Copyright 19 August 1942 by Universal Pictures Co., Inc. New York opening at the Rialto: 25 October 1942. U.S. release: 23 October 1942. Australian release: 11 March 1943. 6 reels. 5,515 feet. 61 minutes.NOTES: Number three of the seven "Mummy" pictures.COMMENT: Yet another variation on The Mummy with sequences at the beginning ineptly paralleling those of the original. Inter-cutting with wipes back and forth from past to present effectively dissipates what little suspense has been built up. Still, Chaney's mummy is mildly effective and there's a fair climax in a blazing house.Foran is killed off rather early in the piece and - aside from one or two cameos like Frank Reicher's knows-his-stuff scientist, - the cast is second-rate with the "B"-grade shuffle much in evidence and a tight budget witnessed by the fact that Miss Knox is required to wear the same dress in two scenes that were obviously lensed on the same day. Mr Bey with all his chatter about the priests of Isis is a bore, as is Mr Hubbard and Mary Gordon. Miss Knox is fairly pretty but colorless. Despite a few striking compositions and effectively atmospheric touches, the direction generally varies from the routine to the inept and the dialogue is often as fatuous as the plot. Characterization is non-existent. Credits are no more than serviceable and production values are not much above the average "B".

This is the third installment in the Universal Mummy series and by this point the series is starting to lose some steam. I am such a loyal junkie of the Uni monsters, though, that I can't help but still enjoy these flicks and give them halfway decent ratings.This movie is a direct sequel to THE MUMMY'S HAND, only it's 30 years later. The new high priest encharged with protecting Kharis takes the monster to Massachusetts to wipe out the people who violated his tomb and fulfill the curse. Like all good Uni sequels (and really most horror to date), the monster is still alive despite the fact that it appeared, for all intents, to be destroyed in the previous movie. This was very common in Universal movies even when the monster's death seemed irreversible.This one is really light on new and original ideas. We begin by rehashing the story of HAND, for new viewers, using recycled footage from the previous movie. Then George Zucco, as the elderly high priest, initiates his replacement into the order, introducing him to Kharis, the mummy, and explaining the tanna leaves that will keep him alive. This scene is, also, almost a shot for shot recreation of the same scene in HAND in which Zucco became the high priest. By this point, you are a quarter of the way through the run time and we're only just getting to anything new.The decision to take the monster and thus the setting, to the United States is a bad decision for the movie. In HAND we were already worlds apart from the atmosphere and tone established in the Karloff original. By removing the series from Egypt and putting it into the states, we lose any sense of the fantastic, at all. Instead, it's just another shambling creature killing off people.Lon Chaney Jr takes over the wraps of the Mummy this time around. I find his overall presence to be stronger than Tyler in the previous movie, as he brings a more physical, less cowering approach. It's nice to see more of the Mummy, as well. However, at this point in the series the monster is little more than a puppet to do the master's bidding and is in dire need of the some of the sinister look used in HAND when they blacked out the eyes and mouth. He's starting to look like an overweight guy wrapped in linen. This may very well be the beginning of the "ramp up the body count" approach to horror sequels. Having seen my fair share of horror's history, this does seem to be the earliest example I can think of that used the approach of replacing the lost atmosphere of the original with more murder and violence, a trope that is all too common in today's horror sequels. Sadly, all of the murders amount to strangulation. This was all too common of movie's of this era. When I think of the dozens upon dozens of "golden age" horror films I've seen, I think every victim ever died of strangulation. No matter how terrifying the monster, they always resort to hands around the neck, which I can assume was necessary due to a mixture of censorship and low budgets.If you're reading reviews of this movie, I can only assume you are either a fan of Universal monsters, or classic horror in general, and you will find something to enjoy in this movie. If you are a modern fan who has, somehow, stumbled upon this movie, there are far better Universal pics that you can choose from.

After a brief retelling of the previous movie ("The Mummy's Hand") it is now 30 years later and "Stephen Banning" (Dick Foran) is telling some relatives of his adventures in Egypt. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, we find that both the mummy, "Kharis" (Lon Chaney Jr.) and the High Priest of Karnak, "Andoheb" (George Zucco) managed to survive. However, Andoheb is old and frail and he chooses a new person named "Mehemet Bey" (Turhan Bey) to succeed him upon his death. When that happens Turhan Bey decides to exact vengeance upon those who dared to commit sacrilege to the ancient Egyptian gods. This vengeance also extends to any family members as well. Anyway, rather than revealing what happens next I will just say that this was an okay sequel to the previous film. Unfortunately, the short length of the film (only an hour) prevented it from achieving anything noteworthy or remarkable. As such I rate it as average.

Nothing will ruin a movie as much as the combination of a poor script and poor direction. This is the case with "The Mummy's Tomb."The script is leftover ideas from older, better Universal horror flicks like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." The direction is trite and stale. The acting is mediocre. Even Chaney's Kharis is feeble compared to Tom Tyler's in "The Mummy's Hand," and the producers are foolish enough to add footage from Christy Cabanne's vastly better prequel and point up the weakness of their own film!Universal realized how bad this movie was, and essentially remade it from scratch two years later as "The Mummy's Ghost" with a much better script and better director. The result was likely the best film in their four film "Mummy" cycle, although not anywhere near as good as Karl Freund's 1932 original.Cabanne's footage raises this film to a 3. The "new" stuff is a 2 at best. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford were probably glad to see their characters bumped off so they wouldn't have to appear in dreck like this anymore!