MovieChat Forums > The Mummy (1932) Discussion > Didn't do much for me

Didn't do much for me


I love Karloff's Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein but this one was just a bit dry IMO. Anyone agree?

reply

It's funny I have recently enjoyed the Hammer "Dracula" films. Plus the post 30's "Frankenstein" films a lot. Those have usually a very slow 60 minutes before the Monster shows up but I find myself enjoying it all.

With this film and "The Wolfman" I was a bit bored. Until his long lost love showed up in "The Mummy". (About an hour in) The film is very subdued and dreamlike. Maybe I'm not looking at it the right way.

I'll probably give both a watch the next time they are on.

reply

I just watched this for the first time and it was extremely "dry". Frankenstein, Bride, and Dracula were exceptional films and I could see them being downright frightening to audiences. The entire time watching this, I was wondering if I was missing something. The music wasn't alive and didn't seem to augment any scenes at all, there was way too much silence (I felt like I was on set, watching them filming The Mummy, that's how quiet so many of the shots were), and there really was not threat from the Mummy himself. He didn't like being touched, so any cop or good guy just had to grab his arm and that would've been the end of the Mummy, as far as I could tell.

Bone dry, boring little movie, and I didn't care for Zita either, but still a significant movie i suppose and I'm glad I watched it. Had I really hated the movie, I would've never finished it. I like Karloff though. But his other films have more atmosphere and eeriness than this did.

reply