The Mummy (1932)

Great Film overall

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The strength of the film lies largely with its visual style. The camera work and framing, as shown here, are a noteworthy step forward over earlier Universal horror films. It does, however, lack the same sort of instantly identifiable iconography that "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" boasted. The central creature is impressively realized, and the make-up effects are subtly evocative, but with the exception of an impressively creepy opening sequence, much of the film plays as considerably less of a horror film, than it does a romantic mystery. It makes for an interesting twist to what was Universal's signature early 20th century cycle of "monster" films, although it may also feel a bit like a departure, for those expecting a more traditional creature feature.

I'm a big nerd, I find analytics interesting regarding my viewing activity and I noticed that I had nothing at all from 1932 so The Mummy was a welcome addition.This is where The Mummy franchise truly began and was essentially where The Mummy (1999) came from.Starring original horror icon Boris Karloff as Imhotep the mummy who returns from the grave seeking the reincarnation of his beloved this is where it all began but did it deliver early on?For me The Mummy is a mixed bag. Yes it was highly original for it's time and looks surprisingly good but the performances are lacking and the finale is blunt and very poorly constructed.I'll give it this, it's considerably better than it's 2017 remake which was a true embarassment that took a simple concept and turned it into overblown Hollywood garbage.A classic, but not overly enjoyable (For me at least)The Good:Looks incredible considering its ageThe Bad:Acting has certainly improved since the 1930'sSudden endingThings I Learnt From This Movie:Though the body rots, eyes stay perfectly intactEven in the humble beginnings of horror cinema, the pets still had to die

A lot of people sincerely love this film and I do appreciate its relevance, but I didn't find it to be as great as most people do. I guess it's mostly because I thought it would be an entire movie centering on well, a mummy. Instead, we actually got to see the so called mummy acting like a normal human most of the time. It's just not what I was expecting. I still liked it of course. It's mostly because of how good the performances are, especially with Boris Karloff. I'll give it credit for being different than I thought it would be. It was nice to be surprised by this.Yeah, it was more boring than the other films. The "Frankenstein" ones are of course the best of the Universal Horror films. I think this film's length worked quite well too. The sets are a very strong point. The very first part with the opening credits might be the best as they really create great visuals and set up the mood perfectly. The mood is obviously what makes this so good. While not one of my favorites, it still holds up well with its tone. ***

Discovering an ancient Egyptian queen's long-lost tomb, a group of archaeologists find that a local's special interest in their find is due to his belief that a local woman is the reincarnated soul of his long-lost love and race to stop him from carrying out his nefarious plans.This is one of the few classic films that is not as great as it's reputation. The reason for it's classic fate is solely based on the resurrection sequence, with the setting, the lighting, the dread emerged from it and the whole way it proceeds to play out is the large part of it's success. From the warning against reading to the actual reading of the tomes, to the single eye that subtly opens and stares out, it really just sends a chill that resonates incredible strongly. The slowly flickering arm beneath the bandages adds a whole second dimension and creepiness to it, and the conclusion is still utterly powerful and full of suspense. It's effective in it's simplicity, and that is one of the best features of the film. The Egyptian sequence is also quite fun, and the way it works through the historical connections throughout the ages makes for some incredibly fun times here showing the manner in which he gets caught and then mummified for his troubles that has a lot to like here makes it all that much better. However, these two factors, along with being one of Karloff's most memorable and well-played roles at the time, is about all for this one as it's really an overrated film. The fact that the film plays more like a romance film and not a horror film is a big part of that. There's really a small amount of scenes that can possibly be classified as being suspenseful, and those are so rare in the film that it's mostly played quite bland. The sequences in the museum should've been, but there's really nothing there to really call it suspenseful when it's all mostly off-screen. The fact that most of the film is a series of sequences following the romantic exploits of the leads is another helping factor, and they don't really belong in the film. It keeps the focus away from the title villain, who really should've had more of a say in the way the events unfold which manages to really focus in on a few areas which show this. Even the fact that the mummy appears on- screen for no more than five minutes, and none of them involve actually fulfilling it's destiny. That also puts one more nail in the coffin: this is mistakenly made out as the starter of the mummy genre. There was two small factors that hurt that. The basic premise for this was taken from another film, and that there are hardly any signs at all of the standard trademarks of the mummy genre. This really wasn't all that great of a film.Today's Rating/PG: Violence.