A mystical thriller. The film adaptation of the novel by Nina Walcox Putnam and Richard Shyer. And since I am not familiar with the original book source, I will evaluate the film adaptation as an independent work. Because my favorite childhood adventure series is "The Mummy" Stephen Sommers, which I try to review periodically, so I decided to get acquainted with the very first picture, which gave rise to all subsequent "Mummies" in world cinema. And although the picture was shot as early as 1932, then, after watching it, I can safely say that many years later it is good, although not as perfect as some film critics or viewers claim. And here's my brief opinion for you - A good old mystical thriller. There were both advantages and disadvantages in the picture, which are also worth mentioning. And this should end the much-needed introduction and proceed to the analysis.
So, the advantages: 1. Scenario - since the twenties and thirties of the last century were harsh and very difficult, so in those days studios could not afford the luxury of wasting film on unnecessary scenes and frankly empty dialogues (not like now), the scenario of this picture is quite simple and understandable - in Egypt, English archaeologists find a strange a mummy, strange in many ways, because it looks terribly unpleasant, so also a casket with a curse written on it was buried with it. Of course, the forbidden fruit is sweet, and the young archaeologist could not resist opening this casket, and then, by an absurd coincidence, revived this mummy. Now Imhotep, the name of the revived mummy in ancient times, intends to return his beloved Princess Ankhesenamun from the afterlife, but for this already in the modern world (sample 1932) he needs to find the reincarnation of his beloved, which turns out to be the Englishwoman Helen Grosvenor, who is not indifferent to Frank Wemple. Yes, here the screenwriter mixed mysticism, the first experiments in the genre of "horror", adventure, and a kind of love triangle. And I can say that in general everything worked out, although not all the elements are well expressed. The characters are remembered, the entourage of Egypt is felt (and this despite the fact that the whole nature was filmed in the USA). The mystical atmosphere works as it should. The finale just turned out to be too fast and crumpled, as if the studio was in a hurry to release the picture as soon as possible. I enjoyed telling the story, it was interesting to watch it.
2. Boris Karloff as Imhotep - the magnificent Boris Karloff created a unique image of the animated monster Imhotep, who here also pretends to be a modern man, hiding under the name Ardet Bey. Boris's Imhotep keeps almost all the attention on himself here, because this image is both frightening and attractive. That look (those who looked will understand!), those slow movements, hidden desires and cold-blooded calculation. An actor's makeup alone is worth a lot. Back then, the technology was still primitive. All the plaster was real, it was applied for several hours, and at the same time it was necessary to move in all this. It's all going to be drawn on a computer now, but then there was no such luxury. You can't help but respect the greatest actor of his time for such hard work and such endurance. The clothes are also perfectly matched for the character.
3. Mystical atmosphere - what else can be deservedly praised for the picture is the atmosphere. Then the creators expected to scare the viewer more, but now the local scarecrows no longer work, but the very atmosphere of mysticism here is very good. The music, the picture, the actors - everyone is trying for this.
So, the disadvantages: 1. Cita Johan in the role of the Englishwoman Helen - here I judge purely externally and the impression that she made from the screen. We could have found an actress prettier for such a role, because here we have a classic "lady in distress" who needs to be saved. And if the face is still nothing, then here is the bikini area - a board with a board. Although, if you look closely, then the face can not be called very attractive. I understand that this is a taste, but my inner aesthete says that the Cita is not suitable for this role at all. And there is certainly no spark between her and Frank, or Imhotep.
2. Timing - it is too small, because there are traces of deleted episodes in the credits that would reveal the characters more, but they were not missed by American censorship (the Hayes Code), and at the moment they are considered lost. It's a pity!
3. The affectation of horror, and not only it - this is generally characteristic of old paintings, and the "Mummy" was no exception. And if in other paintings they tried not to overdo it (so you could close your eyes to it), then this will not work here, because this affectation screams about itself. The most striking moment is the animated Imhotep at the beginning of the picture. Something like this will happen more than once or twice during the entire timekeeping period.
I am glad that I was able to familiarize myself with this classic of world cinema, witnessed firsthand the magnificent acting of Boris Karloff, and learned how interest in "Mummies" originated in cinema. This painting is certainly not a masterpiece for all time (and even in the year of its release it was not), but it clearly deserved a good rating.
My rating is 7 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!
So, the advantages: 1. Scenario - since the twenties and thirties of the last century were harsh and very difficult, so in those days studios could not afford the luxury of wasting film on unnecessary scenes and frankly empty dialogues (not like now), the scenario of this picture is quite simple and understandable - in Egypt, English archaeologists find a strange a mummy, strange in many ways, because it looks terribly unpleasant, so also a casket with a curse written on it was buried with it. Of course, the forbidden fruit is sweet, and the young archaeologist could not resist opening this casket, and then, by an absurd coincidence, revived this mummy. Now Imhotep, the name of the revived mummy in ancient times, intends to return his beloved Princess Ankhesenamun from the afterlife, but for this already in the modern world (sample 1932) he needs to find the reincarnation of his beloved, which turns out to be the Englishwoman Helen Grosvenor, who is not indifferent to Frank Wemple. Yes, here the screenwriter mixed mysticism, the first experiments in the genre of "horror", adventure, and a kind of love triangle. And I can say that in general everything worked out, although not all the elements are well expressed. The characters are remembered, the entourage of Egypt is felt (and this despite the fact that the whole nature was filmed in the USA). The mystical atmosphere works as it should. The finale just turned out to be too fast and crumpled, as if the studio was in a hurry to release the picture as soon as possible. I enjoyed telling the story, it was interesting to watch it.
2. Boris Karloff as Imhotep - the magnificent Boris Karloff created a unique image of the animated monster Imhotep, who here also pretends to be a modern man, hiding under the name Ardet Bey. Boris's Imhotep keeps almost all the attention on himself here, because this image is both frightening and attractive. That look (those who looked will understand!), those slow movements, hidden desires and cold-blooded calculation. An actor's makeup alone is worth a lot. Back then, the technology was still primitive. All the plaster was real, it was applied for several hours, and at the same time it was necessary to move in all this. It's all going to be drawn on a computer now, but then there was no such luxury. You can't help but respect the greatest actor of his time for such hard work and such endurance. The clothes are also perfectly matched for the character.
3. Mystical atmosphere - what else can be deservedly praised for the picture is the atmosphere. Then the creators expected to scare the viewer more, but now the local scarecrows no longer work, but the very atmosphere of mysticism here is very good. The music, the picture, the actors - everyone is trying for this.
So, the disadvantages: 1. Cita Johan in the role of the Englishwoman Helen - here I judge purely externally and the impression that she made from the screen. We could have found an actress prettier for such a role, because here we have a classic "lady in distress" who needs to be saved. And if the face is still nothing, then here is the bikini area - a board with a board. Although, if you look closely, then the face can not be called very attractive. I understand that this is a taste, but my inner aesthete says that the Cita is not suitable for this role at all. And there is certainly no spark between her and Frank, or Imhotep.
2. Timing - it is too small, because there are traces of deleted episodes in the credits that would reveal the characters more, but they were not missed by American censorship (the Hayes Code), and at the moment they are considered lost. It's a pity!
3. The affectation of horror, and not only it - this is generally characteristic of old paintings, and the "Mummy" was no exception. And if in other paintings they tried not to overdo it (so you could close your eyes to it), then this will not work here, because this affectation screams about itself. The most striking moment is the animated Imhotep at the beginning of the picture. Something like this will happen more than once or twice during the entire timekeeping period.
I am glad that I was able to familiarize myself with this classic of world cinema, witnessed firsthand the magnificent acting of Boris Karloff, and learned how interest in "Mummies" originated in cinema. This painting is certainly not a masterpiece for all time (and even in the year of its release it was not), but it clearly deserved a good rating.
My rating is 7 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!