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. Like their original werewolf film it had been a while I suppose. 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 you were talking about vampires. After all they're darker and more mysterious, without being so dusty and beetle ridden. William Crain's Blacula and Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula both 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 credits (something re-used in several unrelated releases) and later vampire writers saw a connection. I guess in a way both of these concepts have lived forever, but I wonder how this all started.
This is certainly a stronger film in terms of the overall narrative than the Tod Browning version of Dracula which came out the year before. It also gives it a run for its money in the atmosphere department. The opening is a classic horror 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's (Bramwell Fletcher) reaction sells the whole incident as he becomes a raving loony.
There's no sudden violence or a lot of monster action here, it's subtle and the film benefits from this 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 in the 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 undead creature become fascinated with a modern women 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 Helen 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 spirit of these ancient 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 recycled shot depecting Boris Karloff's evil eyes. At least he gets to wear a lot less makeup than usual, beyond the opening prologue 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 saying the princess was resurrected many times over the ages - his body was only unearthed ten years earlier after all.
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 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 gets 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 regards. The first werewolf 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 with 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 his genes. Unlike some of the attempts to cast Chaney as other horror favourites this is the one that works since he's got that sort of sadness about him. He starts off as a total creep as he spies a local girl Gwen (Evenlyn Ankers) but he lends the part some pathos as things progress (although I think someone in the writing department confused binoculars with a telescope). His romantic intent is soon shot down however, since not only is Gwen already engaged to another man but he's about to be involved in a nasty incident involving 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 why a pentagram is the sign of impending werewolf death). But the story soon takes a turn into dark woods and mysterious poems - everyone in town seems to know about wolf's bane and moon light even before all the problems begin. The main issue though is the way that it sort of runs out of steam by the end, and the conclusion never really 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 instead it rushes to the finale involving Gwen running about at night exactly as you'd be expecting. It's fun and it looks good, but it could have been more.
3/5
