Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Mummy (1932)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Mummy (1932)

    I just saw this film today, and could not find a thread on BD about it, so I decide I should make my own. I just want to know what any of you think about this film, cause personally I didn't like it. It had a very slow and boring first 50 minutes and a poor pay off to it. The only reason to see this film is for Boris Karloff and even he did not grab my attention enough.

  • #2
    I agree about the slow and boring. I like Hammer's remake better.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DoubleBarreledShotgun View Post
      The only reason to see this film is for Boris Karloff and even he did not grab my attention enough.
      May a thousand scorpions rise up from the desert and slowly devour your entrails for all eternity, oh squamous gibberer of blasphemy!
      Last edited by Dark Mark; 12-20-2011, 04:11 AM.
      Join me in The Mortuary

      Comment


      • #4
        The Boris Karloff Mummy is absolutely the best Mummy film to date. It is better then the terrible Hammer stuff. It is better then the Branden Fraisher Mummy film where the radioactive spider bitten mummies can run along walls.

        The scene where the mummy stands up in the coffin and slowly opens up his eyes wqas creepy as hell. Boris is also a master of horror and this film shows why.
        Listen to them! Children of the night! What music they make!

        Comment


        • #5
          It was too slow for me I'm going to be honest and I never say that. Ever.

          Comment


          • #6
            It was cool, essentially just an Egypt-themed rip-off of Dracula, though.
            Classicsofhorror.com: The best collection of classic horror and sci-fi films online!

            Comment


            • #7
              I was entertained by the 1932 version of The Mummy, and I found it to be a really solid movie. The 1958 version that Hammer did is a slightly lesser movie, although its still amusing to watch people trip over stuff trying to get away from a really slow moving mummy. I actually like the 1999 one the best, since it was a nice mixture of action and horror.
              Horrorfest 2013

              This has nothing to do with where I came from, or what happened to me... I would've ended up here no matter what. I made a choice, I made a choice to provide a counterbalance to all those things that we hold good... and pure. You chose journalism, okay.

              Comment


              • #8
                It was too slow for me too. I think the "sequels" are better, since they actually have a mummy in them. And they're really short too, since the plots of them all becomes so redundant, they had no new stories to tell then.
                Do you think I'd look good as a blond?
                Do you think it would enhance my filthiness?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I liked The Mummy. It has a great well-developed plot. This seemed to be a movie that probably did need a squeal but it was interesting. Boris Karloff did the creepy Mummy perfectly. We did see Imhotep as a mummy but he obviously comes back to his revived state which what happens in all the Mummy movies. A lot of the films in that era of course had more of a romantic twist in it so I guess there is where the 'slow' part comes in.

                  When there is no more room in hell. The dead will walk the Earth.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Robert Thorn View Post
                    I actually like the 1999 one the best, since it was a nice mixture of action and horror.
                    Me too, I love that flick. Unfortunately for me the 1932 Mummy didn't do much for me. I was a little disappointed by it really.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X