Reviewed by Colin Jacobson (October 17, 2018)
With 1944’s The Mummy’s Ghost, we find a sequel to a sequel of a sort of sequel. Ghost continues the tale told in 1942’s The Mummy’s Tomb, which furthered the story of 1940’s The Mummy’s Hand, which mildly related to 1932’s The Mummy.
Got that? Good - now forget it, for none of it matters during this tired and lame adventure.
During the prior two films, we met some archaeologists who “defiled” an Egyptian tomb, for which some religious dudes and their pet mummy Kharis (played by Tom Tyler in Hand but portrayed by Lon Chaney, Jr. in the three sequels) came after them. By the end of Tomb, they’d pretty much gotten them all, but this also resulted in the apparent destruction of Kharis.
Of course, that wasn’t the case. Kharis comes back for more fun, but here he seems more intent on reuniting with his lost love Ananka.
She featured in the background during the first two films, but in Ghost she takes over the body of a lovely Egyptian woman named Amina (Ramsay Ames) who attends college in the States. This occurs slowly while her boyfriend Tom (Robert Lowery) tries to stop the events.
While this may sound like the film differs from the events of the first two, it really doesn’t. Ghost is little more than a rehash of the bland chase scenes found in Tomb.
Kharis goes after folks, he kills some, people try to stop him - blah blah blah. For the most part, this becomes a dull and lifeless regurgitation of material that feels tired from the start.
Only two factors make Ghost stand out slightly. Actually, three if we consider the inane fact that no actual ghost appears in the movie - mummies aren’t ghosts! - but Tomb spent little time in one of those locations as well, so I won’t worry about it.
Easily the strongest character in Ghost comes from a heroic dog. He shows more personality than any of the humans, and he appears smarter as well. Build the movie around him and we might have something.
The other positive element relates to the film’s ending, so stop here if you want to avoid a spoiler. Bizarrely, the blurb on the old DVD’s case states that “The Mummy’s Ghost unearths hope for romantics everywhere with its surprising finale!”
Actually, the movie features one of the more downbeat conclusions I’ve seen. It is a surprise, as I didn’t expect such a negative ending, but I won’t regard it as being hopeful for romantics. It just feel like it’s different for the sake of being different, not to tell an interesting story.
Ultimately, The Mummy’s Ghost becomes a pretty bad movie. It just reiterates the same basic story already seen in earlier flicks, and it does little to make it seem different or interesting. Actually, it isn’t quite as bad as The Mummy’s Tomb, its predecessor, but the improvements seem marginal at best.