Michael Elliott

IMDB Reviews

Joe Karlosi

EL (1953)
I didn't know quite what to expect from EL going into it, but it really intrigued me in different ways -- not only with the general story, but also in the visual style with which it was realized. There were surprises at every turn, and the acting by the leading man Arturo de Cordova was superb. What began as a pretty standard-looking (though nicely photographed) soap opera wound up transforming into a striking melodrama with some oddly disturbing moments. I don't know how indicative this one movie is of Luis Bunuel's general approach, but if the others are anywhere near as interesting, I look forward to them. He seems ahead of his time, judging by this film.

Mario Gauci

This is an historic day for me, folks: I've been trying to get Joe Karlosi to try out the work of my favorite director, Luis Bunuel, for almost three years and, even if he did need the recommendation of his pal, Michael Elliott, before taking that first step, I'm really glad his viewing experience of EL (1952) turned out so satisfactorily!

As I said before, I should be getting to this film and a few other Bunuels around mid-August so bear with me some more while I get through those vintage Universal horror films (again).

I'll say just this, though: in real life, Spaniard Luis was quite jealous of his French wife Jeanne and consequently EL is arguably his most personal work. Also, just for the record, I currently rank EL at No. 12 in Bunuel's canon...

Joe Karlosi

Mario -- I see you've watched THE MUMMY'S GHOST and THE MUMMY'S HAND for only the "first" time! I didn't know you'd never seen those before, or if you had already told me, I just plain forgot. I'm presuming you'll be writing something about them here, so I'll wait for the post before seeing how we stand together on them.

Mario Gauci

I'm currently going through some of the Universal Monster Legacies and have starting things off with "The Mummy" set, since it contained a couple of titles I hadn't watched before.


THE MUMMY'S GHOST (1944) **: Perhaps the weakest film in the "Kharis" series, despite the presence of John Carradine (miscast as an Egyptian high priest) and George Zucco (as his predecessor, hilariously afflicted by a bad case of Parkinson's Disease) supporting Lon Chaney Jr. as the titular creature - if indeed it was him under the bandages, as his contribution is negligible at best! It's a watchable 60 minutes in itself, I guess, but the standards have considerably lowered when compared even to the two previous entries, and the end result is strictly routine and not at all memorable. Just about the only interesting feature here is the fact that the female lead happens to be the reincarnation of Princess Ananka, mentioned a great deal in earlier films but never actually seen.


THE MUMMY'S CURSE (1944) **: This sequel to the above - and the final entry in the "Kharis" series - is slightly more enjoyable on the whole but it's also more contrived (hell, we even get a singing barmaid/hostess!): Peter Coe is easily the least charismatic of the various Egyptian high priests we've seen during the course of these films, and Martin Kosleck as his henchman seems uninterested in the proceedings; Kurt Katch, then, is saddled with a ridiculous accent as the man who discovers the newly reincarnated Princess Ananka: the latter, in the form of Virginia Christine (later a much-used character actress) gets her most substantial 'role' and, indeed, the sequence of her resurrection from the swamps is a highlight not only of this film but the entire series. Unfortunately, here too, Chaney has precious little to do as once again the emphasis is on Ananka, as I've said; his Mummy (to which he returned most often at Universal - apart, naturally, from his signature role of The Wolf Man!) remains, without a doubt, his least memorable monster for the studio.


THE MUMMY'S HAND (1940) ***: One of the best Universal horror films of the 40s and a worthy follow-up to the 1932 original, even if it wasn't directly related to it and actually spun a series of its own. While in essence no more than a B-film, it's solidly made on all fronts: the plot, unlike that of its sequels, is fresh and exciting and it boasts four likeable protagonists, as well as a wonderful trio of 'villains' - Eduardo Ciannelli (appearing briefly as the dying High Priest), George Zucco (as his evil successor, in one of his finest performances) and Tom Tyler (as the maimed but relentless revenge-seeking Mummy, who's as good in the role as Boris Karloff had been earlier and Christopher Lee would be in the 1959 Hammer remake [of this one more than the original]). The film's first half features a healthy dose of comic relief which I found in no way distracting, as it had proven to be in other horror films of the period; in fact, this element only helps accentuate the effectiveness of the latter sections of the film which offer more standard thrills, culminating in a superb climax - where Kharis has to literally crawl for his life-preserving tana fluid!


THE MUMMY'S TOMB (1942) **1/2: 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 comtemporaneous "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).

Joe Karlosi

I have to start out with a disagreement, Mario. For me, THE MUMMY'S GHOST has more to recommend it than, say, THE MUMMY'S CURSE (which is my personal choice for the least entry in this series, but more on that later). I think John Carradine is very good as a high priest, and he does boost these proceedings for me considerably.


I also think you may notice (if you see the film again eventually) that Chaney is actually more "into" the part here than in other films (especially CURSE). As the very-limited Kharis, he shows more emotion in GHOST than in anywhere else - like in the scene early on where he strangles the old professor, and later on as he smashes the museum in frustration and reacts to the loss of his princess. During the climax of the film, he bows his head in prayer with Carradine. As to the question of "was it really Lon under the bandages", I suppose you're basically reacting to what you feel is a weak performance from Chaney, but I bring this up because over the years it has been rumored that Chaney never played the mummy! Thankfully, many interviews with cast members and directors over the years have squashed that nonsense, and in GHOST you can see many little acting nuances that are very indicative of the old Lonster.


I like the addition of Ananka to the story, and this is one of the elements which I feel make this sequel more intriguing than the others. But the one thing about this film that I think hinders it are the terrible leads, Ramsay Ames and Robert Lowery.



I agree it's very contrived, and in my view this is the least of the series, easily. It's mostly due to an undeniable feeling of "been here, done that". The movie is one repetitive game of "cat and mouse," and it really grows dull. What's always incredible to me is that, if you do the math, the events of this film would be occuring in 1995! THE MUMMY'S HAND would be 1940 (as seen on a hotel receipt), then both TOMB and GHOST take place 30 years later (1970?), and CURSE finishes 25 years after THAT!


Agree. Agree.


There is nothing much any actor could do with such a restrictive role (though Christopher Lee did manage to emote effectively in the Hammer film). But with CURSE, Chaney is really more disinterested than ever, and is just collecting a resentful paycheck here. It should be noted that he hated playing this part. Absolutely despised it.


I echo everything here, Mario. It's my favorite of the series, and Tom Tyler makes a really creepy mummy. This is one of the first monster films I saw on TV as a child, which also places it at an advantage with me.



Ditto here, as well. I was not very enthralled with TOMB early on, but it has improved for me over the years. I note that you were aware of some "emotion seeping through the wrappings," and therefore I hope you may look for that a bit more next time if you revisit THE MUMMY'S GHOST.

SteveGon

No Telling (1991)

Viewed 8/1/2005 (first viewing)

The first in director Larry Fessenden's unofficial trilogy of horror films that reinvent the Universal classic monsters in a naturalistic fashion. No Telling presents a fresh spin on Frankenstein: a young married couple retreat to a farm country research lab where the husband is going to continue his research on spinal cord injuries. Needing animals for his work, and with his benefactors slow to provide them, he takes matters into his own hands... Here Fessenden tackles issues that are not often discussed in films: environmental degradation and the morality of animal research. Issues such as these could easily make a film overbearing, but Fessenden keeps a level head and never stoops to hyperbole and preaching. A compelling, disturbing film.

out of


Habit (1997)

Viewed 8/1/2005 (first viewing)

The second in Larry Fessenden's horror trilogy, Habit explores alienation and addiction in telling the story of Sam, a hapless alcoholic who jumps into a relationship with a mysterious beauty. But her decidedly odd ways lead him to believe she's a vampire! Conflicted by the absurdity of this belief, but determined to find out the truth of it, Sam slowly descends into madness... The best of the trilogy, inspired by the work of John Cassavetes.

out of


Wendigo (2001)

Viewed 8/1/2005

The third in Larry Fessenden's horror trilogy is a very loose take on the legend of the werewolf (made obvious by the opening shots). A family's weekend retreat in the Catskills turns terrifying after an encounter with a hostile native. But the real horror may lie in the legend of the Wendigo, a vengeful spirit that supposedly haunts the nearby woods. Ostensibly a study of myth and culture, the film lacks focus and opts for a rather traditional climax - disappointing in light of Fessenden's earlier efforts. Worth seeing - the movie certainly has its merits - but a better Wendigo movie can be found in Ravenous.

out of


Garuda (2004)

Viewed 8/2/2005 (first viewing)

Korea's take on giant monsters. An ancient god, buried for eons, is unearthed during construction of a subway. Naturally it's an evil giant monster and still very much alive! Can a special forces army unit find the means to destroy it? Starts off on shaky ground but gets better as it goes along, though the shadow of Aliens falls long and hard over it. The not-so-subtle anti-West bias is an unwelcome distraction.

out of


Humanity and Paper Balloons (1937)

Viewed 8/2/2005 (first viewing)

Depressing drama about the downtrodden lower classes in 18th century Tokyo. Well-crafted by doomed director Sadao Yamanaka, this is neorealism by way of Japan. Mainly worth seeing as an example of this little-known director's work. It's a good film, but in light of similar, better-known movies such as Kurosawa's The Lower Depths, it's rather redundant.

out of


Never Let Go (1960)

Viewed 8/3/2005 (first viewing)

Interesting little crime picture that is more about the disintegration of the lives of two men. A salesman discovers that his much-needed new car has been stolen and vows to recover it no matter the cost. His search stirs up trouble for the man behind the theft: a violent, ill-tempered lout played by Peter Sellers in his first straight role. With both men willing to go to extremes to protect what they've got, will anyone come out unscathed?

out of

Recently viewed films:

Onechanbara **
Night of the Living Jews **
White Heat ****
Dead Set ***
Working Stiffs ***

Zombie Movie Appreciation Thread

Mario Gauci

THE MUMMY (1932) ***1/2: Despite being my fifth viewing of this film, I couldn't help but be impressed all over again. Many tend to find it dull after Karloff's all-too-brief appearance at the beginning dressed in the traditional bandages (done to death in subsequent films), but I personally find the film compelling all the way through.

It evokes a dreamlike and romantic atmosphere like no other in the Universal canon - though some of the plot strands, admittedly, were lifted from various classic horror tales, there being no antecedent to the Mummy folklore in popular fiction; in fact, John L. Balderston's script is quite literate and generally avoids the stagey quality of DRACULA (1931). Again, director Karl Freund was criticized for the film's excessively slow pace but, clearly, this was done deliberately - one might say, inevitably, since Freund (as a cinematographer) had been one of the most prominent figures of the German Expressionist movement - and there's no doubt in my mind that this actually enhances the particular mood he was striving for: camerawork, editing, sets and costumes are alike excellent. The film also bears a pretty strong cast: Karloff is somewhere near his best here - enough said; unlike most female leads in horror films of this period, Zita Johann - with her striking looks and 'modern' approach to acting - commands almost as much attention as the nominal star; David Manners and Edward Van Sloan's roles are virtual reprises of their respective turns in DRACULA - but it's always a pleasure to watch the latter as he always gave it his all; and Bramwell Fletcher, who goes mad in unforgettable fashion early on, as the hapless archaeologist who unwittingly brings the Mummy to life.

I also watched the extras which accompanied the film and I must put in a good word for Paul M. Jensen's Audio Commentary: this too has been put down in reviews as being "soporific" and resorting mostly to descriptions of the on-screen action: I totally disagree and find his comments both compelling and insightful, as he clearly knows his stuff; maybe it isn't the exhilarating slam-bang commentary track that Tom Weaver or Greg Mank are noted for but, personally, I have no complaints! In fact, so impressed was I by the film that instead of diving straight on to the next Legacy set, I decided to rewatch SVENGALI (1931) and SHE (1935) - both of which were mentioned by Jensen as having partly inspired Balderston's cinematic concept of THE MUMMY.