'Don't Shove' should be seen

Don't Shove (1919)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Bud Jamison, Bebe Daniels, Lee Lampton, Noah Young, and Fred Newmeyer
Director: Alf Goulding
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

While trying to impress an eligible young lady (Daniels) at her birthday party, a young man (Lloyd) ends up fighting with rivals for her attention (Jamison and Lampton) and causing chaos at a roller rink.

With "Don't Shove", I'm starting to understand why Lloyd is remembered as largely playing charming characters who are looking for happiness and romance but who find trouble instead. I've previously commented on how I was put off by the "hero" he portrayed in a number of shorts I'm probably not going to bother write about, but here, he is generally reacting to provocations or trouble started by other characters; in seems that once he came up with his Glasses character, he increasingly left behind the obnoxious trickster character he typically portrayed in earlier films.

"Don't Shove" is a brief film, but it's jammed with action, gags, AND story from its opening moments. Highlights of the film include Bud Jamison angrily stalking Harold after he's gotten him ejected from a party they were both attending, and pretty much everything that follows after Harold exaggerates his rollerskating ability in a desire to impress  Bebe Daniels. And, this is another film where it's fun just to watch Bebe Daniels act--she'd been in front of movie cameras for more than a decade at this point and her experience shows.

I've embedded "Don't Shove" via YouTube below. Why don't you take a break, watch it, and spend a few minutes laughing?

Before John Wick... there was Harold Lloyd!

And he even took on all comers--the police, a shadowy group of assassins--and walked away!

Well... presumably he walked away. We don't know for sure, because only fragments remain of the movie where Harold Lloyd came across a band of terrorists after following the beautiful Bebe Daniels back to their lair. I can't really review the movie, because all that remains is a chunk of the middle... but based on what's here, I think this would have been a solid 8 of 10 rating, perhaps even a 9.

Take a look. It's the best action film you'll see this weekend (aside, maybe, for "John Wick: Chapter Three").

'Over the Fence' is silent near-perfection!

Over the Fence (1917)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, Harry Pollard, and Bud Jamison
Directors: Harold Lloyd and J. Farrell MacDonald
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

When his coworker (Pollard) sneakily grabs both his tickets and date (Daniels) to the ballgame, Harold (Lloyd) ends up on the field and playing for the home team after he is mistaken for a late-arriving star player.

"Over the Fence" absolutely hilarious, both as a romantic comedy and a sports comedy. It is perfectly paced--there is literally not a second wasted in the film--and every joke and gag lands solidly. With this film, I think I finally see why Harold Lloyd has gained the reputation of portraying an Everyman sort of character in his films, as he doesn't go out of his way to be jerk, and I think everyone who's been on a date that goes sideways can relate to some of the goin-ons here. (I've seen a couple references that imply the version I watched is a shortened one. I don't know how accurate those comments are, but if I did view an edited version of the film, I want to praise the editor as strongly as the creators and actors in the original film.)

Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, and Harry Pollard are all great in the film, with Lloyd and Daniels giving especially good performances. Daniels, once again, impressed me with her range of acting ability. She seems to have been able to play any type of female character the script called for, unlike her male co-stars which mostly seemed to have a type that they stuck to.

That last statement above isn't entirely fair to Harold Lloyd. I have mentioned previously that there are a number of these Lloyd/Daniels/Pollard shorts that I haven't bothered writing about, because I so disliked the main character as portrayed by Lloyd. Reportedly, with this film, Lloyd reinvented his screen persona, leaving behind the rotten troublemaker that has so annoyed me and moving toward a more sympathetic figure. Looking back, I can see the change--the films I couldn't stand tend to be ones where he hasn't worn glasses but instead slightly exaggerated make-up and odd clothes, while the ones that I like he is wearing glasses. That was Lloyd's signal to himself and his audience that his screen character was not different.

The only, minor complaint I have with "Over the Fence" is that Harry Pollard is in exaggerated, clownish make-up. I realize that this film marks a transition from the earlier films, but it seems an odd choice that Pollard was the only character in the film with such clownish make-up on. It could also be that in the century that has passed since this film was released has made a significance to Pollard's exaggerated make-up fade to the point where I just don't understand it.

"Over the Fence" is just five minutes long, and I strongly encourage you to take the time to check it out; it could just be the most entertaining minutes of your day. I have even made it easy for you, by embedding it below--via YouTube and the Christopher Bird Collection.

'Hey There' is non-stop fun with great performances by all lead actors

Hey There (1918)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, William Blaisdell, and Harry Pollard
Director: Alfred J. Goulding
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

A man (Lloyd) goes to great lengths to return a letter dropped by a beautiful actress (Daniels). His attempt at gallantry throws an entire movie studio into chaos.

There are few films where "action-packed" is a more apt discriptor than it is for "Hey There". From the first fade-in to the final image of Harold Lloyd's character in the street, there is not a second wasted. Even better, as tightly packed as the script is with non-stop gags, its so well crafted that it provides some very nice character-defining moments that greatly enhance the film and give Bebe Daniels, William Blaisdell, and Lloyd to engage in acting that goes beyond merely clowning around. The writer of the film is unknown, or I'd be praising him by name.

This is another one of those films where Lloyd plays a guy on the make, but he comes off as more likable than in some of the others, partly because he's trying to do a nice thing (even if his motivations aren't entirely pure), and he's not intentionally trying to be an ass.

While the storytelling and performances by the actors are excellent, the film is made even more worthwhile by the way it takes a couple of silent movie tropes and demolishes them. One of my favorite bits in the film revolves around the nearly obligatory scene where a character in a rediculously bad disgusie tries to bluff one of the other characters.

I think even if you don't usually like silent movies, you might enjoy this one, due to the non-stop comedy and solid acting by the performers. That is doubly-true if you enjoy "behind the scenes"-type fictionalizations of the movie business and the personalities who work in it. (If you're a lover of hashtag activism, the film might also hold appeal, because it shows that directors have been sexually harassing actresses since the dawn of filmmaking.

I've made it easy for you to watch "Hey There" by embedding it below, via YouTube. The last bit of the movie is in bad shape, and I think a small or two piece may be missing toward the end as well, but it won't detract much from your enjoyment..

'The Flirt' will give you a few chuckles

The Flirt (1917)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, and Harry Pollard
Director: William Gilbert
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A man on the make (Lloyd) takes a job as a waiter so he can flirt with a pretty cashier (Daniels).

As I sample Harold Lloyd's short films, I am finding myself more annoyed than amused by them. So far, I haven't bothered writing up any that annoyed me, because the comments would basically be the same: "I barely made it through this film, because Lloyd's character was such an unpleasant jerk I had no reason stick with it."

"The Flirt" was, fortunately, not one those. Its a brief film (7 minutes long) that sees Lloyd play the sort of unpleasant character that was his stock and trade in his early pictures--a self-centered jerk who goes looking for trouble and causes chaos everywhere he goes through indifference to others and laziness. I found that character tolerable in this one, in part because he is set up from the beginning as a total heel, but also because his obnoxious behavior is very, very funny in this one.

The film opens with Harold in the park looking for a beautiful girl to hit on. He spots Bebe Daniels, follows her to work, and proceeds to wreak havoc in a retraunts dining room and kitchen as he tries to create a window of opportunity to flirt with her. The five minutes of the film where Harold "works" in the restaurant are a series of rapid-fire series of sight-gags and prat-falls that culminate in a patron becoming so frustrated that he goes on a shooting spree in an attempt to give Harold the sort of tip he so richly deserves. In addition to Lloyd's antics, there's a burly uncredited actor who plays the eatery's chef who also gets to be quite funny--and who at one point also nearly gives Harold what he deserves. This film also sits better with me than other Lloyd films I've seen, because of the ending. It's about as perfect and amusing as I could have wished for.

I've embedded "The Flirt" below, and I encourage you take a few minutes to watch it. If you like absurd physical comedy, I think you'll enjoy this one, even if the lead character is a bit unpleasant.

When grifters and con artists collide!

Are Crooks Dishonest? (1918)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Harry Pollard, Bebe Daniels, and William Blaisdell
Director: Gil Pratt
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Two grifters (Lloyd and Pollard) engage a pair of fake spiritualists (Blaisedell and Daniels) in a battle of wits. Unfortunately, the grifters came to the fight unarmed.

"Are Crooks Dishonest?" is a fast-paced and uncomplicated film with the characters breezing through the antics and action with barely a wasted moment. A small part of me is annoyed by the way the second (and best) half of the film is set up by a couple extreme conincidences, but the entire cast is so charming and the film so much fun that I can overlook it. 

The best parts of this 14-minute film take place in the secret-passage laden, gadget-festooned "mystic temple" of Professor Goulash where William Blaisedell and Bebe Daniels bilk the gullible with their fake spiritualism, and where Lloyd and Pollard try co-opt their scam. From Lloyd using the trick doors to evade the police and an angry Professor Goulash; to Daniels setting out to turn the tables on Lloyd and Pollard when they try to con her out of money she stole from them earlier in the film; to Lloyd and Pollard just generally clowning around, it's all expertely executed and extremely funny.

Pollard and Daniels in particular get to shine in this film, as they share one of the funniest moments in it. Daniels is an absolute joy to watch in this film, and it's great the way her character is also the most fun of the four leads in the story. (Her reactions to the clumsy cons of Lloyd and Pollard are priceless.)

This entire film is embedded via YouTube below, and I strongly recommend you check it out. The time you spend with the rogues "Are Crooks Dishonest?" may be the best quarter-of-an-hour of you day! Even better, either the film has been carefully restored, or this was digitized from an amazingly well preserved copy, because few films over 100 years old are as clear and crisp as this one. (The look of the intertitles make me think it's the latter.)

'Off the Trolley' is a perfect title

Off the Trolley (1919)
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Bebe Daniels, Harry "Snub" Pollard, Sammy Brooks, and Bud Jamison
Director: Alf Goulding
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Unpleasant characters (Lloyd and Daniels) ride a streetcar with the world's most inept driver (Pollard).

Since it's a 100-year-old silent film, some are prone to dismiss "Off the Trolley" as not worth their time. Those people would be missing out on seven minutes of nearly non-stop amazement and laughter... because this one packs in more madness into its brief running time than many feature-length comedies do at ten times the length.

Harold Lloyd plays one of those trickster characters that are lots of fun in comedies and comic strips but you know would be in prison (or dead) if they existed in the real world... and he's in fine form in this picture. From his initial encounter with hotty ticket taker Bebe Daniels on their way to work, through his slapstick escape from an ever-growing crowd of cops, his conflicts with other passengers on the streetcar, and his dealing with would-be robbers, are all incredibly funny and spectacular examples of well-timed physical comedy.

Bebe Daniels is also lots of fun in this film. I'm usually annoyed by insta-romances, but here it seems clear that all she's looking for from Lloyd's character is a "bit of fun"... which is for the best, because even if she had something more in mind, it would end as soon as she discovered what he gets up to and does to her behind her back. (Although, frankly, based on their first interaction, part of me thinks the Daniels and Lloyd characters probably deserve each other.)

Since you're here already, why don't you take a view minutes to check out this great little film, embedded below via YouTube?

This early fantasy film is hokey but still fun

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910)
Starring: Bebe Daniels, Robert Z. Leonard, Alvin Wyckoff, Hobart Bosworth, Winifred Greenwood, and Olive Cox
Director: Otis Turner
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Dorothy Gale (Daniels) discovers a scarecrow (Leonard) near her home is alive and aware. She unties him from the frame he's on, and he saves her, her dog Toto, and a pair of farm animals from a sudden cyclone that sweeps everyone off the strange and magical land of Oz. Here, they make new friends and enemies, including the evil witch Momba (Greenwood).

"The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" is reported to be one of four different film adaptations that were released in 1910, and it is the only one that survives to this day. The version I watched is a bit blurry and is missing both opening and closing credits/title cards, but it is in much better shape that films of more recent vintage I've sat through. It's either been restored, or film-lovers had the extra-ordinarily good luck of a copy having been kept somewhere under the exact right conditions for preservation.

Seeing that this film is almost 110 years old as I write this review, it's tricky for me to pass judgement on. For example, to my eyes, the film feels like a community theatre performance--a well-staged and elaborate community theatre performance but still at the level of community theatre--and that feeling is enhanced by the fact that the film consists entirely of static long shots with each scene framed as if it was unfolding on a stage... as well as the costumes worn by the actors playing the Cowardly Lion and the farm animals that are following Dorothy. Most of the special effects in the film are also mostly of the kind that would work well during a live stage performance, and I found myself chuckling more than I suspect the director would have liked during the scene where the cyclone spirits Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the random farm animals following her around to Oz.

Still, this is a very entertaining film, even if I wonder about some of the choices that its writer/director made back then. At 13 minutes, this is more of an outline (or a highlight reel) of a Wizard of Oz movie than anything else, and while most of the iconic characters are here, some might have been best omitted since, to viewers with no prior knowledge of the Wizard of Oz novels, they seem to serve no purpose other than being weird for the sake of being weird. For example, Glinda the Good Witch shows up (levitating with a hilariously bad bit of wire-work), turns Toto into a giant dog that puts the Cowardly Lion in his place. Since neither Toto nor the Cowardly Lion do anything noteworthy outside this scene, and the Good Witch is never explained nor appears again in the film, the smart thing to do would have been to just omit those characters and have spent more time on the scenes in and around the castle of  Momba the Evil Witch. (What we do see is some of the neatest and funniest bits in the film; I wish there had been more of it.)

Another curious thing about the film is that it includes brief three song-and-dance production numbers... you know, the sort of thing you see in musicals. In a silent movie. They're fun to watch, but their presence still baffles me.

In the final analysis, this film is a bit of weirdness that I can think of three reasons you might want to check it out. First, if you're interested in early silent movies, you'll enjoy the artistry that went into making the sets, the costumes, and the special effects. Secondly, if you're a fan of the Wizard of Oz--especially the well-known 1939 film starring Judy Garland, you should see this movie, because it obviously served as a major inspiration for the costume designers 25+ years later. (The Scarecrow, the Cowardly Lion, and especially the Tin Man, all strongly resemble their counterparts in the more famous effort.) It's also fun, because of the differences that exist between it and the 1939 film... I especially liked the flying lizardmen that this film has. Finally, any lover of classic cinema needs to watch it, because it's the first starring role for Bebe Daniels, an actress who is little known today but who was a veritable superstar in the 1920s. She starred in this film at the age of 9, and it's a testimony to her talent that she first transitioned from child actor to adult roles, and then successfully made the leap to sound films in the late 1920s. Given that her overcame the obstacle that kill film careers to this very day--moving from child to adult actor in films--and her star continued to ascend through the 1930s (at which point she transitioned again to a career in radio plays), it's a shame that the passage of time has obscured her reputation. (I will make a point of seeking out more of her films to review in this space.)

Meanwhile, you can watch "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" right here, on this blog, via this embedded YouTube video.

That strange sound? That's Nancy Reagan spinning in her grave!

The Mystery of the Leaping Fish (1916)
Starring: Douglas Fairbanks, Bessie Love, Alan Sears, Alma Rubens, and Tom Wilson
Directors: John Emerson and Christy Cabbane
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Eccentric detective Coke Ennyday (Fairbanks) turns his drug-fueled genius toward stopping the predations of a fabulously wealthy criminal mastermind (Sears). Along the way, he and a beautiful young woman (Love) take turns saving each other's lives at the sea-shore and romance blossoms... but the villain has plans for Coke's new sweetheart.

As their stars were rising, Douglas Fairbanks and Bessie Love appeared together in a number of films, the wildest of which is almost certainly "The Mystery of the Leaping Fish". While I haven't watched any of the others, but I think I can safely make that assumption, because "wild" is joined with "weird" and "subversive" when one is looking for words to be describe this film.

"The Mystery of the Leaping Fish" is a cartoonish spoof of Sherlock Holmes with an extreme degree of attention paid to Holmes' drug habits. Some of the film's humor is lost through the passage of time, because the exaggerated degree to which Coke Ennyday uses drugs is, according to one commentator, mocking a stage adaptation of Holmes that was well-known and very popular at the time and which had left out all drug references. The vast majority of the drug humor is so over-the-top, however,  that it is as funny and ridiculous now as it was when this film was first released 100 years and will be 100 years from today. Coke Ennyday spends the entire movie buzzing around, high as a kite... and his solution to any obstacle is to inject, snort, or otherwise consume more and more drugs. And it works.

This is Douglas Fairbanks' movie. From the first moment until the end, everything is driven by his insane antics--which get even more insane once he breaks out the comedic Sherlock Holmes outfit. This, being a silent movie, the gags are almost entirely visual, although a few are augmented by intertiles or labels on items, as well as puns like the business that serves as the front for the villain's drug distribution network being named Sum Hop Laundry. While co-star Bessie Love and the lead villain, played by Alan Sears, get some funny scenes together or of their own--mostly revolving around poking fun at the melodramatic conventions of silent movies--and they show themselves to be talented and charismatic performers in these scenes, viewers will be counting the seconds for Fairbanks' unrestrained energy and craziness to return to the screen. (As tempting as it is for me to relay some of the greatest gags in the film by way of enticing people to watch it, doing so would spoil their impact... all I can say is that this is a film that has be experienced cold.)

Although it's over 100 years old, "The Mystery of the Leaping Fish" is wilder and "edgier" than many contemporary works. If anything, it's gotten even more risque, what with the "drugs are bad mmmmkay?" messaging of recent decades and several of the conventional plot devices and characters it mocks are the sort of thing that sends certain people running for the fainting couch while clutching their pearls, or for their keyboards to post angrily hysterical messages to social media and blog comment sections. I think those who appreciate absurdist, subversive humor will enjoy the heck out of this movie, even if they don't usually like silent films. The showdown between the drug-crazed, syringe wielding Coke Ennyday and the villains at the Sum Hop Laundry is something any lover of comedies needs to see at least once in their lives! (The sequence where Bessie Love's damsel in distress essentially rescues herself is also a silent movie satirical gold.)

There are several different versions of "The Mystery of the Leaping Fish" that can be viewed for free on YouTube and certain streaming services. You can even watch it right now, and I hope you'll let me know with a comment if I steered you right or wrong! (I chose this particular version because I like the music.)


Trivia: A not so funny coincidence/factoid is that Alma Ruben (who plays the villain's female sidekick) was, like Fairbanks and Love, a rising Hollywood star at the time this film was made. In fact, she was more famous than Love at the time... but by 1925, Ruben's life and career was ruined by drug abuse. She died in 1931 from ailments related to her addictions.

'The Sawdust Ring' is a mostly lost silent movie... but what remains is excellent

The Sawdust Ring (1917)

Starring: Bessie Love, Harold Goodwin, Jack Richardson, and Josephine Headley

Director: Charles Miller and Paul Powell

Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

Janet and Peter (Love and Goodwin) become wandering circus performers in order to find Janet's long-lost father, a ringmaster (Richardson).

"The Sawdust Ring" was an early starring role for Bessie Love, and it's easy to see why she was a big star during the silent era. She's pretty and her acting style is emotive without being overly stylized. It's easy to see how she was able to transition to the stage some 10-15 years later, after the arrival of talkies and her film career stalled.

When it was first released in 1917, "The Sawdust Ring" ran about an hour and it featured a far more involved plot that what we are left with today... which is a 10-minute version that was made for home screening and released in 1926. That 1926 edit is what this review is of--a brief and sweet fantasy story about two kids destined to be circus performers. Notes on both IMDB and Harpodeon describe additional cast members and character background stories that aren't to be found in this abbreviated version. It made me wish to see the full-length film. That will never be possible, because like the vast majority of silent movies, the original version of "The Sawdust Ring" has been lost.

What we're left with, however, is an well-done abridgment of the original movie that shows what great screen presence Bessie Love possessed (and why D.W. Griffith knew she was going to be a star early on). The rest of the cast are also good in their parts, and the staging and filming of every scene is top-notch. Even if you're one of those people who don't usually like silent movies, I think you'll find this one appealing. (If you're an Amazon Prime subscriber, you can watch it for free.)

The Complete Universal Pictures Mummy (+1)

If you're looking to warm up for Halloween, a great way to do it would be to watch all the classic mummy movies at the rate of one every evening starting next Friday. This is a grand total of total of seven movies, although some of them are probably just old more than "classic." Nonetheless, they are the works that solidified the mummy that is still present in horror fiction, comics, and movies to this very day.

In this post, I review all seven of these films. If you order them from Amazon in the next couple days, you'll have them in plenty of time for the nightly viewings, even when picking the free shipping option! (I put links at the end to make it easy for you.)

 The films covered in this post can be divided into four separate groupings if you want to limit or organize your viewing. First, there's "The Eyes of the Mummy, " the Plus One described in the title of the post. It can possibly be skipped. Then there's Universal's 1932 "The Mummy", a true classic. It was followed by the 1940s "Kharis" series, the four films that solidified the mummy in pop culture and the horror genre. They have nothing to do with the 1932 film, and they vary widely in quality. Finally, there's "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy," which was Universal's send-off and send-up of their once-great money maker.

"The Eyes of the Mummy" can possibly be skipped--it should be watched if you're endeavoring to see the films for an overview of how the movie mummy came to be, but its entertainment value may be low for many modern viewers--but the rest are all available in a single package that is a great value. Further, "The Mummy" remains one of the best mummy movies ever made, and it's a film you'll want to watch again and again.



The Eyes of the Mummy (1918)
Starring: Pola Negri, Harry Leidtke, Emil Jannings and Max Laurence
Director: Ernst Lubitsch
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Albert Wendland (Leidtke) rescues Ma (Negri) from Radu (Jannings), a maniac who kidnapped her and who has been passing her off as a living mummy in an Egyptian tomb. The girl finds fame and fortune as the artist's model and a cabaret dancer in a major European city. However, Radu pursues them, intent on claiming what is his through any means necessary.

"The Eyes of the Mummy" has been touted as the first mummy movie. It seems like a bit of stretch, as there appears to be no mummy action in the film and no supernatural element at all.

Or is there? Is it more subtle mummy action that what we have grown used to?

There are hints in the film that Radu is more than just a scammer, kidnapper and rapist. In one scene, he seems to appear in spirit-form in Ma's bedroom, and he later commands her through nothing more than the power of his mind. What might these scenes mean?

A generous and imaginative viewer could take these elements and combine them with the story Ma tells for having been dragged from the riverbank by Radu and waking up in the tomb as proof that the spirit of an ancient Egyptian queen dwells within the girl, brought back to life by Radu through magic--her being dragged away from the river was her being brought back from the spirit world to this one.

A less-generous viewer might say that the movie is the cinematic equivalent of an inkblot and little more than a poorly defined melodrama that features a loosely stitched-together selection of gothic fiction elements tossed in with no more thought beyond "well, this'll creep 'em out!"

Whatever the case, "The Eyes of the Mummy" is an unevenly paced movie that may not evoke enough chills in the jaded modern audience. It also suffers from uneven pacing, but one of the hidden advantages of silent films is that one can run the DVD at 2x speed when things get too slow, and its hardly noticeable. The strongest aspect of this film is the acting, as it seems more modern than what is found in many movies from this period.  Stars Emil Jannings and Pola Negri are especially fun to watch. Negri's exotic dances are more snicker-inducing to modern viewers than they are sexy, but she shows herself to be both a good actress, dancer and stunt woman--watch for that fall down the stairs near the end of the movie!

"The Eyes of the Mummy" is a must-watch if you're wanting to view movies important to the development of the iconic Egyptian movie monster, or if you love silent movies, but otherwise you may want to skip it.



The Mummy (1932)
Starring: Boris Karloff, Zita Johann, David Manners and Edward Van Sloan
Director: Karl Freund
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

After an archaeologist accidentally restores him to life, a cursed ancient Egyptian high priest Imhotep (Karloff) sets about likewise reviving Princess Anckesen-Amon, so they can resume their forbidden love affair. Unfortunately, she has been reincarnated, and her spirit is currently residing within Helen Grosvenor (Johann), the daughter of a British diplomat. Imhotep hasn't let the natural order of things stop him in the past, and he's not about to let it get in his way now.

"The Mummy" is the best, most intelligent mummy movie ever made, and it's more of a gothic romance set in Egyptian surroundings than a monster movie, with Imphotep trying to recapture a love that he lost 3,700 years ago.

The actors in this film are all perfectly cast, and they are all at the top of their game.

Karloff is spectacular, conveying evil, alieness, majesty, and even a little bit of tragedy in his character with a minimum of physical movement. (Unlike most mummy movies, Imhotep isn't a bandage-wrapped, shambling creature, but instead appears like a normal human being; he is still dried-out and somewhat fragile physically, though, and Karloff does a fantastic job at conveying this.)

Johann likewise gives a spectacular performance, particularly toward the end of the movie as Imhotep is preparing to make her his eternal bride, and she has regained much of her memories from when she Anckesen-Amon. Johann is also just great to look at.

The two remaining stars, Manners and Van Sloan, are better here than anything else I've seen them in. Manners in particular gives a fine performance, rising well above the usual milquetoast, Generic Handsome Hero he usually seems to be. (Even in "Dracula" he comes across as dull. Not so here.)

The cinematography is excellent and the lighting is masterfully done in each scene. Karloff's character is twice as spooky in several scenes due to some almost subliminal effects caused by lighting changes from a medium shot of Manners to a close-up of Karloff... and the scene where Imhotep is going to forcibly turn Helen Grosvener into an undead like himself is made even more dramatic by the shadows playing on the wall behind the two characters.

There are some parts of the film that are muddled, partly due to scenes that were cut from the final release version, or never filmed. Worst of these is when Imhotep is interrupted during his first attempt at reviving Anckesen-Amon, and he kills a security guard with magic during his escape. However, he leaves behind the spell scroll that he needs for the ritual. Why did he do that? It's a jarring, nonsensical part of the movie that seems to serve no purpose other than to bring Imhotep into direct confrontation with the heroes. (The commentary track sheds light on what the INTENTION was with that development, but it just seems sloppy and badly conceived when watching the movie. And I'm knocking a full Star off because it is such a badly executed story element.)



The Mummy's Hand (1940)
Starring: Dick Foran, Wallace Ford, Peggy Moran, George Zucco, and Tim Tyler
Director: Christy Cabanne
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A pair of hard-luck Egyptologists (Foran and Ford) discover the location of the long lost tomb of Princess Ananka. Unfortunately for them, an evil cult leader (Zucco) controls the immortal, tomb-guarding, tanna leaf-tea slurping mummy Kharis, and he's hot afraid to use him to keep the secret of the tomb.


More of an adventure flick with a heavy dose of lowbrow comedy than a horror film, "The Mummy's Hand" isn't even a proper sequel to the classy 1932 "The Mummy."

This movie (and the three sequels that follow) are completely unrelated to the original film, despite the copious use of stock footage from it. The most obvious differences are that the mummy here is named Kharis, as opposed to Imhotep, and has a different backstory. Then, there's the fact he's a mindless creature who goes around strangling people at the bidding of a pagan priest where Imhotep was very much his own man and did his killing with dark magics without ever laying a hand on his victims.

If one recognizes that this film shares nothing in common with the Boris Karloff film (except that they were both released by the same studio), "The Mummy's Hand" is a rather nice bit of fluff. It's also the first film to feature the real Universal Studios mummy, as Imhotep was an intelligent, scheming, and more-or-less natural looking man, not a mute, mind-addled, bandaged-wrapped, cripple like Kharis.



The Mummy's Tomb (1942)
Starring: Wallace Ford, Turhan Bey, John Hubbard, George Zucco, Dick Foran, Isobel Evans and Lon Chaney Jr.
Director: Harold Young
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

Thirty years after the events of "The Mummy's Hand, the High Priest of Karnak from the last film (Zucco), who, despite being shot four times and pointblank range and tumbling down a very long flight of stairs, survived to be an old man. He passes the mantle onto a younger man (Bey) and dispatches him to America with Kharis the Mummy (Chaney), who survived getting burned to a crisp at the end of the last movie, to slay those who dared loot the tomb of Princess Anankha. (Better late than never, eh?)


Take the plot of "The Mummy's Hand" (complete with a villain who has the exact same foibles as the one from the first movie), remove any sense of humor and adventure, toss in about ten minutes of recap to pad it up to about 70 minutes in length, add a climax complete with torch-wielding villagers and a mummy who is just too damn dumb to continue his undead existence, and you've got "The Mummy's Tomb."

Made with no concern for consistency (Ford's character changes names from Jenson to Hanson, the fashions worn in "The Mummy's Hand" implied it took place in the late 30s, or even in the year it was filmed, and yet "thirty years later" is clearly during World War II... and let's not even talk about how the mummy and Zucco's character survived) or originality (why write a whole new script when we can just have the bad guys do the exact same things they did last movie?), this film made with less care than the majority of B-movies.

Turhan Bey and Wallace Ford have a couple of good moments in this film, but they are surrounded by canned hash and complete junk.



The Mummy's Ghost (1944)
Starring: John Carradine, Ramsay Ames, Robert Lowery, George Zucco, and Lon Chaney Jr
Director: Reginald Le Borg
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

Modern day priests of ancient Egyptian gods (Zucco and Carradine) undertake a mission to retrieve the cursed mummy of Princess Ananka from the American museum where she's been kept for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, they discover that the archaeologists who stole her away from Egypt broke the spell that kept her soul trapped in the mummy and that she has been reincarnated in America as the beautiful Amina (Ames).


"The Mummy's Ghost" starts out strong. In fact, it starts so strong that, despite the fact that the priests who must be laughing stock of evil cult set were back with pretty much the exact same scheme for the third time (go to America and send Kharis the Mummy stumbling around to do stuff, that it looked like the filmmakers may have found their way back to the qualities that made "The Mummy" such a cool picture.

Despite a really obnoxious love interest for Amina (played with nails-on-a-chalkboard-level of obnoxiousness by Robert Lowery) and a complete resurrection of Kharis (boiling tannith leaves now apparently reconstitutes AND summons a mummy that was burned to ashes in a house-fire during "The Mummy's Tomb"), and a number of glaring continuity errors with the preceeding films (the cult devoted to Ananka and Kharis has changed their name... perhaps because they HAD become the laughing stock among the other evil cults), the film is actually pretty good for about half its running time. The plight of and growing threat toward Amina lays a great foundation.

And then it takes a sharp nosedive into crappiness where it keeps burrowing downward in search of the bottom.

The cool idea that the film started with (Ananka's cursed soul has escaped into the body of a living person... and that person must now be destroyed to maintain the curse of the gods) withers away with yet another replay of the evil priest deciding he wants to do the horizontal mambo for all eternity with the lovely female lead. The idea is further demolished by a nonsensical ending where the curses of Egypt's ancient gods lash out in the modern world, at a very badly chosen target. I can't go into details without spoiling that ending, but it left such a bad taste in my mouth, and it's such a complete destruction of the cool set-up that started the film, that the final minute costs "The Mummy's Ghost" a full Star all by itself.



The Mummy's Curse (1944)
Starring: Peter Coe, Lon Chaney Jr, Kay Harding, Dennis Moore, Virginia Christine and Kurt Katch
Director: Leslie Goodwins
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

A construction project in Louisiana's bayou uncovers not only the mummy Kharis (Chaney), but also the cursed princess Ananka (Christine). Pagan priests from Egypt arrive to take control of both. Mummy-induced violence and mayhem in Cajun Country follow.

What happens when you make a direct sequel where no one involved cares one whit about keeping continuity with previous films? You get "The Mummy's Curse"!

For the previous entries in this series, Kharis was shambling around a New England college town, yet he's dug up in Lousiana. (He DID sink into a swamp at the end of "The Mummy's Ghost", but that swamp was hundreds of miles north of where he's found in this film.)

He also supposedly has been in the swamp for 25 years. For those keeping score, that would make this a futuristic sci-fi film with a setting of 1967, because the two previous films took place in 1942. (And that's being generous. I'm assuming "The Mummy's Hand" took place in 1912, despite the fact that all clothing and other signifiers imply late 30s early 40s.) Yet, there's nothing in the film to indicate that the filmmakers intended to make a sci-fi movie.

And then there's Ananka. Why is she back, given her fate in "The Mummy's Ghost"? There's absolutely no logical reason for it. Her resurrection scene is very creepy, as is the whole "solar battery" aspect of the character here, but it is completely inconsistent with anything that's gone before. And she's being played by a different actress--but I suppose 25 years buried in a swamp will change anyone.

There's little doubt that if anyone even bothered to glance at previous films for the series, no one cared.

Some things the film does right: It doesn't have the Egyptian priests replay exactly the same stuff they've done in previous films for the fourth time (although they are still utter idiots about how they execute their mission), it manages for the first time to actually bring some real horror to the table--Kharis manages to be scary in this film, and I've already mentioned Ananka's creep-factor--and they bring back the "mummy shuffling" music from "The Mummy's Ghost" which is actually a pretty good little theme. But the utter disregard for everything that's happened in other installments of the series overwhelm and cancel out the good parts.

"The Mummy's Curse" should not have been slapped into the "Kharis" series. If it had been made as a stand-alone horror film, it could have been a Six-Star movie. As it is, this just comes across as a shoddy bit of movie making where I can only assume that anything decent is more by accident than design.



Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955)
Starring: Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Marie Windsor, and Eddie Parker
Director: Charles Lamont
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Abbott and Costello (Abbott and Costello) are a pair of down-on-their luck adventurer who try to get a job escorting an an archaeological shipment as their ticket back to the US from Cairo. However, before they secure the job, the archaeologist is murdered, the most important part of his find goes missing--the mummy Klaris--and Costello ends up with an ancient medallion that is the key to unlocking a lost treasure. Soon, the hapless pair are the the targets of every shady character in Cairo, including rabid cultists sworn to protect the treasure, a dangerous femme fatale (Windsor) who will do anything to possess it, and even the risen mummy himself (Parker).

I don't think "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy" deserves quite the level of scorn that many reviewers heap on it. While Abbott and Costello certainly aren't at their best in it, it is a very amusing spoof of the string of mummy movies from Universal--and those films that would follow when the British studio Hammer returned to that same oasis a few years later--and it's got plenty of hilarious moments. (The "pick-pocket routine" where Costello visits the villainess in her den, the chase scene in the secret hideout of the mummy cultists, and the various bits with the multiple mummies at the movies climax are all comedic highpoints that should evoke chuckles from even the most jaded viewers.)

The film is far from perfect, however. I already mentioned that Abbott and Costello aren't exactly at their best in this film--which was, in fact, one of the last times they worked together--and an attempt to reinvent the classic "who's on first" routine with some digging implements is about as uninspired as I think the pair's work ever got. Finally, the mummy costume in the film is about the worst that I've ever seen--and not at all worthy of even the cheapest film from Universal Pictures.

I recommend "Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy" to lovers of the classic monster movies who have a sense of humor about them, as well as fans of classic comedy. There are better examples of this type of film out there, but this one still has enough good bits to make it worth seeing.

Greatest chiller of the silent movie era?

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919)
Starring: Werner Krauss, Conrad Veidt, Friedrich Feher and Lil Dagover
Director: Robert Weine
Rating: Ten of Ten Stars

A sideshow performer (Krauss) and an eternal sleeper with prophetic powers (Veidt) engulf a small town in a wave of nightmarish terror and death.

Anyone who's taken a film history class has almost certainly seen "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari". If you haven't seen it, and if you consider yourself a fan of horror movies, or a movie buff in general, you absolutely must see this movie. It is one of the most chilling horror movies ever made.


It might be a bit slow in the wind-up from the point of view of the modern audience, and you might be a bit amused by the Dr. Suess-like set design of the village in which the movie takes place... but you'll soon be rivited by the stark moods this film invokes through the sharp use of contrasts, the spooky appearance of the actors, and the brilliantly concieved sets. Dr. Suess will be very far from your mind, unless you want to view the film as "Horton Has a Psychotic Break and Hallucinates."

Although dating from 1919, this film still stands nearly unmatched it its ability to draw the audience into a disturbing, twisted world where ultimately nothing can be taken for granted or assumed to be true. And, depending on how you choose to interpert the very effective twist ending, it may well be a world from which there is no escape.

Every filmmaker has certainly seen this movie. It's too bad so few of them seem to have taken away any lessons from it.

Not much mummy action in this early horror film.

The Eyes of the Mummy (1918)
Starring: Pola Negri, Harry Leidtke, Emil Jannings and Max Laurence
Director: Ernst Lubitsch
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Albert Wendland (Leidtke) rescues Ma (Negri) from Radu (Jannings), a maniac who kidnapped her and who has been passing her off as a living mummy in an Egyptian tomb. The girl finds fame and fortune as the artist's model and a cabaret dancer in a major European city. However, Radu pursues them, intent on claiming what is his through any means necessary.



"The Eyes of the Mummy" has been touted by some as the first mummy movie. I can't help but wonder if those commentators actually bothered watching it, because there is even less mummy action here than there is in Universal's 1932 "The Mummy" and no supernatural element at all.

Or is there?

There are hints in the film that Radu is more than just a scammer, kidnapper and rapist. In one scene, he seems to appear in spirit-form in Ma's bedroom, and he later commands her through nothing more than the power of his mind. What might these scenes mean?

A generous and imaginative viewer could take these elements and combine them with the story Ma tells for having been dragged from the riverbank by Radu and waking up in the tomb as proof that the spirit of an ancient Egyptian queen dwells within the girl, brought back to life by Radu through magic--her being dragged away from the river was her being brought back from the spirit world to this one.

A less-generous viewer might say that the movie is the cinematic equvilent of an inkblot and little more than a poorly defined melodrama that features a loosely stitched-together selection of gothic fiction elements tossed in with no more thought beyond "well, this'll creep 'em out!"

Whatever the case, "The Eyes of the Mummy" is an unevenly paced movie that never quite manages to invoke enough horror or suspense to make it truly entertaining; some scenes become better when you run the DVD at 2x speed, a hidden advantage to silent movies. The acting is decent (even if you're one of the people who can't stand the acting styles of early cinema) and stars Emil Jannings and Pola Negri are especially fun to watch. Negri's exotic dances are more snicker-inducing to modern viewers than they are sexy, but she shows herself to be both a good actress, dancer and stunt woman--watch for that fall down the stairs near the end of the movie!