With a dreamlike atmosphere and languid pace, this won't be for everyone, but it's got loads of mood and a creepy/old world vibe that is totally great even 80 years later. Probably still the peak of mummy movies.

'The Mummy (1932)' is not the best of the classic universal monster movies and there's even an argument to be made that the remake (the 1999 Brendan Frazer vehicle, at least) is a much more fun and entertaining experience, though all other incarnations of the character and story have missed the original's point and none have ever recaptured its style or spirit. This is still a seminal horror picture that confidently tells its tale and takes its place in pop-culture legend for good reason, though. There's a bit more on-screen violence than you're used to in these flicks, the underlying undying 'love' plot is an interesting and nicely explored one (though a bit damsel in distress nowadays) and the central performance is decently unsettling, bolstered by on-point and transitional make-up effects. Its creepiness isn't necessarily the crux of the character, however. In fact, there's a much more 'human' side to the bandaged bogeyman, here. 6/10

I was totally surprised to learn that in the 1930's there was not just a movie but a whole movie series. That's why I wanted to look at it immediately because many things interest me. Komma Unfortunately I do not like horror movies and in general I'm rather difficult to impress.I thought the movie is alright not good not bad but quite enjoyable there are some things I liked it there are a few things I do not understand but I have not taken the urge to answer these questions.Animals are actually pretty decent i found it pretty good as direct the movie is no unnecessary subplots no superfluous characters you do not waste so much time and always just say out what the problem is i like it so what is not there anymore today. I also found here is super interesting that in many parts of the film just 10 seconds, only the face of the mummy was shown and nothing else and then it goes on to the next scene it is definitely something different.Nevertheless, I have to say that I did not really like the film, but I would not mind watching it on TV a few more times. I just want to ask a question. Why do people always recreate plot points and film troupes of films from the past few years? 10 years instead of going back even further?PS: Boris Karloff in a shot used about four times in the movie as Transition

This was the original mummy film, doubtless inspired by the huge international frenzy of excitement concerning the discovery of the tomb of the Pharaoh Tutankhamun in November, 1922. After the discovery of that tomb, everyone's imaginations were working overtime, and it was inevitable that someone would see the Hollywood potential of a mysterious story about the discovery of a tomb. Nina Wilcox Putnam and Richard Shayer duly came up with a story, John L. Balderston wrote it up as a screenplay, and the cinematographer Karl Freund directed it. Freund was an expert at getting atmosphere from careful lighting and shadows, and there is plenty of it here to give mood to this brooding film. And then they chose the perfect leading players. Boris Karloff plays Imhotep, a High Priest of Amun-Ra of the 18th Dynasty who has offended against the gods and been buried alive wrapped up as a mummy. We see him in flashbacks to ancient times, but primarily he is a mummy who has been brought back to life by a British archaeologist reading out loud the text of a newly discovered papyrus containing the spell said to have been spoken by the Goddess Isis to raise her husband Osiris from the dead. The papyrus has been found in the coffin and the mummy is in the excavation hut with the archaeologist at the time. As a result of the spell being read, the mummy comes to life and slinks away. This is in the year 1921. We move forward in time now to the 1932 British Museum Expedition. A mysterious tall man in a galabiya and a fez appears and introduces himself to the archaeologists as Ardef Bey (spelled Ardath Bey in the IMDb credits list; Bey was an honorific title of respect in Egypt in those days, left over from the time of the Ottoman Empire). This mysterious figure is Boris Karloff, the mummy who has come to life and is now disguised as a contemporary Egyptian of considerable wealth. He says he can show the archaeologists the site of the tomb of the Princess 'Ankh-es-en-Amun' of the 18th Dynasty, daughter of the Pharaoh 'Amenophis'. The film says she died in 1730 BC, but the film has its dates wrong, because the 18th Dynasty was some centuries later than that (1549 BC – 1292 BC). But never mind, the film conveys a great atmosphere of authenticity because it incorporates location footage of the Tomb of Queen Hatshepshut near Luxor and even of the interior of the Cairo Museum. These scenes, seen in somewhat grainy black and white, are so reminiscent of the newsreel footage relating to the Tutankhamun find that the matching of the period atmosphere helps us imagine this is really happening back then. (And after all, it was made back then, which helps.) The tomb of the princess is duly found and her mummy is placed in the Cairo Museum. This princess happens to be the woman Boris Karloff was in love with in ancient times, and so he manages to creep into the Cairo Museum at night and starts to read the spell of Isis to bring her back to life, but is interrupted. Then he meets the young woman Helen Grosvenor, played by the Romanian actress Zita Johann, who certainly has a satisfyingly mysterious air about her. It turns out that she is the reincarnation of the princess. Zita Johann is wonderfully effective, and also plays the princess in flashback scenes of ancient times. She was born in Timisoara in Romania, and at the time she made this film she was married to fellow-Romanian John Houseman, who was born in Bucharest and later became a famous actor and director. Romanian women can look very mysterious without much effort, and so Zita Johann was well cast indeed. But of course the absolute star of this film is Boris Karloff, who probably never in his career looked so eerie and convincing, or delivered such a powerful impression on screen. His droll, droning voice, and the clever makeup which shows his face a mass of wrinkles, their dry and crinkling quality made all the more severe for being 3400 years old, work wonderfully well. His tall and lanky manner of walking, as if he had almost forgotten how to do so after so many millennia, is also an inspired bit of body language. Not that he is short of words, for he speaks most eloquently, especially when professing his love to the reincarnated princess. In her present life she is the daughter of the British 'Governor of the Sudan'. Once again the film is in error. Under the British, the Sudan was split into North Sudan and South Sudan. I know this because I knew the last Governor-General of the South Sudan, K.D.D. Henderson, very well when I was young and he was very old, and he was most particular to stress to me that he did not preside over the entire Sudan, but only the southern half of it. He said he loved it there and he got on very well with the Nubians, who were such fine fellows. Boris Karloff wants Zita Johann to rejoin him in eternal life, but that unfortunately means leaving this one first. The situation is very intense. Can she be saved? Or will she also become one of the 'undead' (perhaps not so unusual for a Romanian, as she came from the land of Dracula, but then we must not get our movies and stories mixed up). This film is a marvel of its kind, truly worth seeing, and a significant moment in the history of the cinema.