Night 5: ‘The Mummy’ (1932)
This is part of the ’31 Nights of Horror Classics’ series, which I’ll be doing for Halloween 2017. Every night of this month, I’ll be watching a horror film made before the 90s and I’ll be posting a short review here.
It’s time to go back to the origins of terror, and what better way to do so than with the king of physical horror: Mr. Karloff himself.
After a couple of archeologist discover a chest inside of an ancient tomb, they decide to ignore a written warning and end up bringing an old evil back to life. It’s Imhotep (Boris Karloff), whom resurrects years after being buried alive in order to revive his beloved Ankh-es-en-amon (Zita Johann).
When I made the list of 31 films I would be watching to make this series of reviews, I knew I wanted to include movies that had been released decades before I was born. It’s a way of catching up, as well as getting to know the source of some popular characters that most of us have known through parodies and references. In that sense, The Mummy is perhaps one of the oldest on the list.
It’s not surprising then, than the ‘horror’ of this movie seems so incredibly different than that of more recent films. The Mummy isn’t really scary -although some eerie frames might creep into your nightmares- in a typical sense. The fear derives from the incredibly off-putting appearance of the title character, and the menace of the creature’s infinite power. Just don’t expect something truly gruesome or shocking to happen, for the story focuses more on a timeless love triangle.
As someone who grew up with the Brendan Fraser version of the tale –I actually saw it twice in theaters!-, I was familiar with a more dynamic version of the tale. Yet the ’32 version focuses instead on building tension through the romantic conflict between Imhotep and his reincarnated love. And although both mummies are obsessed with restoring life to their loved ones, this version of Imhotep seems to be more impotent and weak in comparison to Arnold Vosloo’s.
Looking back on it now, I’m surprised at how much de 1999 version managed to spin around the tale in order to give it a better, more logical foundation in which to operate. I have yet to see the ’59 version –it’s also on the list!-, but for now I feel like watching the ’32 film has shed a positive light on Sommers’ first movie. And my 90s heart is content!
As expected due to the time of its release, the ’32 film doesn’t focus on the more gory aspects of the narrative. The killings, for example, are not shown on-screen at all. And those which are have a distinctly non-violent tone to them. Indeed, although the mummy is an imposing presence thanks to Karloff’s stern exterior, he is quite a calm opponent.
It’s a little less exciting to watch, but infinitely better than the 2017 version. The ’32 movie feels surprisingly more genuine despite its convoluted plot and age. The sets, locations and the interactions between the characters, although imperfect, feel more real than its more recent counterparts do.
Still, this early version of the story has a muddled narrative riddled with plot holes and elements that don’t quite make sense. For example: how and why was Helena possessed by Ankh-es-en-amon? Why couldn’t her original body become human in the same way Imhotep’s did? What are the exact limits to the mummy’s powers? And why doesn’t he use them fully to get what he wants in less time?
Likewise, the romance between Helen and Frank (David Manners) is rushed and unearned. The third act depends heavily on making us believe that their love is stronger than the mummy’s pull. However, it ultimately fails miserably in its attempt.
In the end, The Mummy is worth watching due to some solid acting and wonderful set pieces. Yet, as a 90s kid, I confess that I remain partial to Stephen Sommers’ film.
At least for now!
Grade: 6/10. Enjoyable
Scare Factor: a few creepy frames.
Gore/Violence: almost nonexistent.
Nudity/Sexual Situations: none.
Previous Night: ‘They Live’ (88)
