SHOW ME: The Mummy's Tomb (1942)

Who's The Mummy? Lon Chaney as Kharis (Tom Tyler in flashbacks)
Mummy's Love? Elyse Knox as Isobel Evans
Where? North America (Egypt in flashbacks)
How Long? 60 minutes

Three decades have passed since the events of The Mummy's Hand (possibly making this a futuristic sci-fi yarn, although fashions etc remain in a 1940s bubble!) and in his Mapleton, Massachusetts, home an aged Steve Banning (Dick Foran) recounts the events of the previous movie to a captive audience, including his son, Dr John Banning (John Hubbard) and John's girlfriend, Isobel Evans (Elyse Knox).

Given that The Mummy's Tomb is only an hour long, a good ten minutes is taken up at the start reliving The Mummy's Hand, with plenty of footage from that film used for the flashbacks.

We then learn that both Andoheb (George Zucco) and the mummy, Kharis (Lon Chaney Jnr), survived their encounter with the American archaeologists, but, for reasons unknown, have waited 30 years to get their revenge.

Like the high priest of Karnak before him, Andoheb passes on his secrets, and mission, to his apprentice: Mehemet (Turhan Bey). Mehemet takes the mummy by sea to America to exact revenge on the members of the expedition that defiled the tomb of Princess Ananka.

Banning goes first, and his death draws his old friend 'Babe' Hanson (Wallace Ford) to come and pay his respects to his old friend. No, I don't know why Babe's surname has changed between films, but in my headcanon it's probably got something to do with a dodgy deal he got tangled up with and trying to avoid creditors. That said, a seemingly random journalist recognises him by sight and knows his name.

Thankfully, the years have mellowed Babe and he's not the annoying character he was in the last movie. He quickly guesses who killed Banning, but no-one believes him... until he, too, is killed.

By this time, Doctor John has received a military commission, but before he goes to take up his new position he plans to marry Isobel.

However, the first time Mehemet sees her (while spying on John, the last of the Banning bloodline) he falls in lust and commands Kharis to kidnap the maiden, so he can threaten her with the usual deal: to be given an immortal life and live out her years as the slave-bride of the high priest.

The Mummy's Tomb is so bad it's actually rather funny, from the drawn-out opening, through some hilariously bad detective work (check out the scientist burying the lede on his examination of a piece of cloth found in the grounds of the Banning household... after going on and on about mold and chemical traces, he just happens to mention the 'hieroglyph' on the cloth that matches one found in the tomb of Princess Ananka!) right up to the overzealous mob that end up burning down the house Dr John has just inherited from his father.

And let's not overlook the unquestioned racism that stirs up the mob in the first place: simply because the new caretaker of the nearby cemetery is Egyptian he MUST be connected to the mummy murders, and so it's okay for 30 or 40 men armed with burning torches and guns to head over there to confront him.

Of course, he is responsible. It's Mehemet after all. But that's rather beside the point.

Although, in all honesty, it made no difference to my eyes, cinematic legend Lon Chaney Jnr took over the monster role of Kharis with this movie, and would continue portraying the character through the following two sequels to The Mummy's Tomb.

The mummy is still only using one hand and sporting a full head of hair, although greased back. While it's impressive - and indicative of the creature's strength - that the mummy does all his killing with a single hand, the hair really bugs me as it simply looks wrong.

I guess this is another magical side-effect of the sacred tana leaves.

HALLOWEEN HORROR: The Void (2016)

Late at night, on a deserted road outside of town, Sheriff Daniel Carter (Aaron Poole) comes across a wounded man stumbling out of the woods.

The lawman rushes the injured man to the nearest hospital, a fire-damaged building on the point of closure, operated by a skeleton staff, including the sheriff's estranged wife, Allison (Kathleen Munroe).

Within moments of their arrival - and a nurse going insane - the dilapidated hospital is besieged by knife-wielding, sheet-wearing, cultists.

From there The Void is a non-stop, violent, gore-splattered, thrill-ride through Lovecraft country by way of Assault On Precinct 13, The Thing and Hellraiser.

This is a film - whose plot unfolds over a single night - that just doesn't let up. The action kicks off from the opening scene, backstories are sketched in with deft brevity, and the viewers find themselves sucked into the absorbing, claustrophobic, horror.

Malleable architecture, hallucinations, and shapeshifting, tentacled, monsters are just part of the sanity-assaulting fun that the writing-directing team of Steven Kostanski and Jeremy Gillespie bombard the audience with.

And it's probably worth drawing attention to a couple of extended scenes that feature bright, rapidly flashing lights that could affect people susceptible to such light shows.

There's a strong flavour of vintage '80s horror here (but delivered with ichor-dripping 21st Century practical effects) that should satisfy any fan of HP Lovecraft's cosmic horror who tends to find the best cinematic realisations of his themes come in films not directly based on his stories (such as the aforementioned The Thing, In The Mouth Of Madness, Event Horizon etc).

It would be a gross exaggeration to say The Void is wholly original, but the diverse recipe of influences tap into so  many of my favourite movies, sub-genres, and ideas of what makes good horror, that I embraced it all the more warmly.

In fact there was a part of me that couldn't help wondering if this script was lifted from a game of Call Of Cthulhu, with pointless gunplay, fire-axe-swinging, and pulp novel machismo in the face of monstrosities not meant for the eyes of man.

THROWBACK THURSDAY: The Horror! The Horror! The Horror!

These days I'm a sucker for horror movies, with a particular weakness for monster movies.

While my passion for the genre began with a teenage viewing of the original 1978 Dawn Of The Dead, one of my favourite franchises remains the Nightmare On Elm Street movies.

I can still clearly remember the buzz the first one generated around school when it came out in 1984.

I was 17 at the time and not as into horror movies as I am now, but the "word on the street" was - in those pre-internet, pre-DVD dark ages - that it was the "most terrifying movie anyone had ever seen ever!"

Of course, when I eventually got to see it on VHS it was quite tame; still brilliant, thrilling and gory, but nowhere near as horrific as my teenage mind had imagined, fuelled by the hyperbole of fellow teenagers who'd claimed to have seen it... and just made it through to the credits by the skin of their tough guy teeth.

Even at the time some of the mood-setting special effects seemed quite primitive, these days they look positively archaic.

I seem to recall that the first horror film my parents let me stay up to watch on television was The Omen II. That scared the crap out of me and gave me nightmares for days - but now that also seems quite tame to my cynical forty-something brain.

I guess at the time it was some 'reverse psychology' parenting to stop me pestering them to be allowed to stay up and watch 'grown-up' movies.

It must have worked because I don't recall any horror movie encounters until the height of the heady days of the tabloid-led 'video nasties' scare (in the early '80s), when it was de rigueur to go round each others' houses and dare each other to watch the latest piece of nasty that someone had acquired on video tape.

I didn't make it through either The Evil Dead or Texas Chain Saw Massacre - which is ironic as the latter would, decades later, form the backbone of my university dissertation, and both movies rate among my top horror flicks these days.

It wasn't until one of these illicit gatherings when a gang of us were watching George Romero's Dawn Of The Dead that I had my 'Road To Damascus' moment and realised I was actually rather enjoying this movie and would like to see more of the same.

But that's not to say I've become so hardened and blasé to horror that nothing has a lasting impact on me.

Here's a quick rundown of the top three horror movies that still give me the heebeejeebies:

• The Exorcist

• The Blair Witch Project

• The Amazing Mr Blunden

No real shocks with the first two. I know The Blair Witch Project doesn't do it for everyone, but it digs at me on a psychological level for some reason - I guess it's something about being lost in the woods with an unseen antagonist, and the cinema-vérité style, with the handheld camera, just makes it all the more real.

It's that level of 'truth' that also makes The Exorcist so unnerving to me. Later horror films have generally taken a lighter touch, and even been more action orientated, but The Exorcist unfolds like docudrama and, to this day, as with Blair Witch, I can't watch it without the lights on!

The final entry in this trio of terror is an unlikely one that is obviously very personal.

My gran took me to see The Amazing Mr Blunden at the town centre cinema in Tunbridge Wells when I was six - and it scarred me for life.

To be honest I can't remember much of the specifics of the film, just that it involved a ghost and a large house fire. It wasn't the ghost that got to me, it was the house fire.

To this day, I haven't watched the film again because something about it just flicked a switch in my little, six-year-old brain.

And I have no plans to... even though it appears to actually be a U-certificate kids' film and not the hideous torture porn my addled brain recalls being 'forced' to sit through Clockwork Orange style with my eyelids pinned back.

SHOW ME: The Mummy's Hand (1940)

Who's The Mummy? Tom Tyler as Kharis
Mummy's Love? Peggy Moran as Marta Solvani
Where? Egypt
How Long? 67 minutes

Rather than a sequel to the original Mummy movie, The Mummy's Hand was a re-imagining and it was this film that spawned several B-movie sequels.

In late 1930's Egypt, washed-up archaeologist Steve Banning (Dick Foran) and his incredibly irritating (and casually racist) 'comedy' sidekick Babe Jenson (Wallace Ford) come upon clues to the location of the undiscovered tomb of Princess Ananka.

Unable to raise the funds for a proper expedition from academic sources, they go into partnership with travelling stage magician The Great Solvani aka Tim Sullivan (Cecil Kellaway), and head out with Sullivan's daughter, Marta (Peggy Moran) in tow.

Little do they realise that the tomb of Ananka, in the Hill Of The Seven Jackals, is guarded by a sleazy priest (George Zucco), who has been masquerading as antiquities professor Andoheb and - through the use of sacred tana leaves - has control of the living mummy of Ancient Egyptian Kharis (Tom Tyler) to protect Ananka's final resting place.

Devoid of the subtle menace of the original, The Mummy's Hand has a grating slapstick quality to it thanks almost entirely to the presence of the Babe character, although the surfeit of magical tricks from The Great Solvani outstay their welcome as well.

Coming in at just over an hour, there's hardly time to develop a story, but The Mummy's Hand does alright in that department by sacrificing depth and sub-plots on the altar of pulp adventure.

What this film does bring to the franchise though is the iconic imagery of lumbering, bandage-draped, mummy - especially when he is carrying Marta's unconscious body into the temple.

Before the Brendan Fraser action romps of the early 2000s, this was how the general public perceived cinematic mummies - in much the same way they believe all zombies crave brains, even though that's not part of that creature's formative mythology as set out in George Romero's movies, but rather an element from the comedy horror of 1980's Return Of The Living Dead series.

Unlike The Mummy, there's no great time-crossed love story in The Mummy's Hand, even though belatedly skeevy Andoheb reveals a plan to kill and resurrect both himself and Marta so they can be lovers for all eternity (a plan she is most definitely not okay with, as she only has eyes for square-jawed Steve).

The Mummy's Hand also uses more exteriors than The Mummy, although our first view of the temple on the Hill of the Seven Jackals, when Andoheb is summoned by the dying High Priest of Karnak (Eduardo Ciannelli), is laughably un-Egyptian.

And, although unconnected with the earlier movie, it does feature footage from it: most notably when recounting the backstory of Kharis where it uses much of the silent 'film-within-a-film' from The Mummy (that explained Imhotep's story), but re-edited with Tom Tyler instead of Boris Karloff and tana leaves instead of The Scroll of Thoth.

IT'S ALIVE!!!

HALLOWEEN HORROR: The Atticus Institute (2015)

The Atticus Institute is a mock documentary about a 1970s Pennsylvania research lab investigating fringe science, paranormal abilities, telekinesis etc.

Although they have a modicum of success there is nothing quantifiable that would stand up as solid proof of these supernatural abilities actually existing until a woman called Judith Winstead (Rya Kihlstedt) is introduced to the scientists by her sister (who promptly abandons her, disconnects her phone and severs all ties with her sibling).

Judith is odd, but right off the bat demonstrates to the institute's head Dr Henry West (William Mapother) a range of unnerving abilities.

Eventually, as her abilities escalate, it's clear that Judith's powers are beyond the control of the institute and one of their number calls in the military and the US Government, who take over the experiments and push Judith even harder.

The more extreme the tests get, the more extreme the results are.

And then when the government realises they are dealing with a true case of possession they decide the best thing to do is attempt to "weaponise" the demonic entity.

Naturally, that all goes according to plan...

This isn't a found footage film, it sidesteps that damnable fad by being essentially a montage of short clips, stills and interviews - using faux footage and snapshots from the 1970s, intercut with present-day talking head interviews with those connected to the events.

The Atticus Institue is a little gem, sharing some thematic - and stylistic - elements with the BBC's superb Ghostwatch from 1992, that writer/director Chris Sparling has crafted so that (in his own words from the 'behind-the-scenes' extras) people switching channels on TV and finding the film already playing will think it a genuine documentary.

The only thing that slightly undercuts that ambition is the use of, to me anyway, recognisable faces like Lost's William Mapother, Harry Groener, and John Rubinstein.

Given the verisimilitude that Sparling has created for this film, unsurprisingly - but bravely - The Atticus Institute doesn't offer any clear answers, rather it poses a lot of questions about what we are watching and who is really controlling the unfolding events.

It is also paced like a documentary - even though it opens with a tantalising tease of the horrors to come - and so demands attention from its audience.

Although there are a handful of jump scares, the film works best on a psychological level, challenging the viewer to think about how governments would react if possession - and other such horror movie fodder - were genuine.

A unique, powerful, clever and inventive horror film, if you give it the respect it deserves The Atticus Institute will worm its way into your brain and hang around for a good while.

SHOW ME: The Mummy (1932)

Who's The Mummy? Boris Karloff as Ardath Bey and Imhotep
Mummy's Love? Zita Johann as Helen Grosvenor and Ankh-es-en-amon
Where? Egypt
How Long? 73 minutes

In the 1920s a British Museum expedition to Egypt unearths an unusual mummy, that of Imhotep seemingly mummified with his organs intact and buried alive, next to a 'cursed' casket containing a magical Scroll of Thoth.

An impetuous young member of the expedition tries to transcribe the scroll, awakening the mummy. The sight of the lumbering creature drives him insane and then the mummy disappears into the desert with the scroll.

A decade later, another British museum expedition is led to the burial site of priestess Ankh-es-en-amon, by mysterious - and slightly sinister - local businesman Ardath Bey (Boris Karloff).

Once Ankh-es-en-Amon is secure in the Cairo Museum, Ardath Bey (who is really Imhotep, the resurrected mummy, as if you couldn't guess) uses the Scroll of Thoth to try and bring his love back to life.

It is later revealed that pharaoh's son Imhotep was madly in love with the priestess back in the day and when she died of natural causes at a young age, he stole the magical scroll to try and resurrect her, but was discovered and sentenced - by Amenophis, his father - to be buried alive, along with the scroll, so that no one else could ever use that again.

However, it turns out that Ankh-es-en-Amon's soul has been through a constant cycle of rebirth and is currently residing in the body of Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann), who is staying in Cairo with the elderly Doctor Muller (Edward Van Sloan), and has caught the eye of walking plank Frank Whemple (David Manners), the son of the original archaeological expedition leader.

Using his Ancient Egyptian magic, Imhotep plans to ensnare Helen Grosvenor, kill her, and then bring her back to life using the scroll, so they can be together forever.

One of the more subtle of Universal's classic monster movies, the original Mummy film is moody and pacy; as with most genre movies of that era it doesn't hang around and gets on with its story quick sharp.

It's more psychological than out-and-out horror, playing on Lovecraftian themes of fear of the unknown, dark magics, loss of self-control etc

Karloff is, of course, magnificently memorable as Ardath Bey/Imhotep and Zita Johann impresses as the flighty socialite that shows she has backbone, while the lusty and overbearing Frank is held at bay by magical forces.

Despite our common perceptions of "the mummy" as a shambling bandaged member of the undead, that version of the creature is barely seen - just briefly after his initial, accidental, resurrection - but then for the bulk of the film, he is the towering, but well-spoken, figure of Ardath Bey.

Bey even has his own 'secret headquarters' in the backstreets of Cairo, decked out in Ancient Egyptian style, complete with a scrying pool, through which he is able to cast spells at unsuspecting targets.

PULP PICTURE OF THE MONTH: Werewolf of London (1935)

For the first 'talkie' about the werewolf legend, Werewolf of London is surprisingly modern ... in places.

This is pure Pulp fodder that should be devoured by Call of Cthulhu and Back of Beyond gamers, with a large side order of cheese and corn.

The adventure starts in Tibet with a botanical expedition for a rare plant in a mysterious valley, then quickly moves to London where the picture's anti-hero, the grumpy Dr. Wilfred Glendon (Henry Hull), struggles to cultivate the Tibetan plant in his laboratory ... using a gadget that generates artificial moonlight!

Not only that but - and remember that this is 1935 - he has a CCTV monitor to see who is approaching the lab. How Doc Savage is that?

Things go wrong (naturally) and, thanks to a bite he sustained on his travels, Glendon transforms into a wolf-man and starts eating ladies of the night.

Warner Oland turns up as the sinister werewolf expert Dr Yogami, who tells the bumbling police that the killer they are seeking is suffering from "werewolfery" or "lycanthrophobia", but he has his own secret and an eye on the Tibetan plant (the only known cure for "werewolfery").

There are no truly sympathetic characters in this wonderful little film; ultimately only the wolf-man comes out as redeemable because, while a killer, he is driven by forces beyond his control and is constantly wracked with guilt and remorse. In some ways it is more Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde that the werewolf films we are more used to these days.

The 1930's script and acting veers from the sublime to the arch, the subtle to the ham-fisted, but Werewolf of London is only 72 minutes long and I've seen far, far worse acting, dialogue and effects in films made many years later.

HALLOWEEN HORROR: Ghostwatch (1992)

Imagine a cross between Most Haunted and The Amityville Horror, broadcast 'as live' on the world's most reputable TV channel.

Cast genuine TV presenters as 'themselves' for that extra air of authenticity and you can only begin to imagine the controversy that was stirred up when this was originally broadcast on Halloween night, 1992.

Looking at it now the age lines are starting to show, the technology is dated and some of the supporting performances (particularly the in-studio parapsychologist and the mother) leave a lot to be desired, but there is no denying the creeping terror that can still be felt as the show gradually descends into supernatural anarchy.

The Early family claims it is being haunted by a ghost they have nicknamed 'Pipes' and the Beeb have come to investigate in a Crimewatch style.

They even have phone-ins, which now (obviously) come across as staged, but to the original audience must have been very convincing.

Sarah Greene wanders around the haunted council house with her crew and the family; Craig Charles is outside interviewing neighbours; Mike Smith is handling the phones back in the studio and Parky is co-ordinating the whole show.

All very 'reality TV', and establishing the template for the live editions of Most Haunted, Dead Famous, and countless others these days, but with far more impact than those young upstarts ... mainly because things do actually happen! None of this 'oooh, we've just seen an orb' nonsense.

Like The Haunting, Ghostwatch is frightening not for what you do see (because you don't actually see that much) but what is heard and suggested.

However, be warned, with the crispness of the modern image it is much easier to catch elusive glimpse of the evil Pipes - reflected in windows, hiding behind curtains etc

Although only a 12-certificate, Ghostwatch is not for those of a nervous disposition.