|
|
The Mummy (1932) |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Karloff), an Egytpian high priest who had been embalmed alive for trying to revive the woman he loved. While searching through the treasures that were housed by Im-Ho-Tep’s tomb, they also uncover an old scroll and accidentally resurrect the mummy by opening a cursed case and reading from the scroll inside. |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
same recipe, but instead had to create a different kind of suspense than the one created in “Frankenstein”. William Balderston, who had already adapted the screenplay’s for “Dracula” and “Frankenstein” was brought in to work on “The Mummy”. The result is a script that contains a very ominous, brooding atmosphere without real shocks and strong parallels to his work on “Dracula”, |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
a film “Dracula” could have been with him as the director instead of only lensing it. Not only is the photography of “The Mummy” breathtaking and the element that creates the most scares throughout the film, the way Freund unfolds the story and decides not to show certain things is what makes “The Mummy” a genre highlight. The best example of the restrained approach is the scene when the Mummy is resurrected in the film’s beginning. We do not even get to see Boris Karloff’s full-body make-up for which he endured endless hours in the make-up chair. The scene simply shows us a close-up of his head as he slowly opens his eyes. Next thing we see is the Mummy’s hand demanding the scroll, and then the lose ends of the bandages being dragged out the door. It is the slowness of this scene, and the fact that the Mummy isn’t really doing anything that makes it so effective. |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
Karloff’s face in an extreme close-up while he is using his telepathic powers to kill people. It is a truly haunting image that has been sticking in my mind ever since I first saw this film many, many years ago. The dramatic shadows in the shot make him look extremely haggard and yet, the fire in is eyes is immense, showing us his uncanny power while he is practically doing nothing. |
|
|
||||||||||||
appearing overexposed. Once again, Universal decided not to apply too much noise reduction on the transfer and the result is a sharp looking image with plenty of detail. It is definitely the way I prefer to see these films as opposed to digitally over-enhanced transfers that wash out every bit of detail. The compression is flawless without signs of compression artifacts. |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
“Mummy Dearest”. Like the one found on “Frankenstein” it reveals many interesting facts about the film, as well as revelations about the methodology applied to create this film. Especially the anecdotes surrounding Karl Freund were very interesting and once again seem to prove that highly creative people tend to have knack for eccentricities. But also Sara Karloff’s recollections about her father’s work on the film are priceless, as are all the other bits and pieces that come to light in this featurette. |
A very good commentary track by Paul M. Jensen can also be found on the disc. It is laden with information and historic details about the film, and the actors. After a few minutes it quickly becomes a valuable source of constant information about many aspects surrounding the film. Jensen also points out a number of scenes that were ultimately removed from the shooting script, analyzing their (un)importance in the overall picture and why they had supposedly been removed. |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
atmospheric film, and this DVD gave me the chance to see the movie in a quality that is better than any presentation I had seen before, despite its technical problems. It may not be a top-notch release, but for fans of the film and for lovers of the classic horror genre, this release is a gem that has to go into every collection. |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 1997-99 by “DVD Review”. All rights reserved. |
||