|
The Mummy - Special Edition (Universal Legacy Series) Posters
Photos Art
Search for Posters Art Prints, photos and get
results from all the many categories from Amazon including
books, videos, dvds, toys, video games, and more.
|
|
|
Posters Art
Prints Photos collectables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If for some reason you can't find what the
poster or art print your looking for try using the search boxes
below
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Rating:  -
If you took this film and interchanged it with the charcaters from Browning's Dracula of 1930....well just a thought.Edward Van Sloan is the doctor who again insists that"we mus destroy it! David Manners is the romantic lead.Film really does resemble Lugosi Dracula(30). Karloff and Jack Pierce spent hours and hours with make up sessions and we only see the mummified mummy for a quick minute or two!However, the real terror and chills comes from Karloff's performance as the unmummified revived Ardeth Bey who is just as menacing as the "mummy". I liked the opening scenes best involving the archeologists at the 1920s dig site headquarters.Film tends to prod along at a slow pace, but is still good Universal creaky horror.
Rating: -
It is hard to believe that if Bela Lugosi would not have been so proud, he would have played 'Frankenstein' back in 1931 and Boris Karloff may never have been 'discovered'. In this movie he is at his creepy best; that unforgettable drawling, lisping, well enunciated voice (how a Mummy from ancient Egypt got a slight British accent we are best off not to ask), along with a great make-up job by Jack Pierce, make this one of his best (of many) bogey-man performances. The rest of the cast is adequate, although David Manners, who was the romantic lead in several of these Universal classic horror films of the early '30s, is about as colorless of a 'hero' as you could hope for. A good creative story with elements of 'Dracula' but is largely original. Features one of the most eerie scenes in movie history, early in the film (and without background music), where a bandaged up Boris sloooooowwllly wakes up from a 3700 year nap and greets poor unsuspecting Bramwell Fletcher rather rudely.....a great example of a scene that scares without shocking (and one that most of today's slasher-flick film makers should watch and take notes on!). Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Rating:  -
Despite its stylized dialogue and the unbelievability of many of its individual scenes, THE MUMMY owes its ultimate success to Freund's skillful direction and Karloff's remarkable two-part characterization. In terms of its basic story costruction, the film suffers somewhat from an overly convoluted plot and from a somewhat unsatisfying conclusion, but THE MUMMY is a potent film that imparts a feeling of being suspended in time. Karloff, firmly establishing himself as Lon Chaney's successor, gives a hypnotically compelling performance (and very different from his interpretation of Frankenstein's Monster!). Karloff seems to glide rather than walk, and his facial muscles never move. Only his eyes express his profound inner turmoil, as in the burial scene, when the tapes are drawn across his mouth and nose, leaving open his wild eyes to face the prospect of eternal sleep. This brilliant make-up job done by the genius make-up artist Jack Pierce took an incredible EIGHT hours to apply! Ingeniously, Pierce literally cooked the cloth to give the illusion of having rotted away centuries ago. Although the film addresses the conflict between death and immortality and the idea that one must live out his destiny, it is, at its purest level, a love story; Karloff's obsessive devotion, the script suggests, is a sickness that only love can bring. Karloff tells Johann "All this I endured for thee", reflecting a timeless belief in the curative powers of love. The elusive Hungarian actress (she played on Broadway with Clark Gable in the twenties) Zita Johann does quite well as Helen; her features were unusual and exotically striking; she was quite believable in her role as a part Egyptian. This 1932 movie is still a stunner with many classic scenes which I'm not going to reveal!
Rating: -
Boris Karloff holds an ancient and mysterious power in this wonderful template for all the mummy movies that have followed.
Considering that movie styles, audience tastes and demands and cinema technology have moved light years from the 1930s, it is intriguing that Karlof's mummy is as rivetting in its own way as the 1999 version is in its.
It's intriguing to note that the 1999 version still contains flashbacks to the Karlof one - "just a silly Eastern superstition" is one line contained in both. The makers of the 1999 version have honoured Karlof, and that is great to see.
In many respects, it's probably wrong to "compare" the two. it's like comparing apples with oranges. However, the fact that the modern Imhotep and his crew have sparked renewed interest in Karlof's Imphotep is a gracious and wonderful result; as well as the sincerest form of flattery.
When Karlof walked before the camera, he was working within a genre that owed more to stage than cinema; a time when cinema was still finding its own methods of expression. However, having said that, Karlof's presence - particularly the heavily shadowed close-ups and his sheer power even given the primitive cinematography he had to work with - still claims for him the place as the best Imhotep. He had no special effects to back him up; he could not even kill someone on camera because of the censorship rules of the time; yet he still exudes a knock-out force.
Now, in 2000, he still does. That, truly, is "the power of ages".
Rating:  -
The directors didn't really achieve in making this move scary. (except for the man eating bugs) It had a good story line and a few jokes. Definetely don't watch this if you are looking for a horror movie.
|
