Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

jacobjohntaylor1 A classic horror film. That is really very scary. It not a sequel to The Mummy. Not really. But it very scary. The Mummy's Tomb is scarier. The Mummy's ghost is also scarier. The Mummy's Cures is also scarier. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. 6.1 is a good ratting. But this is such a great movie that 6.1 it underrating. This is a 9. See this movie. It this movie does not scary no movie will. Christy Cabanne was a great director. This is one of his best movies. See it. This is is scarier then The Shining and this not easy to do.

Michael_Elliott The Mummy's Hand (1940)*** (out of 4) Universal decided to reboot the 1932 film with entry, which started the series from scratch. This time out, Steve Banning (Dick Foran) and his buddy Babe Jenson (Wallace Ford) lead an expedition in search of the tomb to an Egyptian princess but instead they find the body of the mummy Kharis (Tom Tyler). Soon the mummy is brought back to life by a professor (George Zucco) who plans to use him for evil reasons.In my opinion THE MUMMY'S HAND is the best mummy film the studio ever made. Whereas the original with Boris Karloff might have been better made, it's was also rather boring in spots and there's no doubt that it left you wanting more of the mummy. That's certainly not the case here as we're given an excellent cast, some great locations and best of all is that the mummy is used quite often and to great effect. Tyler certainly has the right build for the part and he manages to make for a very effective mummy. The costume itself is extremely good but the highlight has to be his pitch black eyes.The film has some nice comedy running throughout but it also works well as an adventure tale and a horror film. The horror elements are extremely good with an effective music score, some great locations and the before mentioned mummy. It also doesn't hurt that we're given a terrific cast with both Foran and Ford doing fine work in their parts and Peggy Moran is good as well. Cecil Kellaway is also nice in his bit and there's no question that Zucco owned his role.THE MUMMY'S HAND kick-started the series and while future films were entertaining, there's no question that they dropped a bit into "B" movies. This one here was certainly the best the studio ever made and remains a solid picture.

kevin olzak 1940's "The Mummy's Hand" was not a sequel to Karloff's 1932 "The Mummy," but a reworking of certain elements, creating the enduring image of the murderous mummy stalking victims on a bad leg, and strangling them with its one good hand. By far superior to its three followups, we begin with the introduction of George Zucco's Prof. Andoheb, secret High Priest of Karnak, whose duty is to protect the resting place of the Princess Ananka by maintaining the existence of the 3000 year old mummy Kharis, through a serum brewed with a specific amount of now extinct tana leaves. There are two basic reasons why none of the sequels measured up, first that this title was set in Egypt, utilizing stock footage from the 1932 original (which only reappears in the last, "The Mummy's Curse"), and second that Tom Tyler's mummy is actually scary, his eyes and mouth effectively blacked out in chilling closeups (poor Lon Chaney always wore a mask). George Zucco enjoys his most indelible role, repeated briefly in the following two entries, and veteran Charles Trowbridge endures the series' best remembered murder, unable to escape the grasp of the death dealing monster. With all the mayhem, the upbeat spirit never flags, with Dick Foran and Wallace Ford repeating their roles in the direct sequel "The Mummy's Tomb," set 30 years later. Included in Universal's popular SHOCK! package of classic horror films issued to television in the late 50s, "The Mummy's Hand" made five appearances on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater- Feb 12 1966 (following 1955's "Bride of the Monster"), Mar 1 1975 (last of a rare triple bill, following 1966's "Cyborg 2087" and 1945's "Captain Mephisto and the Transformation Machine"), July 24 1976 (following 1969's "Daughter of the Mind"), July 29 1978 (following 1935's "Bride of Frankenstein"), and Jan 22 1983 (solo).

Robert J. Maxwell It's a kind of ragout of Hollywood genres -- murder mystery, spoof, romance, story of exotica. Dick Foran is an archaeologist who stumbles on an ancient vase with precious secrets encrypted in its hieroglyphics. Wallace Ford is his comic sidekick. George Zucco is the fez-capped, oleaginous villain. Cecil Kellaway is a good-natured stage magician who joins Foran and Ford in their search for the ancient MacGuffin. Peggy Moran is the female.By this time, Universal Studios must have just about reached pattern exhaustion in its monster series. Dracula and Frankenstein had appeared eight years earlier and -- well, how many times can you revive the good Count or the hand-crafted monster. What is there left for them to DO? The original mummy with Boris Karloff appeared in 1932 as well but hadn't been exploited so ruthlessly. Maybe they thought it was time to revive Kharis again. It was a mistake. An entirely new approach appeared in, I think, 1948, with "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein." Universal said, "To Hell with it," and threw together Frankenstein's monster, Count Dracula, and the Wolfman in a farce. It worked pretty well. But then Universal ran THAT pattern into the ground. In the next few years Abbott and Costello met every monster in the Universal franchise and some that weren't.This is an inexpensive production. It seemed to me aimed more at kids than adults. It's hard to believe that Mary Shelly's original "Frankenstein, Or The Modern Prometheus" was a serious look at the directions in which the scientific revolution might take us.