After talking about so many sequels it's refreshing to get back to basics and look at some of the earlier entries in the Universal catalogue. Particularly ones that don't have any real follow ups - all those films about a mummy called Kharis wandering about in bandages are part of a separate series. But I digress, let's look at Boris Karloff in this first ancient Egyptian chiller. For once he gets to have a proper dramatic role and the resulting film is one of the best from the studio. But why isn't this remembered as often as his other roles? Maybe it's the silly title or the lack of a central 'monster'. Or maybe it's because this plot was taken by other films in later years.
If you were to ask someone about films that star an undead monster trying to reclaim his lost love, they'd probably think about vampires. After all, they're darker and more mysterious without being so dusty and beetle ridden. William Crain's Blacula and Coppola's Dracula (and others) have this central plot which is confusing. Where did the two ideas get mixed up? Dracula was intended as an invader rather than a romantic after all. Perhaps it's because this film shares the same Swan Lake music during the opening (something re-used in several unrelated releases) and later writers saw a connection. In a way both concepts have lived forever, but I wonder how this all started.
This is certainly a stronger film in terms of the overall narrative than Tod Browning's Dracula which came out a year earlier. It also gives it a run for its money in the atmosphere department. The opening is a classic sequence as a British expedition unearths a strange sarcophagus - one in which the occupant was buried alive. They also find a cursed scroll with a warning attached, so of course one of the party members reads it at the first opportunity. The love-lorn priest Imhotep's remains are only seen for a few seconds, but the results are pretty effective. Dig assistant Ralph (Bramwell Fletcher) sells the whole incident as he becomes a raving loony.
There's no sudden violence or action here in a subtle film that benefits from the less is more approach. It's a slow and moody affair that perfectly uses the sort of dread associated with relics and tombs. The curse of the Pharaohs might have been big news a decade prior to this being released, but today the sinister vibes it offers can still be appreciated. This is most apparent during scenes where Imhotep begins to put his scheme into action. Now in the shape of a modern man called Ardeth Bey his powers have also grown to include hypnotism. His shadowy hideout is a striking location complete with ancient statues, pet cats, and a magic pool that shows the past.
The main storyline, much like Dracula, sees the eponymous creature become fascinated with modern woman, Helen (Zita Johann), who is friends with characters played by a typically deductive Edward Van Sloan and a typically wooden David Manners. But of course here Helen is the reincarnation of a princess who Imhotep has been trying to bring back from the dead over many centuries. Unfortunately for her his big plan is just to kill her and use her body; transferring his lover's soul in the process. I wonder if Princess Ankh-es-en-Amon would have appreciated being revived in a body that was mummified.
Still, Helen is drawn to Imhotep's lair through hypnotism and whatever kind of ancient energy keeps the power of their souls connected. The power of love or the power of death gods? One idea is a bit less romantic than the other. Details aside this whole thing is pretty spooky, even if they do keep using the same shot depicting Boris Karloff's evil eyes. At least he gets to wear a lot less makeup than usual after the opening scene. He doesn't get a lot to work with but his portrayal of a melancholy figure, half living and single minded, is pretty effective. If only they'd skip that part about him claiming the princess was resurrected many times over the ages: his body was only unearthed ten years earlier.
It's a slow burn sort of tale but it feels more complete than other films from this era that have jarring edits or scenes cut for being too dark (even for pre-Code releases). The climax here still might be a little rushed to avoid seeing too much of Imhotep's grisly fate, but the final moments where the Gods of Egypt intervene are pretty good without it needing to be overblown or flashy. It's more ethereal than gruesome which is why much of this film works. But of course Dracula and Frankenstein were the ones getting re-release double bills while this got left behind. It's still just as essential as its contemporaries, perhaps even more so.
4/5
BONUS REVIEW
THE WOLF MAN (1941)
Onto another original... at least in some ways. The earlier adventure Werewolf of London (1935) is an odd film. The tone, the pacing, and the editing are all off, there are too many characters, and there's barely any of the lore you'd expect. In fact it's all over the place and the story about flowers from Mongolia doesn't make much sense. The best scenes involve two gin swilling old ladies who show up half way through to add some random humour to the proceedings. So in this case it kind of makes sense that most people remember the Lon Chaney Jr. version. Although it's not part of the 1930s horror explosion it's still a film chock full of spooky mist and portents of doom.
It also has the most unlikely father and son duo; the all American aw-shucks regular-guy Larry (Chaney) and his dad the manor owning prim and proper Sir John (Claude Rains). Maybe his late brother got all the Englishness in the deal. Unlike other attempts to cast Chaney as horror favourites this is the one that works since he's got a sort of sadness about him. He starts off as a creep, spying on local girl Gwen (Evenlyn Ankers), but he lends the part pathos as things progress (although someone in the writing department confused binoculars with a telescope). But his romance is soon shot down since not only is Gwen already engaged but he's about to be involved with Béla Lugosi and a nearby gypsy tent.
It's not clear why the first werewolf seems to be a lot more wolf than man, or why Larry's transformation isn't the same (or even why a pentagram is the sign of impending werewolf death). But the story takes a turn into dark woods and mysterious poems as everyone in town seems to know about wolf's bane and moon light, even before all the problems start. The main issue is the way that it sort of runs out of steam by the end, and the conclusion never delivers on the more interesting ideas presented. There are a lot of debates about the nature of Larry's condition being in the mind, but it rushes to a finale involving Gwen running about at night as you'd imagine. It's fun and it looks good but it could have been more.
3/5
