" is an at least watchable sequel when it wants to be.
**SPOILERS**
Recalling an earlier expedition, Stephen Banning, (Dick Foran) tells the story to Dr. John Banning, (John Hubbard) and Isobel Evans, (Elyse Knox) of finding a sacred tomb in the desert and how he was able to escape. Returning home to Massachusetts with the rest of his family, he is unknowingly followed by Mehemet Bey, (Turhan Bey) and Kharis, (Lon Chaney Jr.) the mummy. Constantly rattled by numerous local sources, and before long, the family members and some local friends turn up dead. When Babe Hansen, (Wallace Ford) arrives to help the family but can't stop the murders. Finally catching on to the mummy's business, the remaining members formulate a plan save themselves from the murderous creature.
The Good News: This wasn't all that bad when it really mattered. This is most apparent in the stalking scenes. This is where it's best aspects show, since each one is quite good in their own way. The first one is the creepiest, where it stalks the victim across the room, unable to utter anything at the approaching threat until the final death rattle. Another victim stalked through a darkened alleyway is particularly creepy as the shadows that come into play make it look really impressive. This is mainly helped by the impressive figure that Kharis cuts. He's large and looks powerfully built, which comes into great play when he begins to move around and become a threat to the victims with the manner of killing method. The two go hand-in-hand to make Kharis seem like an unstoppable force, and these two factors do make him. The film's at it's best when it goes for the finale, which is a really impressive site and way to end the film. There's a great amount of action that lasts for a long period of time. With the confrontations and stunts employed, this one keeps the interest level up, and then to add in all the great fire-work as well. With all the furniture and surroundings going up in flames and the stunts coming along the way is really impressive. This here is the film's best moment and really works to it's advantage. These help the film somewhat.
The Bad News: There isn't a whole lot here that doesn't work. One of the film's problems is that there's a lot of stock footage in this one. It's short enough as it is, with a barely seventy minute run-time. The first ten minutes of the film really is a flashback to the one before. This is a big disadvantage to the film as there's a sizable fraction of it's time eaten up by showing events from another film. Granted, they're important to setting up the story here, as it's officially a sequel to that one, there's a way to trim it without it feeling like extraneous footage. The mummy's look is also a little of a disappointment. There's really nothing here that suggests he looks decrepit and olden, that it doesn't really look like it's all old at all. This mummy looks quite bad and really isn't all that convincing as a creature thousands of years old. Otherwise, this here wasn't that bad.
The Final Verdict: With not a whole lot wrong, this one manages to be one of the better sequels out there and at least is watchable. Give it a shot if you're a fan of the series, but don't expect any miracles, while those who didn't like the other sequels will find much of the same with this one.
Today's Rating-PG: Violence
**SPOILERS**
Recalling an earlier expedition, Stephen Banning, (Dick Foran) tells the story to Dr. John Banning, (John Hubbard) and Isobel Evans, (Elyse Knox) of finding a sacred tomb in the desert and how he was able to escape. Returning home to Massachusetts with the rest of his family, he is unknowingly followed by Mehemet Bey, (Turhan Bey) and Kharis, (Lon Chaney Jr.) the mummy. Constantly rattled by numerous local sources, and before long, the family members and some local friends turn up dead. When Babe Hansen, (Wallace Ford) arrives to help the family but can't stop the murders. Finally catching on to the mummy's business, the remaining members formulate a plan save themselves from the murderous creature.
The Good News: This wasn't all that bad when it really mattered. This is most apparent in the stalking scenes. This is where it's best aspects show, since each one is quite good in their own way. The first one is the creepiest, where it stalks the victim across the room, unable to utter anything at the approaching threat until the final death rattle. Another victim stalked through a darkened alleyway is particularly creepy as the shadows that come into play make it look really impressive. This is mainly helped by the impressive figure that Kharis cuts. He's large and looks powerfully built, which comes into great play when he begins to move around and become a threat to the victims with the manner of killing method. The two go hand-in-hand to make Kharis seem like an unstoppable force, and these two factors do make him. The film's at it's best when it goes for the finale, which is a really impressive site and way to end the film. There's a great amount of action that lasts for a long period of time. With the confrontations and stunts employed, this one keeps the interest level up, and then to add in all the great fire-work as well. With all the furniture and surroundings going up in flames and the stunts coming along the way is really impressive. This here is the film's best moment and really works to it's advantage. These help the film somewhat.
The Bad News: There isn't a whole lot here that doesn't work. One of the film's problems is that there's a lot of stock footage in this one. It's short enough as it is, with a barely seventy minute run-time. The first ten minutes of the film really is a flashback to the one before. This is a big disadvantage to the film as there's a sizable fraction of it's time eaten up by showing events from another film. Granted, they're important to setting up the story here, as it's officially a sequel to that one, there's a way to trim it without it feeling like extraneous footage. The mummy's look is also a little of a disappointment. There's really nothing here that suggests he looks decrepit and olden, that it doesn't really look like it's all old at all. This mummy looks quite bad and really isn't all that convincing as a creature thousands of years old. Otherwise, this here wasn't that bad.
The Final Verdict: With not a whole lot wrong, this one manages to be one of the better sequels out there and at least is watchable. Give it a shot if you're a fan of the series, but don't expect any miracles, while those who didn't like the other sequels will find much of the same with this one.
Today's Rating-PG: Violence
Kharis Stalks Again
lugonian16 July 2007
THE MUMMY'S TOMB (Universal, 1942), directed by Harold Young, the third installment in the Mummy series, the second to feature Kharis and the first starring Lon Chaney Jr. as the living creature under wraps. A sequel to THE MUMMY'S HAND (1940) released two years earlier, this legend of Kharis continues, set thirty years later, with Dick Foran, Wallace Ford and George Zucco reprising their original characters sporting middle-age makeup consisting of gray hairs, glasses and wrinkles.
The story opens in a town of Mapleton in Massachusetts, with the middle-aged widow named Steve Banning (Dick Foran) relating his scientific expedition to his sister, Jane (Mary Gordon), son, John (John Hubbard) and Isobel (Elyse Knox), John's fiancé, on how he, his now deceased wife, Marta (played earlier by Peggy Moran) and his friend, Babe Hanson (Wallace Ford) encountered the ancient burial ground of Kharis, the mummy. The next scene shifts over to Egypt where High Priest Andoheb (George Zucco), who amazingly survived three bullet wounds shot into him by Hansen and his long plunge down the temple steps (told via flashback), assigns Mehemet (Turhan Bey), to guide Kharis (Lon Chaney Jr.) to America where his next assignment is to avenge the surviving members of the expedition, doing away with the Banning family and finally Babe Hansen, whose character arrives later in the story.
Taking a new direction from its previous successors by shifting Kharis from Egypt to the United States, with similarities to Dracula (1931) where Kharis on board the ship, resting inside his tomb, bound for his destination with Mehemet as his guide in the similar fashion to Dracula's Mr. Renfield. Once in Massachusetts, Mehemet takes up residence as a cemetery caretaker with Kharis feeling right at home surrounded by tomb sweet tombs of buried beings. Like Dracula, Kharis stalks his victims at night and rests by day.
While THE MUMMY'S TOMB tends to be original, it mostly borrows from other horror stories, including its predecessor where Mehemet captures Isobel to make her his bride as his predecessor Andoheb tried to do with Marta in THE MUMMY'S HAND. Besides resurrections and revisions, the film delivers towards its final half with chills and thrills, and Kharis meeting the same fate as the Frankenstein monster, who doesn't appear here.
Supporting players include Frank Reicher (Professor Matthew Norman); Cliff Clark (The Sheriff); Virginia Brissac (Ella Evans); and Otto Hoffman (The Cemetery Caretaker).
Strictly "B" material for the juvenile crowd, THE MUMMY'S TOMB is a fast-paced if not entirely incredible 62 minutes. Without the flashback and stock material from the previous film, this movie would have been ten minutes shorter. Minus the over abundance of comedy relief stressed out from THE MUMMY'S HAND, TOMB has all the familiarities from other Universal horror films from the 1940s, especially the stock musical score by Hans J. Salter. Although THE MUMMY'S TOMB did not become a top of the line Mummy show, it did lead the way to the next installment of THE MUMMY'S GHOST (1944), considered by many to be the best of all the "Kharis" thrillers.
Footnote: For anyone paying close attention to detail, it should be noted that since the first Kharis film installment obviously takes place in 1940, then this sequel, which looks very much like modern-day 1942, is set thirty years into the future, namely 1970. Otherwise if this is 1942, then the earlier film should have taken place in 1912 with actors in futuristic 1940s attire.
Other than local television presentations prior to 1985s Fright Night/Chiller theaters, and availability on video cassette and later DVD format, it's cable broadcast history consists of the Sci-Fi Channel (1990s) and American Movie Classics (2000-2002).(**)
The story opens in a town of Mapleton in Massachusetts, with the middle-aged widow named Steve Banning (Dick Foran) relating his scientific expedition to his sister, Jane (Mary Gordon), son, John (John Hubbard) and Isobel (Elyse Knox), John's fiancé, on how he, his now deceased wife, Marta (played earlier by Peggy Moran) and his friend, Babe Hanson (Wallace Ford) encountered the ancient burial ground of Kharis, the mummy. The next scene shifts over to Egypt where High Priest Andoheb (George Zucco), who amazingly survived three bullet wounds shot into him by Hansen and his long plunge down the temple steps (told via flashback), assigns Mehemet (Turhan Bey), to guide Kharis (Lon Chaney Jr.) to America where his next assignment is to avenge the surviving members of the expedition, doing away with the Banning family and finally Babe Hansen, whose character arrives later in the story.
Taking a new direction from its previous successors by shifting Kharis from Egypt to the United States, with similarities to Dracula (1931) where Kharis on board the ship, resting inside his tomb, bound for his destination with Mehemet as his guide in the similar fashion to Dracula's Mr. Renfield. Once in Massachusetts, Mehemet takes up residence as a cemetery caretaker with Kharis feeling right at home surrounded by tomb sweet tombs of buried beings. Like Dracula, Kharis stalks his victims at night and rests by day.
While THE MUMMY'S TOMB tends to be original, it mostly borrows from other horror stories, including its predecessor where Mehemet captures Isobel to make her his bride as his predecessor Andoheb tried to do with Marta in THE MUMMY'S HAND. Besides resurrections and revisions, the film delivers towards its final half with chills and thrills, and Kharis meeting the same fate as the Frankenstein monster, who doesn't appear here.
Supporting players include Frank Reicher (Professor Matthew Norman); Cliff Clark (The Sheriff); Virginia Brissac (Ella Evans); and Otto Hoffman (The Cemetery Caretaker).
Strictly "B" material for the juvenile crowd, THE MUMMY'S TOMB is a fast-paced if not entirely incredible 62 minutes. Without the flashback and stock material from the previous film, this movie would have been ten minutes shorter. Minus the over abundance of comedy relief stressed out from THE MUMMY'S HAND, TOMB has all the familiarities from other Universal horror films from the 1940s, especially the stock musical score by Hans J. Salter. Although THE MUMMY'S TOMB did not become a top of the line Mummy show, it did lead the way to the next installment of THE MUMMY'S GHOST (1944), considered by many to be the best of all the "Kharis" thrillers.
Footnote: For anyone paying close attention to detail, it should be noted that since the first Kharis film installment obviously takes place in 1940, then this sequel, which looks very much like modern-day 1942, is set thirty years into the future, namely 1970. Otherwise if this is 1942, then the earlier film should have taken place in 1912 with actors in futuristic 1940s attire.
Other than local television presentations prior to 1985s Fright Night/Chiller theaters, and availability on video cassette and later DVD format, it's cable broadcast history consists of the Sci-Fi Channel (1990s) and American Movie Classics (2000-2002).(**)
The Mummy Comes to America!
bsmith555228 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
"The Mummy's Tomb" is a sequel to "The Mummy's Hand" (1940) and the first of three films featuring Lon Chaney as the Mummy. By now the mummy series as with other Universal horror series had degenerated to second feature "B" movie status.
The story takes place thirty years after the earlier film. Stephen Banning (Dick Foran) is telling his son John (John Hubbard), his fiancé Isobel (Elyse Knox) and his sister Jane (Mary Gordon) the story of his encounter with the mummy so many years before. Meanwhile we find out that the High Priest Andeheb (George Zucco) survived being shot at the end of the previous film. He is nearing death and passes on the sacred medallion of the High Priest to Mehemey Bey (Turhan Bey).
Bey becomes responsible for Kharis the 3,000 year old mummy (Lon Chaney) who magically survived a fiery death in the earlier film. The pair embark upon a journey to America to seek revenge on the surviving members of the Banning party and their families. Kharis kills Stephen Banning, his sister Jane and Babe Hansen (Wallace Ford) until only John Banning is left.
Mehemet Bey decides to take Isobel for his own bride and has Kharis carry her off. The towns people finally convinced that a monster is in their midst and in classic Universal fashion, form a mob with flaming torches to seek out and destroy the mummy.
The main fault with this film is its extensive use of footage from "The Mummy's Hand" in which Tom Tyler played the mummy. He can be clearly seen in the flashback sequences (which take up about a quarter of the movie's run time). Tyler and Chaney bore no physical resemblance even under all of those bandages. Chaney is not seen without the mummy makeup and has no lines.
Mary Gordon may be best remembered for playing Mrs. Hudson in Universal's Sherlock Holmes series.
The story takes place thirty years after the earlier film. Stephen Banning (Dick Foran) is telling his son John (John Hubbard), his fiancé Isobel (Elyse Knox) and his sister Jane (Mary Gordon) the story of his encounter with the mummy so many years before. Meanwhile we find out that the High Priest Andeheb (George Zucco) survived being shot at the end of the previous film. He is nearing death and passes on the sacred medallion of the High Priest to Mehemey Bey (Turhan Bey).
Bey becomes responsible for Kharis the 3,000 year old mummy (Lon Chaney) who magically survived a fiery death in the earlier film. The pair embark upon a journey to America to seek revenge on the surviving members of the Banning party and their families. Kharis kills Stephen Banning, his sister Jane and Babe Hansen (Wallace Ford) until only John Banning is left.
Mehemet Bey decides to take Isobel for his own bride and has Kharis carry her off. The towns people finally convinced that a monster is in their midst and in classic Universal fashion, form a mob with flaming torches to seek out and destroy the mummy.
The main fault with this film is its extensive use of footage from "The Mummy's Hand" in which Tom Tyler played the mummy. He can be clearly seen in the flashback sequences (which take up about a quarter of the movie's run time). Tyler and Chaney bore no physical resemblance even under all of those bandages. Chaney is not seen without the mummy makeup and has no lines.
Mary Gordon may be best remembered for playing Mrs. Hudson in Universal's Sherlock Holmes series.
It's not easy being a high priest...
simeon_flake13 June 2005
1940's "The Mummy's Hand" featured western actor Tom Tyler as the undead pile of bandages. Tyler (listed eighth in the credits of 'Hand') obviously wasn't being prepped to carry Universal's horror banner into the remainder of the decade. So, after the success of "The Wolf Man"--and much to his displeasure--Lon Chaney Jr. had to slouch through the gauze for a remarkable 'three' sequels--the remarkable part being that Universal could squeeze so much milk from this particular cash-cow.
Tomb opens with an ample amount of stock footage from 'Mummy's Hand' recapping the important events from that chapter. Seeing old footage in these mummy flicks is no big surprise--the fact that the filmmakers were not shy about reusing the close-ups of Tom Tyler (in makeup) as Kharis did puzzle me. Exactly how thin was the budget for 'Tomb' that some new close-up shots of Chaney as Kharis couldn't be cut into the picture?
George Zucco returns as high priest Andoheb, proving to be nearly as bulletproof as the mummy, having escaped the events of the last movie with 'only' a crushed arm & a full head of hair (maybe he rubbed some tana on his scalp). Also returning is what was already becoming a tedious plot device: The new priest put in charge of Kharis--apparently raging with suppressed libido--becomes enamored with some American skirt & usually suffers some violent (and well deserved) death.
However, it all speeds along at a quickie pace (all of Chaney's mummy pictures barely eclipse the 60 minute mark) and it's supplied with the usual atmosphere & mood music that at this stage of the game make it a good enough occupier of one's time. Of the quartet of Kharis films, 'Tomb' would be my favorite. It's certainly a more atmospheric piece than its predecessor and not bogged down with any of the inane comic relief.
Tomb opens with an ample amount of stock footage from 'Mummy's Hand' recapping the important events from that chapter. Seeing old footage in these mummy flicks is no big surprise--the fact that the filmmakers were not shy about reusing the close-ups of Tom Tyler (in makeup) as Kharis did puzzle me. Exactly how thin was the budget for 'Tomb' that some new close-up shots of Chaney as Kharis couldn't be cut into the picture?
George Zucco returns as high priest Andoheb, proving to be nearly as bulletproof as the mummy, having escaped the events of the last movie with 'only' a crushed arm & a full head of hair (maybe he rubbed some tana on his scalp). Also returning is what was already becoming a tedious plot device: The new priest put in charge of Kharis--apparently raging with suppressed libido--becomes enamored with some American skirt & usually suffers some violent (and well deserved) death.
However, it all speeds along at a quickie pace (all of Chaney's mummy pictures barely eclipse the 60 minute mark) and it's supplied with the usual atmosphere & mood music that at this stage of the game make it a good enough occupier of one's time. Of the quartet of Kharis films, 'Tomb' would be my favorite. It's certainly a more atmospheric piece than its predecessor and not bogged down with any of the inane comic relief.
Oh no! The Mummy approaches ... at 0.5mph
Coventry6 December 2021
Normally, you can never go wrong with a Universal monster movie. Whether it's the originals or the slightly less prestigious sequels in each franchise, they always provide suspense, atmosphere, good performances, and overall great entertainment. Well, at least that's what I firmly believed until I watched "The Mummy's Tomb". What a dreary and uninspired sequel this was! The poster proudly exclaims Lon Chaney Jr. As the mummy, Kharis, but it might as well have been nameless extra #17 they wrapped in bandages for the role. The plot is a lousy recycling of the previous sequel, "The Mummy's Hand", with a lot of footage shameless re-used. The only remotely interesting character is depicted by George Zucco, but his role as evil High-Priest is cut too short and then he gets replaced by the very uncharismatic Turhan Bey. He resurrects Kharis, and sends him off to kill the archeologists (and their families) who desecrated the tomb of the Egyptian Princess Ananka during an expedition 30 years earlier. The film moves forward like Kharis does, namely lifeless and at an intolerably slow pace.
Kharis (and Zucco) Just Won't Die
utgard1412 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Another fun mummy movie from Universal. This is the first of three mummy films that feature Lon Chaney, Jr. as the mummy. It's really a thankless role for him, as you never see his face and it could be anybody under those bandages as far as the audience is concerned. Still, Chaney is the only horror movie legend to play all four of the great monsters (Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, Wolf Man, Mummy).
This story takes place decades after the last film. Here, George Zucco's character is now an old man and he charges Turhan Bey with the sacred duty of controlling Kharis (both Zucco and Kharis survived the last film). Bey takes Kharis to America, where he proceeds to kill off the remaining members of the expedition from The Mummy's Hand. It's interesting they had the protagonists (Dick Foran, Wallace Beery) from the previous film killed off here. This sort of thing wasn't done back then but it's pretty cool. The new leads (John Hubbard, Elyse Knox) are a little on the bland side but the movie works anyway because the mummy is the star. As with most Universal horror films, I definitely recommend you check it out. It's a short runtime full of great escapist fun for young and old alike.
This story takes place decades after the last film. Here, George Zucco's character is now an old man and he charges Turhan Bey with the sacred duty of controlling Kharis (both Zucco and Kharis survived the last film). Bey takes Kharis to America, where he proceeds to kill off the remaining members of the expedition from The Mummy's Hand. It's interesting they had the protagonists (Dick Foran, Wallace Beery) from the previous film killed off here. This sort of thing wasn't done back then but it's pretty cool. The new leads (John Hubbard, Elyse Knox) are a little on the bland side but the movie works anyway because the mummy is the star. As with most Universal horror films, I definitely recommend you check it out. It's a short runtime full of great escapist fun for young and old alike.
Weak Sequel in a Weak Series
Chance2000esl21 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiancé. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.
Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar?
Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.
Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).
The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.
I'll give it a 3.
Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar?
Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.
Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).
The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.
I'll give it a 3.
Better than The Mummy's Hand in several counts
GSeditor16 April 2012
This entry in Universal's classic Mummy series is often dismissed for having too much stock footage from the previous entry, The Mummy's Hand, of which this is a sequel of, but I think The Mummy's Tomb improves on The Mummy's Hand in more than one counts. 1) The cinematography, esp. the lighting is much more sophisticated here. 2) The priest's infatuation with the white woman is better developed. In the previous entry, it was too sudden. Here, it is anticipated. 3) The iconic scenes of mummy-carrying-away-the-damsel-in-distress are longer. Setting the plot in an American town with a history of witch-hunts was also a nice touch. The movie would be even better if they had made more use of the cemetery setting. The downside for me is the ludicrous resort to torch(!)-carrying, rather than say flash-light carrying, masses in the finale.
Hand Me Another Roll of Gauze
Hitchcoc20 January 2017
I loved the very first Universal Mummy movie with Boris Karloff in all his spookiness. It has a connection to mysteries of Egypt and Books of the Dead. Most of the other films from this genre have a real sameness to them. There is the man who travels with Kharis, the poor creature, buried alive and wrapped in cloth. His agenda seems to be to protect Kharis but he fails sometimes. This one hearkens back to the Mummy's Hand where the characters have now aged and gone on to a new generation. There is lots of death in this one, where people who the mummy realized were responsible for his struggles are done in. Soon the mummy has found a new love, and so he sets out to make things happen. Jealousy plays a role in this offering and sets the scene for another movie.
A very entertaining Universal Monsters sequel
GusF31 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
My hopes were not high for this barely one hour film after it spent a full 12 minutes recapping the events of "The Mummy's Hand" in excruciating detail with liberal use of clips from that film. However, it picks up rapidly after 20 minutes or so and becomes a very entertaining Universal Monsters film.
Lon Chaney, Jr. is quite intimidating as the Mummy but not to the same extent as he was as the Wolf Man and Frankenstein's Monster. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford are much better as Stephen Banning and Babe Hanson (formerly Jenson) respectively than in the previous film even though they both have far less screen time. However, John Hubbard and Elyse Knox don't make much impression as the leads. (Incidentally, Knox was the mother of "NCIS" star Mark Harmon and you can certainly see the family resemblance.) The strongest performers are George Zucco in his brief cameo as Andoheb - he actually appears more in the clips from the previous film than in this one - and the 20-year-old, baby faced Turhan Bey as Mehemet Bey.
Lon Chaney, Jr. is quite intimidating as the Mummy but not to the same extent as he was as the Wolf Man and Frankenstein's Monster. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford are much better as Stephen Banning and Babe Hanson (formerly Jenson) respectively than in the previous film even though they both have far less screen time. However, John Hubbard and Elyse Knox don't make much impression as the leads. (Incidentally, Knox was the mother of "NCIS" star Mark Harmon and you can certainly see the family resemblance.) The strongest performers are George Zucco in his brief cameo as Andoheb - he actually appears more in the clips from the previous film than in this one - and the 20-year-old, baby faced Turhan Bey as Mehemet Bey.
The Mummy Wraps Again
TheRedDeath3014 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This is the third installment in the Universal Mummy series and by this point the series is starting to lose some steam. I am such a loyal junkie of the Uni monsters, though, that I can't help but still enjoy these flicks and give them halfway decent ratings.
This movie is a direct sequel to THE MUMMY'S HAND, only it's 30 years later. The new high priest encharged with protecting Kharis takes the monster to Massachusetts to wipe out the people who violated his tomb and fulfill the curse. Like all good Uni sequels (and really most horror to date), the monster is still alive despite the fact that it appeared, for all intents, to be destroyed in the previous movie. This was very common in Universal movies even when the monster's death seemed irreversible.
This one is really light on new and original ideas. We begin by rehashing the story of HAND, for new viewers, using recycled footage from the previous movie. Then George Zucco, as the elderly high priest, initiates his replacement into the order, introducing him to Kharis, the mummy, and explaining the tanna leaves that will keep him alive. This scene is, also, almost a shot for shot recreation of the same scene in HAND in which Zucco became the high priest. By this point, you are a quarter of the way through the run time and we're only just getting to anything new.
The decision to take the monster and thus the setting, to the United States is a bad decision for the movie. In HAND we were already worlds apart from the atmosphere and tone established in the Karloff original. By removing the series from Egypt and putting it into the states, we lose any sense of the fantastic, at all. Instead, it's just another shambling creature killing off people.
Lon Chaney Jr takes over the wraps of the Mummy this time around. I find his overall presence to be stronger than Tyler in the previous movie, as he brings a more physical, less cowering approach. It's nice to see more of the Mummy, as well. However, at this point in the series the monster is little more than a puppet to do the master's bidding and is in dire need of the some of the sinister look used in HAND when they blacked out the eyes and mouth. He's starting to look like an overweight guy wrapped in linen.
This may very well be the beginning of the "ramp up the body count" approach to horror sequels. Having seen my fair share of horror's history, this does seem to be the earliest example I can think of that used the approach of replacing the lost atmosphere of the original with more murder and violence, a trope that is all too common in today's horror sequels. Sadly, all of the murders amount to strangulation. This was all too common of movie's of this era. When I think of the dozens upon dozens of "golden age" horror films I've seen, I think every victim ever died of strangulation. No matter how terrifying the monster, they always resort to hands around the neck, which I can assume was necessary due to a mixture of censorship and low budgets.
If you're reading reviews of this movie, I can only assume you are either a fan of Universal monsters, or classic horror in general, and you will find something to enjoy in this movie. If you are a modern fan who has, somehow, stumbled upon this movie, there are far better Universal pics that you can choose from.
This movie is a direct sequel to THE MUMMY'S HAND, only it's 30 years later. The new high priest encharged with protecting Kharis takes the monster to Massachusetts to wipe out the people who violated his tomb and fulfill the curse. Like all good Uni sequels (and really most horror to date), the monster is still alive despite the fact that it appeared, for all intents, to be destroyed in the previous movie. This was very common in Universal movies even when the monster's death seemed irreversible.
This one is really light on new and original ideas. We begin by rehashing the story of HAND, for new viewers, using recycled footage from the previous movie. Then George Zucco, as the elderly high priest, initiates his replacement into the order, introducing him to Kharis, the mummy, and explaining the tanna leaves that will keep him alive. This scene is, also, almost a shot for shot recreation of the same scene in HAND in which Zucco became the high priest. By this point, you are a quarter of the way through the run time and we're only just getting to anything new.
The decision to take the monster and thus the setting, to the United States is a bad decision for the movie. In HAND we were already worlds apart from the atmosphere and tone established in the Karloff original. By removing the series from Egypt and putting it into the states, we lose any sense of the fantastic, at all. Instead, it's just another shambling creature killing off people.
Lon Chaney Jr takes over the wraps of the Mummy this time around. I find his overall presence to be stronger than Tyler in the previous movie, as he brings a more physical, less cowering approach. It's nice to see more of the Mummy, as well. However, at this point in the series the monster is little more than a puppet to do the master's bidding and is in dire need of the some of the sinister look used in HAND when they blacked out the eyes and mouth. He's starting to look like an overweight guy wrapped in linen.
This may very well be the beginning of the "ramp up the body count" approach to horror sequels. Having seen my fair share of horror's history, this does seem to be the earliest example I can think of that used the approach of replacing the lost atmosphere of the original with more murder and violence, a trope that is all too common in today's horror sequels. Sadly, all of the murders amount to strangulation. This was all too common of movie's of this era. When I think of the dozens upon dozens of "golden age" horror films I've seen, I think every victim ever died of strangulation. No matter how terrifying the monster, they always resort to hands around the neck, which I can assume was necessary due to a mixture of censorship and low budgets.
If you're reading reviews of this movie, I can only assume you are either a fan of Universal monsters, or classic horror in general, and you will find something to enjoy in this movie. If you are a modern fan who has, somehow, stumbled upon this movie, there are far better Universal pics that you can choose from.
Silly sequel to "The Mummy's Hand" (1940)
preppy-325 February 2015
This takes places 30 years after "Hand" which means it should happen in 1970--but there's clear references to World War II! This has Kharis (Lon Chaney now) coming to Mapleton Massachusetts to kill the desecraters of an ancient tomb. How Kharis survived after being burnt to death in the previous movie and why he waits 30 years is never explained. With him is Mehemet Bay (Turhan Bay) to feed him tana leaves and order him about.
It's pretty silly since the plot makes little sense and there are loopholes galore...but it sometimes works. The makeup on Chaney is effective, it moves fairly quickly, the acting isn't bad and it all leads up to a fiery climax. All in all an OK Universal horror film.
It's pretty silly since the plot makes little sense and there are loopholes galore...but it sometimes works. The makeup on Chaney is effective, it moves fairly quickly, the acting isn't bad and it all leads up to a fiery climax. All in all an OK Universal horror film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
