"The Mummy's Tomb" takes place thirty years following the events of "The Mummy's Hand", recounting the events of that earlier film in a series of flashbacks as narrated by expedition leader Stephen Banning (Dick Foran),bearing an uncanny resemblance to Martin Mull. We also come to learn that the Mummy from the prior film was only "seared", and it's mentor Andoheb (George Zucco) was only shot in the arm and actually survived the first film. If you're ready to accept that, you'll be able to swallow the rest of the story, as the aging Andoheb entrusts the Mummy's safekeeping to a new caretaker Mehemet Bey (Turhan Bey). Now there's a great coincidence, the Boris Karloff character in the original "The Mummy" was known as Ardath Bey!

Mehemet Bey's avowed mission is to bring the Mummy to Mapleton, Massachusetts to avenge the desecration of his holy tomb, by destroying the members of the original expedition and their families. But like his mentor before him, Mehemet is deterred from his mission by the sight of a pretty girl, in this case the fiancé of John Banning, Stephen Banning's son.

Wallace Ford is on hand in this sequel as well, but without the comic nuance of the earlier film. In a continuity goof, Ford's character is called Babe Hanson, and not Babe Jenson as in "Hand". It was a rather dramatic oversight, as the name Hanson is given prominence in a newspaper headline following his demise in the film.

The story writers also take liberty with the legacy of the tana leaves that are instrumental in keeping the Mummy alive. In "Hand", much was made of the fact that nine drops of liquid extracted from the leaves were necessary to resurrect the bandaged one; here three leaves keep him alive, and nine are needed to give him movement. I know, it's only a movie, but gee, let's keep our monster continuity intact.

I've yet to research Lon Chaney's involvement in this and the subsequent Mummy sequels, but I question why a name actor would have been called upon to portray a character that's never seen in his real guise; why not save the bucks and have a starving newcomer take on the role? If the Chaney name was a hook to bring in the moviegoers, who would ever know the difference?

There are a lot of good Universal Horror films and as someone who likes Lon Chaney Jnr, especially as WolfMan, I was all for seeing The Mummy's Tomb. The Mummy's Tomb is by no means an unwatchable, or even a bad, film, but it is rather disappointing and uninspired, as a sequel and as a film.

Starting with the good things, some of the photography is very good and moody as is the shadowy lighting, the make-up on Kharis is cool and has an element of creepiness. A couple of the murders- the film killing off three of the characters from the previous film The Mummy's Hand was a very bold move for Universal and one of the film's interest points- do have a genuine eeriness and the climax is very exciting. The cast is largely uneven, too many not making an impression, but George Zucco is sinister and authoritative in his rather too brief appearance, Turhan Bey also doesn't have an awful lot to do but is suitably smarmy and Elyse Knox glows with charm on screen. John Hubbard is also more than able if ever so slightly bland. Lon Chaney Jnr's performance is uneven, there are times where he is genuinely intimidating but at other times, and too often, he lumbers his way through his rather characterless role as Kharis.

However, The Mummy's Tomb starts off very ploddingly with a 10-15 minute stock footage introduction that while relevant took up too much of the film and was sloppily edited. And outside of the murders and the climax, the film never recovers from the plodding start with a corny, underdeveloped romance and scenes that were more silly and over-familiar than suspenseful. There was the feeling of too much filler that was either overlong or unnecessary, to stretch out a rather thin and increasingly meandering story. The music is stock and repetitive as well as forgettable, the script while darker in tone to The Mummy's Hand is stiff and veers on dreary, the film too often is flatly directed and the supporting characters are very thinly sketched to the extent that the actors just don't register, and that's including the more subdued role of Babe.

In conclusion, not unwatchable but uninspired. 5/10 Bethany Cox

As Dick Foran and Wallace Ford put the torch to Kharis the Mummy in The Mummy's Hand there's no way that Universal Pictures was thinking about a sequel. Otherwise they would have made sure to identify the fact that the action was taking place in 1912 and had everyone wear costumes of the period.

So it looks a little ridiculous to have Dick Foran and Wallace Ford now elderly beginning The Mummy's Tomb made up as elderly gents with Foran reminiscing about those days on that dig in Egypt where he bested the cult of Kharis and Princess Ananka and brought back the Princess Ananka's mummy with the treasures of her tomb. The first 10 to 12 minutes of this film is a flashback synopsis of the previous film.

But it turns out that Wallace Ford didn't really kill George Zucco with those bullets fired at point blank range. George has been waiting for 30 years, but he and the cult want some payback. Kharis survived too and Zucco before he dies turns him over to a new handler in Turhan Bey. They've even got a cover story with Bey getting a job as cemetery worker, the better to bring Kharis over from Egypt.

The Mummy's Tomb takes the unusual step of having Kharis kill the heroes of the previous film. But Foran left a grown son in John Hubbard who has taken up the fight against the undead. And Bey deviates from the mission because he's decided he wants Hubbard's intended bride Elysse Knox all for himself and he sends Kharis out to arrange it in his inimitable fashion.

I think you see where this one is going, but Universal did this one in their usual Gothic horror style. But The Mummy's Tomb is not as good as its predecessor and none of those films involving Kharis are anything approaching light years as good as Boris Karloff in the original The Mummy. Universal did not do as good as it did with Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolfman.

Mummy films are the runt of Universal's litter.