View Single Post
  #4643  
Old 28th April 2010, 07:54 PM
42ndStreetFreak 42ndStreetFreak is offline
Ex-member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NOT ****ING HERE THAT'S FOR SURE!!!!
Default

"The Mummy’s Ghost" (1944)

http://www.beardyfreak.com/rvmumghost.php


This third sequel to the original “The Mummy” (or the 2nd sequel to the later re-boot) once again ups the pace, ups the mummy action and darkens the mood in comparison to “The Mummy’s Hand” but it’s not quite as dark, well paced or generally as good as the previous “The Mummy’s Tomb”.

It’s certainly very nice to see that ‘Universal’ have used the ongoing story of Kharis in an interesting way with some pretty good continuity that truly turns these four films into an epic tale when combined.

As far as the screenplay goes, the film does stop dead now and again though for lethargically staged exposition scenes and
the mixture of general rampage plot and the re-incarnation idea also means the film is weighed down with more plotting and exposition in its main portion than either “Hand” or “Tomb”.

The romance sub-plot is cliché and saccharine but at least this romance angle serves a purpose where the previous drippy love clichés become the bedrock of the darker elements to come.
Without the sweetness the bitter would not register as well.

Aside from a suitably cadaverous and menacing John Carradine, and even Lon Chaney, none of the acting here is very good though.

Chaney’s Kharis is played slightly different, here the mummy seems to have more human traits in how he acts which are obviously put there to make the ‘ageless love’ aspect of the tale carry weight as we now see Kharis’ human side show through the monster he now is.
That’s not to say he’s not still a full-on throttling machine though and the numerous stalk ‘n’ strangle scenes are effective enough.

The film is also just as delightfully cold-blooded as “Tomb” in the way it treats returning characters, but “Ghost” is also ruthless (and again damn brave for the time) towards it’s new characters, resulting in a wonderfully surprising (if muddled in the details a bit) finale that goes against all you would expect from a film of this style and era.

Overall then “The Mummy’s Ghost” is better than “The Mummy’s Hand” as far as action, pacing and plot goes, but not as good as “The Mummy’s Tomb” as far as action, pacing and plot goes.
And that’s a wrap.
Reply With Quote