Liz Kingsley of AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A SCIENTIST has been reviewing the Universal Mummy series of films. Her work is always informative and witty. Why not give her a read?
By the end of 1931, the fight to establish the horror movie in America had been fought and won. Although it was the gamble of Universal Studio’s twin nightmares, Dracula and Frankenstein, that had in effect created the horror genre, it was Paramount’s filming of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde that legitimised it, by demonstrating that the horror movie could also be art. Having sat back warily and watched as Universal in particular bore the brunt of the initial critical and social backlash, the other studios now jumped upon the bandwagon, determined to cut themselves a slice of this unexpected financial pie. Within the next twelve months, MGM, RKO and Warners, through its partnership with First National Pictures, all joined the fray; and indeed, 1932 would ultimately prove to be one of the finest and richest years in the history of the horror movie. Curiously, after its hugely successful first venture, Paramount withdrew itself from the battle (although when the studio did finally produce another horror film, it would again be a work of extraordinary power and artistry). Universal, on the other hand, seeing its rivals harvesting the new cash crop it had developed, redoubled its efforts; and towards the end of the year made another kind of history by producing the first major horror movie with an original screenplay written directly for the screen...
click here to read her full review of THE MUMMY
Much as some of us might bemoan the constant stream of sequels, prequels, and re-makes that emanates from Hollywood today, it is certainly not a new phenomenon. As film technique improved throughout the silent era, endless motion pictures were shot and re-shot to reflect the fact; while the move from silent film to talking pictures was another cue for countless films to get a makeover. Even the shift from the anything-goes attitude of the pre-Production Code era to the rule-bound post-Code world was an excuse for certain productions to be re-made in more “acceptable” form. It was, however, those behind the making of Hollywood’s first and greatest wave of horror movies who first grasped the concept not merely of the re-make, but the franchise – and embraced it. Film series were common enough, of course, but it was Carl Laemmle and his people at Universal Studios who realised that the supernatural themes of their lucrative new specialty offered the perfect pretext for returning to the well as often as they liked. Sure the monster was killed off at the end of each film....but just because it was dead, that didn’t mean it had to stay dead, right?...
click here to read her full review of THE MUMMY'S HAND
This first sequel to 1940’s The Mummy’s Hand is in a number of ways a very strange film. Although of course a Universal film, with all that that implies, The Mummy’s Tomb often feels more akin to the slapdash contemporary productions emanating from Monogram and PRC---not on the level of its production values, though the budget was obviously low, but rather with respect to its brief and breathless style and its often startling disregard of “the rules” – including the most basic rule of passing time, as we shall see. The most unexpected aspect of this film is certainly the ruthlessness with which it sets about disposing of the returning cast members from The Mummy’s Hand, who were then – presumably – the audience’s identification figures; a quality that, in conjunction with Mehemet Bey’s countdown of potential victims, makes it feel like a proto-slasher movie. The other notable thing about The Mummy’s Tomb is that it is quite free of the painful comic relief that undermined the action of the preceding series entry. The result is a fast-moving, grimly entertaining little horror film...
click here to read her full review of THE MUMMY'S TOMB
BTW this was one of my favorite toys from childhood...
