The Walking Dead (1936).

Review #2267: The Walking Dead.

Cast: 

Boris Karloff (John Elman), Ricardo Cortez (Nolan), Edmund Gwenn (Dr. Beaumont), Marguerite Churchill (Nancy), Warren Hull (Jimmy), Barton MacLane (Loder), Henry O'Neill (Werner), Joseph King (Judge Shaw), Addison Richards (Prison Warden), and Paul Harvey (Blackstone) Directed by Michael Curtiz (#125 - Casablanca, #416 - Yankee Doodle Dandy, #505 - The Adventures of Robin Hood, #529 - Mildred Pierce, #719 - Mystery of the Wax Museum, #1370 - Life with Father)

Review: 

Sure, of course Warner Bros. thought they could have some fun making a horror film. Sure, you can see the clear inspiration when it comes to having Boris Karloff star as a lumbering man back from the dead, particularly since this came out a year after Universal's Bride of Frankenstein (1935) ...but here it is arranged within the trappings of a gangster film. Of course, the obsession with trying to bring back people from a fate worse than a broken leg wasn't limited to the current day. The "perfusion pump", for example, is shown for a moment during the pivotal resurrection scene. This glass device was designed by Charles Lindbergh and Dr. Alexis Carrel to try and keep organs functioning outside of the body (the process can be explained better in articles such as this); Lindbergh wanted to find ways to help his sister-in-law, who had a bad heart. Labeled as a "mechanical heart" in some circles, Lindberg and Carrel were even featured on magazine covers for their invention (better ways of "organ perfusion" eventually came around in the next couple of years, naturally). In 1935, a film wad made called Life Returns, which featured the exploits of Dr. Robert E. Cornish, a biologist that had an interest in restoring life that tried using a teeterboard/see-saw to try and get the blood flowing of the dead...it technically worked, albeit not perfectly, on dogs (interestingly, the film didn't exactly get a great release). Incidentally, Karloff would star in two subsequent features in the following years dealing with resurrection with The Man They Could Not Hang (1939) and The Man with Nine Lives (1940), which took inspiration from Cornish. Evidently with this film, Karloff was slated with little dialogue to speak before he raised issue with said matter. Five people were given credit for the writing: Ewart Adamson, Peter Milne, Robert Hardy Andrews and Lillie Hayward wrote the screenplay, while Adamson and Joseph Fields wrote the story. The movie was directed by Michael Curtiz, a particularly busy director in the 1930s that had some experience in horror (among others in the 30+ films he did in the decade) with Doctor X (1932) and Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933).

Okay, you're going to love the way the "resurrected" man decides to handle being framed for murder. After he is brought back from being electrocuted, he seems to have developed a certain type of clot in his brain that gives him a strange knowledge of just who had framed him. Oh, but it gets better, he actually gets his revenge, in perhaps the most curious way possible. Of course, the film is pretty fast and loose at getting there with a 66-minute runtime. Karloff proves a quality knowing presence to unnerve the soul when it comes to second sight with select times to speak or just stare. The funny thing about this horror/crime feature is that there isn't really much of a villainous presence or even a ham actor. Gwenn might be the lead scientist presence, but it ends up coming off as just warm curiosity that is fine for someone with as much experience on stage and film as you'd expect from him (one can take a guess what film you would recognize that voice from). Churchill and Hull are serviceable enough when you consider that the rest of the folks don't have much to do besides being casually terrorized after the execution. Okay, so the array of deaths that happen in the film are done not by any one man but are actually a string of accidents that just happen to involve our lead character because of his "sense" of knowing who led to his death. Probably the most amusing is a guy nervous about who just stumbled in to confront him that decides to run only to encounter a train. The movie has plenty of shadows and fog to keep things looking ideal rather than just being a Frankenstein cheapie. In general, the movie is a quietly solid one, not rocking the boat too much in unnerving horror (the resurrection scene might be the most involving for the sheer execution of it, although the last scene is interesting) but generally working well with one's expectations. This is the kind of movie you can sense was made in a few weeks by professionals that came and went to get things done without too much fuss (five writers, but still) that will prove up to code.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy's Curse.

Review #2266: The Mummy's Curse.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr (Kharis), Dennis Moore (Dr. James Halsey), Kay Harding (Betty Walsh), Virginia Christine (Princess Ananka), Addison Richards (Pat Walsh), Peter Coe (Dr. Ilzor Zandaab), Martin Kosleck (Ragheb), Kurt Katch (Cajun Joe), Ann Codee (Tante Berthe), Holmes Herbert (Dr. Cooper), and Napoleon Simpson (Goobie) Directed by Leslie Goodwins.

Review: 

Oh hell, let us get this over with. This was released six months after the last film and now takes place in the swamps...which seem more southern than what had been seen in the last one, which if one remembers correctly, was a sequel to a movie that was set 30 years after The Mummy's Tomb. That film basically was set in New England, so clearly the swamp from there must've morphed down under. And apparently, it is now 25 years after the supposed sinking of a mummy and his girl into the bayou, which means that really the film is set 55 years after The Mummy's Tomb, which means you could play pretend that this is the 1940s interpretation of the late 1990s (of course, there was no DVD to re-watch Mummy films before release so they probably just assumed people would assume "25 years later" meant like, the film was set in 1969 or something). Anyway, the only returning actor is Chaney, as this time one is spared having to go through exposition from someone like Zucco (I suppose being depicted not dying means he really did die). The director of the film was Leslie Goodwins, who actually had gotten his start with gagwriting and directing for silent films, which included Academy Award-nominated shorts. He directed from 1936 to 1959, with this apparently being his only horror film. The screenplay was done by Bernard Schubert and the story was done by Leon Abrams and Dwight V. Babcock. For once, the Egyptian-related woman is not the love interest of the totally relevant male lead. Eleven years later, Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955) came out involving a mummy named "Klaris" played by Eddie Parker, who actually had done stunts for one of the previous Mummy films.

You already know the other three Mummy films of the 1940s kinda stunk, so you probably know this one is not much better. It actually has more mush than the last couple of features, where you basically can check out for 30 minutes and miss almost nothing. Things just happen and that is about it. Time and space might as well exist as just a concept. Part of the thing about writing two paragraphs for a review is that one tries to find the proper balance for buttering up the details how a film came to be or setting the table for the real review. You might notice that this second paragraph might suck, and that is because there just isn't that much to say about this film! It is bland in a way that will make one appreciate the lesser Frankenstein fare Universal had come up with (as evidenced here and here) because even those films felt like someone had commitment. At least Chaney had his round of drinking when in that chicken suit (at least the mask was preserved, because otherwise nothing else exists from Jack Pierce's line of work). The only memorable lines probably come from Simpson when it comes to "the devil's alive and he's dancing with the mummy" (he also says it in reverse). Where was I? Oh, right, the film ends with a cell-like room having its walls being brought down by the mummy that sees them perish while the once-princess is back to mummy form. Underwhelming is the easiest word to call this film, pure and simple. It is made on the cheap with the only value being that an hour could have been spent doing worse such as say, stubbing your foot or having to hear five stories from customers in a row. Flush the film and go to anything you can think about for horror.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.