Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Cody One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 31 December 1943 by Universal Pictures Co., Inc. New York opening at the Rialto: 30 June 1944. U.S. release: 7 July 1944. U.K. release: 2 June 1947 (sic). Australian release: 6 July 1944. 6 reels. 5,499 feet. 61 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Sequel to The Mummy's Tomb starring Chaney junior as the mummy. Since Turhan Bey failed in the previous movie, Egyptian priest Zucco sends John Carradine to New England to help the mummy find his princess. This time a young college co-ed played by Ramsay Ames is the Ananka look-alike.NOTES: Number four of the seven-picture "Mummy" series.COMMENT: The story continues on from The Mummy's Tomb (1942). The mummy it appears was not destroyed in the fire after all, but only disfigured - if you can imagine a mummy being disfigured, though his one eye is rather frightening. Lon Chaney is so completely swathed in bandages as to be unrecognizable - any stuntman or cheap double could have done just as well. Robert Lowery is a rather wet hero, though Ramsay Ames makes a rather fetching heroine and there is a solid cast of character players.Le Borg's direction is much, much more stylish than his usual humble standard. Some of the sequences are compellingly stated and good use is made of natural locations at the climax. The film looks well-produced though Sickner's photography lacks the atmosphere that Woody Bredell would have brought to the film. The eerie effects are mainly achieved through Jack Pierce's skilled make-up and Salter's well-thumbed musical compilation of standard Universal "B"-picture themes.There is more than a hint of blasphemy in the script's adaptation of King James-type prayers to pagan identities such as Amon-Ra and it's odd that this was deemed acceptable by the supposedly strict censors of 1944.

alexanderdavies-99382 The "Mummy" films from the 1940s were never going to be as good as the 1932 classic and sure enough, they aren't. This one from 1944 is a slight improvement and is the best of the trio that Lon Chaney Jnr made. According to reports, this character was the actors least favourite and I can understand why.The film has a bit of incident and even a bit of atmosphere.

GL84 Still alive and searching for his long-lost love's remains, the mummified Kharis sets out to find her body and comes across a college student reincarnated as his love which puts his rampage in jeopardy as he tries to save her.This turned out to be quite the enjoyable effort in the series. More than anything else, what works here is the rather large amount of screen time given to the mummy, having a chance to really get a lot of scenes even if he's just shuffling through the background though this one does have some enjoyable moments. Among them are the early attack at the professor's home along with the abduction later on which manages to feature a lot of fun in the initial abduction and transportation scenes along with the scenes of the crises of faith in the temple all making this one quite enjoyable. There's still several other big highlights here, the big one obviously being the finale in the hideout as the mummy tries protecting the girl from the townspeople attempting to reclaim her back while it wages a secondary fight to hold off his attempts to get with her and the end result of all this action is the fire-packed burning of the building in a spectacular display. As well, the sequence in the museum works rather well as the ceremony to restore her is nice B-level charm and the resulting encounter with the guard makes for a rather exciting time. Finally, this one fully explores the connection history of the tanna leaves in resurrecting and controlling the mummy, all of which helps this one overcome its few flaws. Frankly, the biggest stumbling block here is the inherent cheapness in practically everything from the special effects to the mummy costume and even the sets in the different hideouts which are quite obvious and really distracting at times. Also, despite the fact that the mummy has a lot of screen time most of it is random shot of him shuffling around in brief interstitial scenes without really showing it doing much. It really makes these scenes pretty questionable, almost as questionable as the decision to have a hideout with a gimpy-legged creature on top of a mineshaft with a one- hundred-plus inclined slope to get to it. The concept is pretty stupid and is executed similarly. It's not as big a detriment but it does stand with the other flaws.Today's Rating-Unrated/PG: Mild Violence.

Uriah43 In the previous movie, "The Mummy's Tomb" the mummy known as "Kharis" (Lon Cheney Jr.) had been killed by fire. However, because of his curse 3000 years earlier he cannot remain dead as long as a certain ritual involving tanis leaves are prepared during a full moon. So the High Priest of Karnak instructs a priest named "Yousef Bey" (John Carradine) to bring him back to life. When Yousef Bey boils the tanis leaves Kharis reappears in the small town of Mapleton where he was last seen. This time however there is a beautiful Egyptian woman by the name of "Amina Mansouri" (Ramsay Ames) who becomes his intended target due to her now possessing the soul of Princess Ananka. Anyway, rather than give away the entire story and risk ruining the movie for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this particular film is a little bit better than it's two predecessors, "The Mummy's Hand" and "The Mummy's Tomb" in that it seemed to flow a bit more smoothly. Obviously, it should be remembered that this was made in 1944 and as such it doesn't have the advanced techniques available to horror films today. But it's still pretty good and I rate it as slightly above average.