La Main de la momie

Easily the best of the four "Kharis" films made by Universal as follow-up to their 1932 original The Mummy. The film differs dramatically in scope and mood from the original. Whereas the original was darkly romantic, mystical, creepy, this first sequel goes more for humour than suspense and romance. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford are two archaeologists out of work in Egypt who come across some pottery that leads them to the final resting place of the Princess Ananka. Just made High Priest of Karnak, George Zucco has pledged his life to defend the secret of her resting place. What ensues is a good, interesting, sometime humourous tale of Zucco trying to thwart Foran, Ford, and their backers, Cecil Kellaway and Peggy Moran. Obviously not backed with a huge budget, this mummy film is fun. Foran is very good as the male lead. Ford is bearable at best, but Kellaway is as always a charming, affable presence on the screen. Moran is beautiful and effective in her role. But it is George Zucco's film, as he utters the great lines that have come to be associated with the "legend" of Kharis. Zucco has great screen persona and this is really one of his great roles. Tom Tyler, a western star, plays the bandaged one with reasonable aplomb(okay, effectiveness if you prefer). Although nothing in stature to Karloff's interpretation of the Mummy, Karl Freund's methodic direction, and the dark atmosphere of the original The Mummy, The Mummy's Hand is enjoyable and has given us the story of Kharis.

"The Mummy's Hand" is actually quite a good film but it takes a bit of a while to warm up. The build-up takes up about 25 minutes or more but still good.

George Zucco - excellent as villains - is on good form as the evil Egyptian High Priest who plans the destruction of the people who desecrate the tomb of an Egyptian princess.

Tom Tyler is OK in the title character (now called Kharis).

Released in 1940, "The Mummy's Hand" was one of the earliest horror films from the second cycle from "Universal" studios.

Not a sequel to Boris Karloff's THE MUMMY (1932), but the start of an entirely different series of unrelated films featuring a new mummified prince called Kharis. A group of amateur but likable treasure seekers search for the tomb of an ancient princess, but they encounter the still-living mummy instead, bent on destroying anyone who would dare defile the ancient Egyptian gods.

While not a great Universal horror movie by any means (one critique would be the re-usage of the same exact shot again and again of Kharis shambling about in the wilderness) this was the first and best of four Universal films featuring the mummy Kharis. At this stage of the game the formula was still fresh and not at all clichéd or monotonous, so that already places HAND at a distinct advantage over its other sequels and spin-off's. Tom Tyler makes one very creepy mummy, all arthritic and twisted, with weird eyes that are optically blackened out for full effect in chilling closeups (albeit the same repeated closeup). George Zucco takes top honors as the deliciously mad High Priest who keeps the mummy alive and killing via the sacred brew of nine ancient tana leaves. Dick Foran, Wallace Ford, Cecil Kellaway and the perky Peggy Moran are all very pleasant as the awkward explorers who stumble upon Kharis' cursed tomb. Comic relief is well used throughout, but never becomes intrusive, as the action always remains dead serious whenever the mummy takes center stage.

*** out of ****

An Egyptian man is told by is father an account of a Priest named Kharis who was in love with a Princess Annanka, and wanted to bring her back from the dead by stealing Tana leaves. There's no indication that she was in love with him. He is caught, and his tongue cut out, and buried alive with Tana leaves. The Egyptian man in the current day made high priest and is given the responsibility of keeping Kharis semi-alive with doses of three liquefied Tana leaves. If the Princess' tomb is going to be violated, then Kharis is to be revived with nine Tana leaves to destroy those responsible.

I found it odd that a man who was going to desecrate Annanka's grave was given the responsibility of guarding it. Perhaps it was poetic justice, and he lacked the ability to want to try to bring her back to life again. Indeed, the mummy of Kharis lacks the ability to do much more than move and carry out orders, and desire Tana leaves almost like a junkie.

Two men from Brooklyn stumble across a vase with a clue as to the whereabouts of Annanka's tomb. They see the opportunity to become rich and famous. They run it by the head of the Egyptian museum, who is the high priest, as it happens. He tries to dissuade them. His dual identity reminded me of Karloff's dual identity as mummy and scholar in The Mummy, to which this is only thematically a sequel.

The Brooklynites manage to get funding from a fellow Brooklynite and stage magician. After some trouble with his daughter, who was led to believe they were frauds, they go to find the tomb. (Oddly, one of her lines seems to have been dubbed in "I'll fix them with my trick revolver," to what purpose I'm not sure.) This of course means that a mummy is going to come to life! The mummy is given creepy jittery all-black eyes which was neat.

One of a long long list of remakes of the original The Mummy (1932) and the first of 4 movies within the first Mummy franchise.

Now what struck me immediatly was the fact that the production values and general appearance of the movie are considerably weaker than the original which you wouldn't expect since it was made almost a decade later.

Second though advertised as a horror it most certainly isn't, this is closer to a comedy by far especially since our two leads crack wise from start to finish and much of it is really quite ahead of its time.

Once again we see an expedition go terribly wrong as a mummy rises from the dead and.........you know the rest.

Though it all looks pretty terrible the acting and writing is better than the original and though I'd certainly not say The Mummy's Hand is a good film I can definetly see the appeal.

The Good:

Some great characters

Some great writing and great comedy

Has a real charm

The Bad:

Looks even more dated than the 1932 original

Fall apart in the final act

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Even our comedic leads were more convincing than Tom Cruise in the 2017 remake