The Mummy's Tomb.

Review #1908: The Mummy's Tomb.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr (Kharis), Dick Foran (Prof. Stephen A. Banning), John Hubbard (Dr. John Banning), Elyse Knox (Isobel Evans), Wallace Ford (Babe Hanson), Turhan Bey (Mehemet Bey), George Zucco (Andoheb), Mary Gordon (Jane Banning), and Cliff Clark (Sheriff) Directed by Harold Young (#511 - The Three Caballeros and #1799 - Carib Gold)

Review: 

Two years after the release of The Mummy's Hand (1940) came this film, which retained a couple of actors from this film as a sequel (of sorts) to this one. Foran, Ford, and Zucco return for this film, while Lon Chaney Jr replaces Tom Tyler as the title character. Honestly, I fail to see the point of having Chaney in the role, since he doesn't have a word of dialogue beyond all that makeup, and he would end up starring in the next two of these films. Given the time that the film it was made, it should only make sense that the film re-uses footage from the previous Mummy film, and this is done to recap what happened in a ten-minute opening (while Zucco is used to do other exposition before dying after monologuing). So yes, an hour-long film is really 50 when you take that out. You could call it incredibly redundant, but I guess it works if you really don't remember mediocre movies like before. I would like to point out that it is set "thirty years later", which would actually mean this film was set 30 years in the future and since the last one was a contemporary film...well, 1970 sure looks like 1940. 

It sure is a shame that this sequel is only just the same kind of mediocre horror movie, complete with oddball decision making that goes along with the benefit of having less comic relief without dragging along for an intolerable hour. You get a body-count and a silly motivation for the climax, what more is there to say? At least Bey makes for a useful adversary, following in the footsteps of Zucco in terms of smooth devotion before the inevitable story bits come in. So yes, a bunch of actors in elderly makeup are taken down by a mummy that survived being burned that moves at an amusingly slow pace. Hell, one of the guys gets killed when he is cornered at a wall and doesn't think to just...run to the side of him. But hey, the townspeople get a bunch of torches and chase the mummy, which happens to remind one of the Frankenstein movies, with the mummy being a tool to kill, which isn't too fun. My favorite bit is the group of townspeople staying still with their torches before they decide to throw some of them into the house the mummy is present (while people happen to be in the house). In short, nothing really is improved from the last film despite the small improvements from before. Maybe it is a bit interesting to see where the story ends up for Foran and Ford along with Zucco (seemingly alive after getting shot down a staircase), but yeah, they don't really have much to do to make you care very much about what goes on, so the disposability of them isn't exactly a shocker. Hubbard is just kind of there, existing only to interact in the mildest of mild things when the mummy is not on screen. Knox is just as bland, only serving as an object for desires of the most predictable kind, because this is yet another Mummy movie where the priest wants the girl for himself (the last one had them plan to eat tana leaves to be immortal). Sure, it is nice to see Bey in the role rather than someone who would play it for stereotypes, but nothing really changes in terms of captivating drama beyond the mild horror things. As a whole, if you want only a movie that serves the basic requirement of mummy terror and nothing else, then it will probably rank better than the prior Mummy sequel, but otherwise, there isn't really much to say in terms of positivity besides calling it mediocre.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Home of the Brave (1949).

Review #1797: Home of the Brave.

Cast: 

Jeff Corey (Doctor), James Edwards (Private Peter Moss), Lloyd Bridges (Finch), Douglas Dick (Major Robinson), Frank Lovejoy (Sergeant Mingo), Steve Brodie (T.J. Everett), and Cliff Clark (Colonel Baker) Directed by Mark Robson.

Review:

1949 was an interesting year for showing Black Americans. A quartet of features came out with varying levels of interest from Hollywood in telling an interesting story involving African Americans that differed from previous years (i.e. roles percieved as demeaning): Intruder in the Dust (1949), Lost Boundaries (1949), Pinky (1949), and this film. The first film was a crime drama adaptation of a William Faulkner novel, while the second one was based on a nonfiction account of a doctor who had passed for white in the 1930s/1940s, and the third was a drama adaptation incolving a woman passing for white that finds purpose in the South while re-claiming her identity. It should be mentioned, of course, that the latter two featured white actors in the starring roles. Home of the Brave (1949) does not do that here, if only because it is a film with a small cast that utilizes James Edwards with enough screen time to essentially make him the star focus in a medical war drama, filmed on modest sets over the course of a month.  The film is adapted from the 1945 play of the same name, which had been written by Arthur Laurents. He had served in the United States Army under the Pictoral Service. While the play did not run well with audiences to merit a long run, critics liked it and its themes of friendship, loyalty, and dealing with antisemitism. Producer Stanley Kramer latched onto making a film about the play, although it was the decision of screenwriter Carl Foreman to change the main character from being a Jewish person to an African American in an attempt to avoid comparisons to recent films such as 1947's Gentlemen's Agreement and Crossfire (ironically, that movie only had a theme of racism/anti-Semitism because the novel's theme of homophobia was not allowed to be shown for a film). Mark Robson had started directing with Val Lewton's unit at RKO Radio Pictures in 1943 before he directed Foreman's script in Champion (1949).

Of course, one thing that seemed to slip by at the time was the fact that the U.S. Army was segregated until 1948. At any rate, I should not be surprised that Kramer and Foreman were behind this film, because they would do another film involving the plight of recovering from the scars of war with The Men (that film dealt with paralyzed veterans as opposed to psychoanalysis), particularly when stuff like The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) was an audience favorite. Atbany rate, this film ended up being a modest success by making over $2.5 million. This was the first starring role for James Edwards (who had appeared in The Set-Up earlier in the year); the Indiana native had studied psychology at Knoxville College before moving onto Northwestern University in drama, and he served in the Army as a first lieutenant. While it ended up being his most well-known role, Edwards would appear in over two dozen feature films while also writing a number of books before his untimely death in 1970 at the age of 51. Edwards proves to be the highlight of the film, wrapped with encompassing sensitivity and tension that doesn't buckle when with a crowd (read: group of five). Basically, he makes a solid lead to follow with for a war movie with semi-effective accuracy in trying to draw raw emotion onto the screen when it comes to treating folks the way one wants to be treated (particularly in war). Bridges is the warmest presence around the group (as one would expect from a sentimental favorite), but he still pulls attention without soft depth, at least when compared to the hard nosed guys like Lovejoy or the heavy in Brodie. Corey makes a decent figure in the "analysis" parts, which don't drag the film longer than it needs to go in flashback before its 88 minute runtime is up. One could see why this certainly seemed more fitting for the stage than film (setting aside one character reading poetry at times), but it manages to be just entertaining enough with its sense of interest in making a worthwhile hard-hitting story that doesnt fall prey to soapbox moments. Among a year filled with attempts at telling different stories involving African Americans, this is a solid winner that tackles prejudice with dutiful conviction and a solid lead in Edwards to make it work.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Next Time: No Way Out (1950)