The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) (Movie Review)

    All throughout October, I’ve been posting movie reviews of Universals eight classic monster movies, and now we come to the final classic monster movie. Sense I kicked off the season with a review of 1931's "Frankenstein", it only makes sense to book end the event with it's equally iconic sequel ... and I've saved a big ... arguably the biggest film for last. The 1935 Horror picture titled “Bride of Frankenstein” is wildly regarded as the absolute best of Universals monster movies, and is often labeled as a horror movie legend. Any list of the greatest horror movies of all time would probably feature this movie among the top ten best. It’s also worth noting that of the eight classic Universal monster movies, this is the only one that’s a direct sequel to one of the previous films. Interesting because every one of these classic monsters would have their own chain of sequels, and even “Frankenstein” would have several more sequels after this one. Even though this is a great movie, it’s only excuse for being among the classic eight is due to the introduction of the Bride. So, what do I think of this film ... well, I wouldn't call it my absolute favorite of the series, but I'd certainly rank it among the top three best. 

    This is the third of the Universal monster movies to be directed by James Whale, and he still proves to be the best in the business. The movie begins with a prolog featuring Mary Shelly, the author of the original “Frankenstein” novel, but she’s played by actress Elsa Lanchester. She and some house guests recap on all the events of the last film, set to a clip montage, and in the end Mary Shelly comments that the story doesn’t end with the burning windmill. Even though the first movie was nothing like the book, I still like this opening a lot because it gets me excited for what I’m about to watch, and it’s also nice for the movie to give direct mention to the source material. Anyway, the movie then continues immediately after the events of the last film. The family that lost their doubter in the first movie are exploring the remains of the downed windmill to make sure the monster died. Too bad for them, the monster emerges from the ruble, kills them both, and tries desperately to find its place in the world. Meanwhile, Dr. Henry Frankenstein is ready to leave all this science behind and spend more time with his wife, but a new mad doctor named Pretorius inters the picture, and plans to continue Frankenstein’s work. 

    It’s interesting that the first movie revolved around the doctor, and the monster was a secondary character. Now things are reversed, as it’s Dr. Henry Frankenstein who gets pushed to the side lines, and the monster gets all the attention. He may not seem like an interesting character to hold an entire movie, but the writers handle him very well. First of all, the monster has an intellect in this movie, and even speaks. While the creature does kill some people, the film also gets us to sympathize with the beast on more than one occasion. There’s a scene when a girl falls into a lake and starts drowning, then to make up for drowning the little girl in the first film, the monster willingly leaps into the lake and rescues her. Unfortunately he’s rewarded by having people shoot at him. There’s another scene in which he sees his own reflection, and is ashamed of what he looks like. The best scene of all is when he takes refuge at the home of an old, blind man, who he forms a friendship with. Seeing these two bond is just as funny as it is heartwarming, and it’s become a classic scene. It’s here that the creature learns to speak, and forms an intellect, but most importantly, it shows that the creature does have a heart. Of course, this scene also marks the famous moment in which the monster expresses his dislike of fire ... "Fire, no good!"  

    There’s also a lot of religious symbolism and metaphors laced throughout the movie, which feels a touch out of place. The image of Christ on the cross is present in a number of shots, including a dissolve effect in the old mans house, which singles out the crucifix hanging on the wall before fading to black. There's even a moment when the monster is strung up by the angry villagers, and his poss resembles Christ on the cross. Personally, I don’t get what James Whale is trying to get across by connecting Christianity with monsters. I think the big question this movie asks is “What makes something a monster?” All throughout the movie, we see this creature try his best to just fit in with the world, but it’s everyone’s hatred and actions that cause him to become a murderous fiend. This is also how he gets an intense hatred for living things. Boris Karloff is back in his signature role as the monster, and this time he’s given a lot more to work with. Unlike most of his villain roles, this film allowed Karloff to display a wider range of emotions, and it just livens up the creatures overall screen presence. 

    

    Colin Clive also returns to his signature role of Dr. Henry Frankenstein, and still does a good job, but like I said earlier, his character isn’t the focus of the movie, and he doesn’t leave as big an impression as he did in the first film. The real star who steals the show is the new evil Doctor Pretorius. Even though he’s not one of the eight classic monsters, he’s personally one of my favorite villains from the universal catalog. This is the classic mad scientist, and actor Ernest Thesiger is fantastic in the role. He also speaks one of the franchises most famous lines, in which he makes a toast stating ... "Let's raise a glass to the new world of Gods and monsters". There isn’t a hunchbacked assistant in this film either, although Dwight Frye dose make an appearance as a lab assistant named Karl. This of cores is the same actor who played the hunchbacked assistant in the first "Frankenstein" movie, and the crazy Renfield in “Dracula”. In other words, these movies really liked to recycle their cast members.

  

    On that note, the only character with a noticeable cast change is Dr. Frankenstein’s wife Elizabeth. In the original she was played by Mae Clarke, but in this film she’s played by Valerie Hobson. While this new actress is certainly more attractive, I also felt that the other actress was more classy and dignified. There’s just something about this new actresses performance that comes off as annoying and over the top. Also, she falls victim to the classic cliché of getting kidnapped by the monster. Unlike all the other films, this monster has no interest in her at all, and is only using her for leverage, which is slightly more original. Speaking of annoying performances, remember what I said in my review of “The Invisible Man” about that really annoying woman played by Una O’ Connor, and how she ruined every scene she’s in. Well, the same actress is back in this movie, playing a painfully annoying, over exaggerated house maid named Minnie. Her acting is so loud and over the top that it actually hurts to watch, but it doesn’t ruin the film by any means. 

    Just like its predecessor, the films visuals and scenery are big spectacles, and almost steal the show. The new lab for example is much busier, and has some really fun set pieces on display. For 1935, many of the effects in this movie are quiet impressive and still hold up to this day. My favorite scene is when doctor Pretorius displays a collection of shrunken people that he grew in his lab. It’s a fun variety of different characters, they blend in with their surroundings perfectly, and it might just be the first time shrunken people were ever featured in a motion picture. There’s also an electrifying musical score which only adds to the films overall charm and entertainment. Interestingly enough, the first time I ever heard this score was a scene from the 1999 movie “Small Solders”. There’s a moment when a bunch of evil female toys are being constructed, and it’s all set to the score from “Bride of Frankenstein”, which was a nice touch. While on the subject of the technical details, I should note that this movie even received an Oscar nomination for best sound design, which is saying a lot for a monster movie from the 30's.

    

    Oh yeah, I should probably talk about the Bride ... after all, isn’t that the title character of the movie? Well, at the very end of the film, the two doctors do create the bride, but she’s only on screen for about six minutes. No joke, once the bride comes to life, the Frankenstein monster tries to be gentile and comforting, but even the bride is scared of him, which provokes the monster to kill her. During her time on screen, she hardly dose anything, just makes a lot of hissing sounds, and jerks her head around like a peacock. Also, she never appears in any of the squalls that followed. The Bride is played by Elsa Lanchester, who also played Mary Shelly in the prologue. I suppose she looks the part, and dose a serviceable job with what she has to work with, but the only reason the Bride has become such an icon is due to her overall design. The movie never explains why her hair is all weird and electrocuted-up like that, but it’s become one of the most famous hair-dues in the history of cinema, and imitated countless times after. 

    Her intro also serves as the finale of the movie, which may seem a little anticlimactic, but it’s actually a really good ending. Once the monster is turned down by the bride, he lets doctor Frankenstein and his wife escape, but keeps the evil doctor Pretorius, and the bride in the Castle to die. What I find hilarious about this climax is that Dr. Frankenstein has a convenient self-destruct lever, which the monster pulls and blows up the castle. Why on earth would the doctor install that? Well, the movie does have a very corny tone overall, and even though a self-destruct lever is silly, it doesn’t feel that out of place when compared to everything else that happens in this film.

 

    

    Boris Karloff would return to play the monster once more in the 1939 sequel titled “Son of Frankenstein”, which may not have been a classic, but it was still a very good sequel in its own right. Further sequels like “Ghost of Frankenstein” in 1942 and “House of Frankenstein” in 1944 would go way over-the-top with the stories, and would feature different actors in the role of the monster. For whatever it’s worth, these were actually entertaining monster movies, but not on par with either of the originals. The Frankenstein monster made several more appearances in crossover movies like “Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man” in 1943, “Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein” in 1948, and the creature even made a brief appearance in the 1945 Dracula sequel titled “House of Dracula”. It’s probably the first long running monster franchise of all time, and would set the template for other endless monster franchises like “Halloween” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street”.    

   Just like all the other universal monsters, Frankenstein had a large number of remakes beginning with Hammer studios 1957 motion picture “The Curse of Frankenstein”. This led to yet another long running series of Frankenstein movies consisting of six installments. However, these films focused more on the doctor, and the monster changed for each movie. In 1994, Kenneth Branagh directed and starred in the movie “Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein”, which is probably the creatures most popular modern remake. It stayed closer to the novel, stared Robert De Niro as the Frankenstein monster, and even the bride made an appearance, played in this film by Helena Bonham Carter. Over the years, both Frankenstein and the Bride have become pop culture icons, and the monster himself is one of the most famous mascots that you see every Halloween. I wonder if the real Mary Shelley ever imagined the creature from her novel going down in history as one of the most marketable and popular monsters of all time. Well, the book may be a literary classic, but it’s really the 1931 motion picture classic "Frankenstein", parried with its sequel that helped make both monsters immortal. 

  “Bride of Frankenstein” is undeniably a campy film, full of hammy performances from the supporting cast, and is very short on scares, at least for modern audiences, but it’s held up remarkably well over the years. The effects are still very impressive, it’s a visual marvel to look at, the pacing is great, and it’s a rare kind of horror movie that actually explores the soul of a monster. I really can’t think of any other monster movie that can get an audience to sympathize with its signature villain as well as this film, which just makes it feel special in its own way. It's also earned it's status as one of the great iconic movie squeals that's arguably superior to the original ... which was already a classic. This may not be my absolute favorite entry in the Universal monster series, but it is still pretty damn good, and without question, it’s earned the right to be called a horror movie legend.  

Thanks for reading my review of the 1935 horror classic "The Bride of Frankenstein" ... and that’s it, my October marathon has concluded, hope you enjoyed it, treat yourself to one good scare, and as always ...

                          Happy Halloween!  

The Phantom of the Opera (1943) (Movie Review)

    All October I’ve been reviewing movies about vampires, werewolves, mummy’s and reanimated corpses, but today’s monster is something very different, and completely human. The 1943 motion picture “The Phantom of the Opera”, is definitely the odd ball of the 8 classic universal monster movies. It’s the only film to be shot in color as opposed to black and white, it didn’t have any sequels, it’s based 100% in the real world with no science or sorcery, and even though it’s the first sound version of the film, it’s still not quiet as iconic as its silent movie predecessor. All the classic monsters had silent movies prior to the sound versions, but the 1925 silent film “The Phantom of the Opera” was a landmark achievement that’s often regarded as one of the greatest horror movies of all time, and is often regarded as the best film version of this characters story. When you combine that with the booming success of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s classic 1986 musicale, the 1943 classic seems to fall by the waist side. This happens to be my least favorite installment of the 8 classic Universal monster movies, and just like my experience with “The Mummy”, I was introduced to several other renditions of the film, and the musicale first, which already put this at a disadvantage.

     The movie is based on the 1910 novel “The Phantom of the Opera” by Gaston Leroux, and keeping in tradition with all these movies, it changes some things from the book. Here’s the set up, Christine DuBois is a cores girl at an Opera, and many people there believe that she has so much potential to be a real star. One shy violinist named Enrique Claudin is determined to help Christine in her singing carrier, in fact he is obsessed with her vocal talents, and rights her a new song. His single obsession slowly starts ruining his life, he loses his job at the Opera and he owes a lot of people money. Then after he mistakes someone for stealing his music, a fight breaks out, which ends with acid being thrown in his face. While his face gets horribly burned, Claudin survives, steals a costume from the theater, and hides in the sewers. Now he becomes Christine’s watchful guardian, who dose all in his power to make sure that she becomes a famous singer, even if that means killing an actress or two in the process.

    My first big reservation with this movie is that there’s nothing mysterious or interesting about this movies lead monster. Most other versions of “The Phantom of the Opera” portray him as this mysterious person who pears out to us from the shadows. Very little was known about him, and most of the characters were so frightened by his mystique that they mistook him for a ghost, which is why they called him the Phantom of the Opera. This movie however shows us his story from the ground up, we know how he got the disfigured face, we know who he was before hand, and we know exactly what he wants, which defeats his mystique entirely, and ruins all the fascination you could have for a character like this. The other characters don’t even refer to him as the Phantom of the Opera throughout the entire movie, everyone knows who he is, and what he’s capable off. I will say that I love all the shadow effects in which we see the phantoms shadowy outline against a wall, these are the only moments in the film in which he feels mysterious and foreboding. 

     Now, giving us the Phantoms story from the ground up could have worked if he was the main character of the film ... but he really isn't, in fact he comes off like a secondary character, and isn't even featured that often in the film. Most of the attention is given to Christine, her carrier and her love life, which really undermines our films lead monster. One thing this movie absolutely has going for it is its production design, which is quiet impressive. The sets are so detailed, so grand, and sense it's all in color, you can really take in the beauty, size and scope of its layout more than the other Universal monster movies. The theater's stage is always a dazzling and elaborate set, and even the underground sewers are very impressive to look at. As such, of the eight original classic Universal Horror movies, this was the only film to get recognition and awards from the Oscars. It had four nominations all together, two of which included Best Sound Recording, and Best Music, which was composed by Edward Ward. "The Phantom of the Opera" then won the later two Academy Awards for Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction. 

    I also like the Phantoms overall design, the makeup for his scarred face is nothing special but his costume is really good. This is the film that introduced his iconic opera mask which would be universal in all his other media portrayals, and I really like his big hat which ties his costume together nicely. The Phantom is played by Claude Rains, a great actor who’s done well even in supporting roles like the father in “The Wolf Man”, but oddly enough, he seems to represent both the best and worst of what the Universal monsters have to offer. He was outstanding in the title role of “The Invisible Man” from the 1933 classic, and to this day, it’s still my favorite villain performance I’ve ever seen in a horror movie. However, his portrayal of the Phantom in this film is actually my least favorite of all the Universal monster performances. Personally, I just don’t think he was given much to work with, in “The Invisible Man” he had long monologues in which he elevated his voice in a way that was deeply thrilling to listen to. He also displayed a wide variety of acting talents, ranging from sympathetic, to funny, to frightening. As the Phantom, he’s only sympathetic, and while he does that well, he just doesn’t convey enough menace to leave an impression.

    In the plus column, our female lead Christine, played by Susanna Foster is fantastic, in fact, she might just be the best of all the female leads featured in any of these Universal monster movies. Not only is she incredibly beautiful, but she’s also charming, independent and has her own personal conflicts, choosing between the people she loves or the carrier of her dreams, which makes her a little more interesting. While she is regrettably reduced to damsel by the end, she at least manages to keep strong in the situation. In general, her character thankfully isn't quiet as one note as most other female leads from the monster movies of the time.  

    Unfortunately, for every positive comment I can give this film, there’s always two more negative things to say, and now we get to the worst part of the movie by far. In most renditions of “The Phantom of the Opera”, Christine has a boy friend named Raoul, who stands between her and the Phantom. Well, Raoul is featured in this film as a boy friend played by Edgar Barrier, but his character is all wrong. He’s an inspector who occasionally acts like a selfish jerk, and looks like he belongs in a “Pink Panther” comedy. Also, there’s this other opera singer who’s also in love with Christine, which is ridiculous, because the subtle love triangle of the novel has now become an overly complicated love square. It’s not like this other guy is there to be a victim, in fact, he’s a main lead that’s present from beginning to end, and even gets more screen time then Raoul, the boy friend we're supposed to care for. The comedy in this film is atrocious, with a lot of time wasted on overly long scenes involving Raoul childishly bickering with the opera singer to win Christine’s hand. The movie at times feels like a completely different film, like a pore slapstick/ romantic comedy. It’s almost as if the writers forgot about the phantom, and through him into the plot at last second.  

   The pacing in this movie is also a complete mess, as some scenes drag, and are very dull, while others scenes come off as rushed, this is most evident during the climax. Of course, we get the classic scene with the phantom dropping the chandelier during a live performance, but it’s so short, and so rushed that we can’t savor any excitement. Then when Christine is kidnapped and taken into the lair of the Phantom, and everything wraps up as quickly as it started. The two boyfriends immediately come to her rescue, a completely random cave-in collapses the phantoms lair, and gives our three hero’s a thrilling escape. I’m not joking, a random cave-in conveniently takes out the bad guy, and the whole climax is wrapped up in about five minutes. There is at least one cool moment when we see the Phantoms mask amongst the rebel, with his violin by its side. That would have been a strong note to end everything on, but unfortunately we have an epilogue. Christine turns down both of her boyfriends to pursue her singing carrier, leaving Raoul and the other guy to have another stupid comedy scene together, and everything ends on the lowest note you could possibly end this movie on.  

   The movies biggest problem is that it looms in the shadows of so many other superior versions of this story. 

Like I said earlier, the 1925 silent film “The Phantom of the Opera” is considered the immortal classic, and it doesn't stop there either. In 1962, Hammer studios released a remake of “The Phantom of the Opera”, and I actually saw this version first. While the production wasn’t quiet as big, I actually fond this to be a far superior movie with better characters, and far more mystery surrounding the Phantom. Once Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical rendition of “The Phantom of the Opera” hit the stage in 1986, everything changed. It was such a hit that people began to associate the character completely with the theater and music, forgetting about its horror movie roots. I doubt that you’ll ever see Dracula or Frankenstein ever go through a change as big or as ground breaking as what happened to The Phantom of the Opera. Robert Englund, famous for playing Freddy Krueger in “The Nightmare on Elm Street” also got his chance to play the Phantom in a very dark 1989 remake of "The Phantom of the Opera", which turned out a mixed offering. Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical then made its transition to the big screen with a motion picture in 2004 starring Gerard Butler as the Phantom. While it wasn’t a critical hit, it was still successful, and has gained plenty of fans. I’ve actually grown to like this one a lot over the years, and it proves again that Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical is the classic version of “The Phantom of the Opera”, even more classic then either of the original horror movies.  

 

   Overall, the 1943 movie version of “The Phantom of the Opera” is not a completely terrible film, and is still a minor classic in it's own right. It has incredible sets, its shot very well, the female lead is terrific, Claude Rains delivers in the role of the Phantom, and there’s just enough excitement to hold your attention for a single viewing. Having said that, I still feel it's the weakest of the eight Universal Classic monster movies, as the villain just isn’t as interesting or as exciting as he should be, the supporting cast is terrible, the story always feels out of focus, the comedy is awful, and there’s so many other better versions of “The Phantom of the Opera” that are worth watching instead.

Thanks for reading my review of the 1943 Horror Movie classic “The Phantom of the Opera” ... and be sure to treat yourself to one good scare this October. 

NEXT TIME: One of the previous monsters will return ... for a wedding.   

The Mummy (1932) (Movie Review)

   We’ve seen Bram Stoker’s classic Dracula novel come to life with the 1931 movie starring Bela Lugosi, and we’ve seen Mary Shelley’s classic Frankenstein novel come to life through yet another famous horror movie of that same year staring Boris Karloff. Now let’s look at another classic horror movie from 1932, except this time, it’s not based on a novel. Universal’s “The Mummy” was a completely original concept, and launched a string of sequels, remakes and spin-off’s, resulting in one of the studio’s most successful and long lasting franchises. Unlike most of the other eight classic Universal monsters, I was first introduced to The Mummy through the 1999 remake as opposed to the original, which put it at a disadvantage. However, I still viewed it for what it is, and it turns out to be fairly good. While it’s not as good a movie as “Frankenstein”, I do think it’s a lot better than “Dracula”. Actually, ranking all eight of these classic Universal monster films from least favorite to favorite, I’d probably fit this movie right in the middle.

    The movie begins with a dig down in Egypt, where a group of archaeologists uncover the tomb of an ancient mummy, along with a magic scroll that can bring back the dead. One man foolishly ignores all the warnings, and accidently brings the soul of the evil high priest Imhotep to life. 10 years later, the mummy regains a human form, goes under the allies of Ardeth Bay, and tricks a second team to dig up the body of the Princess Ankh-es-en-Amon, who he had fallen in love with back in the days of ancient Egypt. Imhotep soon learns that the princess has been reincarnated in the form of a woman named Helen, who he seeks to slay, and transform her into a living mummy like him. Meanwhile, Helen’s boy friend Frank learns of the threat, and teams up with a doctor named Muller. Together, they must come up with a plan to free Helen, and return this evil spirit back to the land of the dead where it belongs.

    This film pretty much laid the template for every mummy themed movie to follow, but its approach is very unique and different from the others. Most movies of this kind rely on thrills and excitement, but this movie is rather tame, using atmosphere and mood as its tools. It actually comes off more like a gothic romance picture then a horror flick, but it still has an effective tone to boot. Now I’ll be the first to admit, I prefer a more exciting approach over what this film dose, but that’s not to say it’s bad either. In fact, I really admire this movie for being so subtle and even daring. I also find it unfortunate that mummies aren’t appreciated as much as other popular monsters like zombies or aliens. True, zombies seem a little scarier and more exciting to battle, but mummies have a far more interesting lore and mythos, plus, I just love how classy their designs are. On that note, I should probably mention that this mummy spends very little time wrapped in bandages, and hardly ever kills people. In fact, this mummy actually comes off like a sorcerer, as his only method of killing people comes from gazing into a cauldron, and killing his foes with dark spells. Our only real clue that he was a Mummy comes from his skin, which has small remnants of the bandages faded in.

     While I said the concept for the movie was very original, the plot also barrows heavily from “Dracula”. They both feature a monster that comes off as more of a humble individual rather than a mindless monster, both villains want to claim the soul of a woman and make her an undead creature, heck, both movies actually begin with music from “Swan Lake”. Even half the cast from “Dracula” is featured in this film, David Manners played the boy friend in that movie, and he plays the same kind of generic boyfriend in this movie too. Edward Van Sloan makes his third appearance in a Universal monster movie, first he played Van Helsing back in “Dracula”, then Dr. Waldman in “Frankenstein”, and now he plays Professor Muller in this movie. He’s basically the exact same character too, discovering the identity of the monster, and he’s the only individual who knows how to fight him. Having addressed all that, I actually think “The Mummy” is far superior to “Dracula”, even if it is the same plot. It’s done so much more effectively, and it just leaves me more satisfied in the end. It just feels like a more complete film, and even though it moves at the same slow pass, it tells the story more effectively, and our lead villain this time is actually superior in many ways.  

    After his success playing the monster from “Frankenstein”, Boris Karloff was casted in the role of the mummy, making this the second time he brought an iconic monster to life. He’s played a lot of really good villains and memorable monsters throughout his carrier, and his portrayal of the mummy is arguably one of his best performances. Personally, I think it’s far better than his portrayal of the Frankenstein monster, and in many ways, I think he’s even better than Dracula. I like how this isn’t a mindless creature that murders random people, instead he’s calm, sophisticated, and only kills those that would stand between him and his bride, but he’s still just as evil as any classic villain. It gave Karloff more range to act, using a soft, yet deep voice and his eyes are nothing short of sinister. Just like Dracula, his gaze alone is frightening. However, Karloff’s eyes don’t burst out like Dracula’s, instead they seem to just sink in his big eye sockets, which is really creepy. I said in my last review that I felt Karloff had little to work with, but in this movie, he earns his title of one of the greatest horror villain actors of the age. 

   Also when comparing girl friends, I find the character Helen played by Zita Johann, to be a huge improvement over the girl from “Dracula”. That girl felt like added fluff, while this one is essential to the story, and there’s just more of a character on display, rather than just a damsel that needs to be rescued. That’s not to say she’s completely devoid of clichés either, in fact throughout the movie she shows off a lot of skin, and is always wearing some kind of lovely dress, which makes her feel more like a princess stereotype than an actual person. Still, she does her job well, and obviously she’s the most attractive of the Universal monster movie girls.  

    The films actually quiet ambitious, showing things that would have never been featured in a movie at the time. The best scene of all is the flashback that shows in full detail how Imhotep became the mummy. For stealing from tombs, attempting to bring back the dead and committing sacrilege against their gods, he was buried alive, which is already disturbing. But then the scene gets more intense as we see the diggers get impaled so that no one discovers where he was buried. It’s probably one of the first impaling's ever featured in a movie, and its quiet horrific.  

   

   The climax once again improves on the short comings of “Dracula”. It’s the same set up, Imhotep takes the girl deep into his evil lair and is about to perform a ritual that will turn her into a living corps like him. However, this film actually has tension, as we see her on the sacrificial table, we even see the knife going into her tummy, and at this point were absolutely cheering for the hero’s when they burst in to save her. The mummy also fights back this time, and in a rare turn of events it’s actually the girl who saves the day, and sends the villain back to the underworld, which is a great twist.   

   Boris Karloff never reprised his role as the mummy, and there actually weren’t any direct sequels. However, there was a spin off series that began in 1940 with a film titled “The Mummy’s Hand”, which was followed by three direct sequels titled “The Mummy’s Tomb”, “The Mummy’s Ghost” and “The Mummy’s Curse”. While none of these movies were as good as the original film, they were fun to watch, and featured a more traditional mummy that stayed wrapped in bandages, killing people mindlessly. There was also another silly comedy spinoff titled “Abbott and Costello meet The Mummy”, which I personally think is one of their weakest films. There have been several other remakes and spin-offs over the years, including a very successful remake in 1959 staring Christopher Lee in the title role. This movie had three direct squeals that were inferior by comparison.  

    The big one most people know about is the 1999 version of “The Mummy” staring Brendan Fraser. This film obviously isn’t as sophisticated as the original, but I personally like it a lot more, and to this day it stands as one of my all time favorite entertainment movies. This is also a rare case in which the remake is slightly better known then the original. If you were to ask common movie goers today what they think of “The Mummy”, they’d probably think of the 1999 version first, and may not even realize that it was a remake. That situation would never happen to Dracula, Frankenstein or the Wolf Man, even though they’ve had several remakes over the years. That’s not to say that the original is forgotten, it’s just less popular by comparison. The remake also launched a successful blockbuster series beginning with a direct sequel titled “The Mummy Returns”, which was followed by “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” and there was also a spin off movie titled “The Scorpion King”, which also had a string of direct to video sequels, and there was even an animated Mummy TV series that aired on Kids WB.   

   What started as a small, black and White horror movie just ignited into a massive franchise. Overall, Universal’s original 1932 motion picture “The Mummy” is still an effective and unique horror film that holds up. It takes everything that worked in “Dracula”, and significantly improves on all its short comings. The film certainly isn’t as entertaining or re-watchable as other horror films, and I still prefer the 1999 remake, but the original is still good. It has a haunting atmosphere, memorable scenes and Boris Karloff in one of his most memorable villain roles.

  

Thanks for reading my review of the 1932 Horror classic "The Mummy" ... and treat yourself to one good scare this October. 

NEXT TIME: Well be looking at a much classier monster that comes from the theater.