Title: Not as bad if one values the cinematics over the literal
Product review: The best thing this film has going for it, is the cinematic flourishes of once master DP George Robinson. Each frame after the other is beautifully composed and lit to perfection. In a film like this--rountine plot, tepid, dull, flat direction, and some rather dry, dim-witted acting. Why care? So just sit right back and saver the visual poetry and the technique that went into it all. The real Star is Robinson, forget about Harold Young. He was just some untalented hack director who got the job becasue Universal couldn't afford to hire any of the big-guns...u know like James Whale, Edgar G. Ulmer, Robert Siodmak..ect ect. Altold, on a pictorial stand-point, The Mummy's Tomb ranks as one on Universal's best looking chillers of the 1940's. Yet when it all boils down to the facts, what a visually dazzaling film becomes, is an embaresment to what was one of Universal's biggest grossing films of 1942.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
