THE MUMMY'S HAND (1940)

(Directed by Christy Cabanne)

"I don't even want to know what the mummy does with his hand."- Signed by MartialHorror.

Plot: Two archaeologists discover a Mummy's tomb and find themselves hunted by it when it is resurrected.

Review:

I'm not sure why I decided to check out "The Mummy's Hand". I suppose it's because I want to expand my horizons and check out some older horror films. But expectations remained low as I am apparently one of the few who thought that the original 1932 classic "The Mummy" was a boring waste of time (with Boris Karloff's top notch performance being the only thing that kept it from flat out sucking). But I also liked Hammer's "The Mummy" starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Hell, I even liked the "The Mummy" movie they did in 1999, where Brendan Fraser is apparently supposed to be taken seriously as an action star. So it's not that I can't enjoy a good Mummy movie, it's just that most suck. So "The Mummy's Hand" it was and while it was merely.......okay......It is kind of funny because "The Mummy's Hand" is what most people tend to presume IS the original Karloff classic.

Steve Banning (Dick Foran) is an archeologist whose down on his luck after losing his job. Nevertheless, by chance he comes across a vase that can possibly lead him to the Tomb of Ananka. He and his best friend, Babe (Wallace Ford), are able to convince a Magician (Cecil Kellaway) to finance an expedition. They, along with The Magician's daughter Marta (Peggy Moran) eventually do find a Tomb but it's not Ananka's. It's the tomb of Kharis, an Ancient Mummy who kills anyone who desecrates his resting place.

 

The reason I didn't like the original 1932 classic is because it had a weak story and even weaker characters. The film was too slow for its own good and the characters and their relationships were too difficult to swallow. "The Mummy's Hand" is not an award winning movie or anything, but it does seem to have more of a story to tell. Most of the padding seems there to cement the film as a comedy, which I actually found to be amusing, so I was never bored. The characters are typical and the attempts at characterization never really feel relevant (the leading lady, for example, is a sharp shooter but never utilizes that skill). But the actors have a blast with their roles and I found myself intrigued by all of them and not wanting any of them to die. That in itself makes this movie more of a success than a failure FOR ME, but if you don't agree then I imagine you won't care much. You might find the comic relief to be annoying, for example. On the flip-side, while as a whole I prefer this to the original classic, it never reaches that films one true highlight: Boris Karloff.....That made is the only thing I WANT to remember about that movie, whereas I'm sure I'll forget this. Although amusingly, they do use some stock footage of Karloff from the first film. So in a sense, you do get a little Karloff.

The film does suffer from "every single Mummy movie needs these cliches" syndrome. They all have the same conventions and you know who will live and who will die. The only difference is that most Mummy movies have the leads return to England while this one has the Mummy attacking their camp (this REALLY helps the pacing and keeps the film semi-exotic). As a horror film, I was never scared or even creeped out, but none of these older films are especially scary anymore. The attempts to be scary usually come across as goofy (the post production attempts to black out the Mummy's eyes looks silly). I will say this, the howling in the background was pretty effective and it made the films atmosphere sort of chilling in moments.

 

All in all, "The Mummy's Hand" is an acceptable film for its time. I was never bored, was usually interested and always amused. I liked the characters and found the humor to be rather charming (I kind of prefer it to "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein"). It's not scary or intense, but I never expected it to be. Incidentally, the only thing people remember about the original film is Boris Karloff. But it seems that it's this film that comes to mind when we think of the original. This is the first film that had an actual Mummy wrapped in bandages be the main antagonist. It is is this film that cemented 'the Mummy' as an icon.

P.S: I was sort of bothered by how quickly the main characters seem to forget that people are dying in suspicious ways. They then joke around like nothing happened.

Violence: PG worthy. Just some strangling.

Nudity: None.

Overall: "The Mummy's Hand" is worth watching if you're into old school horror films or are a Mummy fan......But if you are, why haven't you seen this one already?

2.5/4 Stars