Great Film overall

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

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 charactersSome great writing and great comedyHas a real charmThe Bad:Looks even more dated than the 1932 originalFall apart in the final actThings I Learnt From This Movie:Even our comedic leads were more convincing than Tom Cruise in the 2017 remake

Eighth billed Tom Tyler plays The Mummy here (just above Sig Arno as The Beggar) partly due to his slight resemblance to Boris Karloff, who played the original in 1932.The mighty George Zucco disembarks from a train and moves silently though a crowd. We are then treated to his subsequent meeting with The High Priest (Eduardo Cianelli). Through the swirling mists, we see flashbacks from the original 'The Mummy (1932)', only with Tyler substituted for Karloff as Kharis, cursed and entombed for ever. What strikes me immediately about this is how the style is completely different from the original film – there is no slow build up, no particular infusion of atmosphere, just straight into the film and on with the story.3000 years has elapsed, and it seems it is time to resurrect Kharis with the aid of three tana leaves. Nine leaves will animate Kharis – 'but never must you brew more than nine leaves, or Kharis will become a soulless demon with a desire to kill.' Also unlike the original, there is a rich vein in humour in this, from Steve Banning (Dick Foran) and especially his friend Babe (Wallace Ford), who achieve financing for their archaeological trip from The Great Solvani (Cecil Kellaway) and his headstrong daughter Marta (Peggy Moran), who inevitably falls for Banning. The humour works because it stems from the likable characters and is scattered throughout, and provides a good contrast to the dark magic elsewhere.Kharis is an impressive Mummy. His painful gait, slow determined movements, post-production blacking out of eyes and swatches of bandages looking less like a suit than would be apparent in further sequels – all these things serve to give him a determined yet spectral appearance. Tom Tyler is in it only briefly (indeed, some of his scenes are repeated through the 80 minute running time), but makes such a good job of the role, it is a great shame he was not brought back for future films in this series.Some critics dismiss 'The Mummy's Hand' as the 'usual mumbo-jumbo', which is unfair. The formulaic inclusion of tana leaves, lost princesses and High Priests hadn't really become formulaic before this, and only took hold as subsequent Mummy films rolled on. This is possibly the most enjoyable of the series (and the most impressive looking, making good use of the huge ceremonial set from James Whale's 'Green Hell' earlier the same year), after the original, which retains a platform all of its own.

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

We again return to Anaka and Kharis, and even have Zita Johann and Boris Karloff shown archive footage from their 1932 roles.But, they don't recreate the same story here. First, they bring in Dick Foran and Wallace Ford to ham it up. We'll likely find more comedy than horror.Secondly, without the CGI and stupendous special effects of the 1999 story, it was still enjoyable. Sometimes those things just get in the way.Lastly, there was a very good story here, and the acting was not bad. After all, you had a twice nominated Oscar actor here in the person of Cecil Kellaway.Worth the time.