The Mummy's Tomb

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).

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.

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!

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!

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