IMDb रेटिंग
5.5/10
4.1 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंThe ancient Egypt Mummy, Kharis, is transported from his homeland with the high priest Mehemet to wreak vengeance on the family who has defiled the sacred tomb of his beloved Princess Ananka... सभी पढ़ेंThe ancient Egypt Mummy, Kharis, is transported from his homeland with the high priest Mehemet to wreak vengeance on the family who has defiled the sacred tomb of his beloved Princess Ananka.The ancient Egypt Mummy, Kharis, is transported from his homeland with the high priest Mehemet to wreak vengeance on the family who has defiled the sacred tomb of his beloved Princess Ananka.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 1 नामांकन
Lon Chaney Jr.
- The Mummy - Kharis
- (as Lon Chaney)
Sig Arno
- The Beggar
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Brandon Beach
- Reporter
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Leon Belasco
- Ali
- (आर्काइव फ़ूटेज)
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Walter Byron
- Searcher
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Noble 'Kid' Chissell
- Townsman
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
The Mummy's Tomb is the 2nd part of the original "The Mummy" franchise following on from The Mummy's Hand (1940).
It's set 30 years after the events of the first film and the mummy has returned under new guidance, this time to kill off all surviving members of the Banning family who were responsible for foiling the evil plans in the first movie.
This time there is no comedy, the entire tone of the movie is considerably darker!
For this reason it doesn't have the same charm as the first movie but it makes up for this with better cinematography and continues the story perfectly.
It does suffer all the tropes of movies of this era (And there are many) but it could have been considerably worse. For fans of classic horror cinema this is a watchable continuation of the franchise.
The Good:
Looks better than the first part
Follows on very well
The Bad:
Remaking scenes from the earlier film is a tad silly
Very cliched
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Mummys are excellent climbers
If in doubt, cry witch!
Playing dead works against Mummys
It's set 30 years after the events of the first film and the mummy has returned under new guidance, this time to kill off all surviving members of the Banning family who were responsible for foiling the evil plans in the first movie.
This time there is no comedy, the entire tone of the movie is considerably darker!
For this reason it doesn't have the same charm as the first movie but it makes up for this with better cinematography and continues the story perfectly.
It does suffer all the tropes of movies of this era (And there are many) but it could have been considerably worse. For fans of classic horror cinema this is a watchable continuation of the franchise.
The Good:
Looks better than the first part
Follows on very well
The Bad:
Remaking scenes from the earlier film is a tad silly
Very cliched
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Mummys are excellent climbers
If in doubt, cry witch!
Playing dead works against Mummys
This movie starts out with about ten or twelve minutes devoted to recapping the events of the prior film, The Mummy's Hand. I hadn't seen something like that since watching Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2.
This one is supposed to be taking place thirty years after that film, which if it took place in 1940, places this one in 1970. No effort is made to make it appear to be set in the future, apart from aging the characters from the first movie.
In The Mummy's Hand, Babe shoots four shots at point-blank range into an Egyptian High Priest, who then falls down a long flight of stone steps. Even though we are shown this clip, later in the movie we see that priest as an older man, initiating his son, the way he'd be initiated in The Mummy's Hand. He claims he'd only been shot once, in the arm. Yeah, right.
The Mummy is also back, after having been shot at and burned in the prior film. The only difference seems to be that he has no eyes now (I'm not sure how he gets around, maybe by sound like The Blind Dead, who director Amando de Ossorio thought of as mummies, not zombies?). He's got old bandages wrapped around him. His old bandages should have burned, so presumably he was re-wrapped with old bandages (since if new ones were used, he wouldn't be as scary). Additionally, while Kharis needed to have potions of Tana leaves planted on the premises of people he was supposed to kill in the last film, here he can be sent out without that.
The young Egyptian gets a job as a cemetery caretaker in America, where the Banning family lives, so he can set the mummy on them for having violated Princess Annanka's tomb. He doesn't seem to have any plans to try to get her or her treasures back from the museum, which is never seen. He seems set on killing the Bannings, apparently not knowing about Babe - who had shot his father! He only goes after Babe after Babe shows up and figures out the mummy is back, and the priest overhears him. Likewise, the priest doesn't seem to know or care about finding out what happened to the magician and his daughter. The daughter, we learn, died, but the priest never hears that. The magician, I suppose, disappeared.
This Egyptian priest, like his father before him, and like Kharis before them, falls in love with a woman who does not have any feelings for him. Like his father, he uses the mummy to try to retrieve her.
Seeing the mummy hobbling about in suburban American neighborhoods seemed fairly absurd. It would have been easier for the priest to go into the homes of the people he wanted dead and shoot them! Also absurd is the point at which all the townspeople go hunting for the mummy with torches! Would anybody in 1970s American be able to produce and light a torch at a moment's notice, like nineteenth century European villagers in a Frankenstein movie? They also start to burn a house down to get the mummy, thinking nothing of destroying the house. They don't try to kill him in a more efficient way, and seem to give no thought to the welfare of the mummy's captive. Some also try shooting him when he is struggling with someone, giving no thought to the bullets passing right through him. Of course, no one is harmed. Additionally, while the mummy seems afraid of fire, torches are thrown at him to no effect, and he also walks through fire a few times without burning.
Overall, this is a pretty flawed movie. Still, watching it was sort of fun, and it's hard to dislike a classic Universal monster movie.
This one is supposed to be taking place thirty years after that film, which if it took place in 1940, places this one in 1970. No effort is made to make it appear to be set in the future, apart from aging the characters from the first movie.
In The Mummy's Hand, Babe shoots four shots at point-blank range into an Egyptian High Priest, who then falls down a long flight of stone steps. Even though we are shown this clip, later in the movie we see that priest as an older man, initiating his son, the way he'd be initiated in The Mummy's Hand. He claims he'd only been shot once, in the arm. Yeah, right.
The Mummy is also back, after having been shot at and burned in the prior film. The only difference seems to be that he has no eyes now (I'm not sure how he gets around, maybe by sound like The Blind Dead, who director Amando de Ossorio thought of as mummies, not zombies?). He's got old bandages wrapped around him. His old bandages should have burned, so presumably he was re-wrapped with old bandages (since if new ones were used, he wouldn't be as scary). Additionally, while Kharis needed to have potions of Tana leaves planted on the premises of people he was supposed to kill in the last film, here he can be sent out without that.
The young Egyptian gets a job as a cemetery caretaker in America, where the Banning family lives, so he can set the mummy on them for having violated Princess Annanka's tomb. He doesn't seem to have any plans to try to get her or her treasures back from the museum, which is never seen. He seems set on killing the Bannings, apparently not knowing about Babe - who had shot his father! He only goes after Babe after Babe shows up and figures out the mummy is back, and the priest overhears him. Likewise, the priest doesn't seem to know or care about finding out what happened to the magician and his daughter. The daughter, we learn, died, but the priest never hears that. The magician, I suppose, disappeared.
This Egyptian priest, like his father before him, and like Kharis before them, falls in love with a woman who does not have any feelings for him. Like his father, he uses the mummy to try to retrieve her.
Seeing the mummy hobbling about in suburban American neighborhoods seemed fairly absurd. It would have been easier for the priest to go into the homes of the people he wanted dead and shoot them! Also absurd is the point at which all the townspeople go hunting for the mummy with torches! Would anybody in 1970s American be able to produce and light a torch at a moment's notice, like nineteenth century European villagers in a Frankenstein movie? They also start to burn a house down to get the mummy, thinking nothing of destroying the house. They don't try to kill him in a more efficient way, and seem to give no thought to the welfare of the mummy's captive. Some also try shooting him when he is struggling with someone, giving no thought to the bullets passing right through him. Of course, no one is harmed. Additionally, while the mummy seems afraid of fire, torches are thrown at him to no effect, and he also walks through fire a few times without burning.
Overall, this is a pretty flawed movie. Still, watching it was sort of fun, and it's hard to dislike a classic Universal monster movie.
Okay, so this is pretty familiar stuff once again--you know, mad Egyptian cult leader and his resurrection of a mummy to exact revenge on those who have desecrated ancient tombs. About the only big differences here are having Lon Chaney, Jr. play the mummy for the first time and the action is moved to America (despite this making little sense). While this is far from the best mummy film, it is good old fashioned fun and I enjoy this much more than the overly special effects enhanced mummy films of the last decade because of the fun factor. The campiness and the whole ambiance are just so wonderful--and they remind you that the term "B-movie" isn't such a bad thing. Watch it and let yourself go--and have FUN!
I loved the very first Universal Mummy movie with Boris Karloff in all his spookiness. It has a connection to mysteries of Egypt and Books of the Dead. Most of the other films from this genre have a real sameness to them. There is the man who travels with Kharis, the poor creature, buried alive and wrapped in cloth. His agenda seems to be to protect Kharis but he fails sometimes. This one hearkens back to the Mummy's Hand where the characters have now aged and gone on to a new generation. There is lots of death in this one, where people who the mummy realized were responsible for his struggles are done in. Soon the mummy has found a new love, and so he sets out to make things happen. Jealousy plays a role in this offering and sets the scene for another movie.
Fun, typical Universal"B".. In what must've amounted to a cost-cutting measure, over 10 min. of the film's 60 min. running time, is made up of scenes from 1940's The Mummy's Hand"!! This flick would mark Chaney's first of 3 appearances as Kharis. Look for Glenn Strange[Frankenstein's Monster from '44-'48]in an unbilled "bit" as a farmer calming a horse, during the Mummy's first attack sequence.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाIn a 1995 interview with TV host Skip E. Lowe, actor Turhan Bey (Mehemet Bey) cited this film as his favorite particularly because he loved playing his character.
- गूफ़Kharis never uses his right arm until he carries Isabelle with no problem.
- भाव
Mehemet Bey: The moon rides high in the sky again, Kharis; there's death in the night air. Your work begins.
- कनेक्शनEdited into Mummy Dearest: A Horror Tradition Unearthed (1999)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is The Mummy's Tomb?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
- What is 'The Mummy's Tomb' about?
- Is 'The Mummy's Tomb' based on a book?
- How does the movie end?
विवरण
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 1 मिनट
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.37 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें