An X-ray machine reveals the presence of a corpse in an Egyptian sarcophagus. It is not that of the ancient high priest. Instead the body is that of the archaeologist who was thought to be on a trip to the Upper Nile, but is now found murdered. Written by
Ed Stephan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The eleventh of forty-seven Charlie Chan movies, and eighth of sixteen starring Warner Oland. See more »
The plot revolves around items from the tomb of a high priest of Sekhmet, and the statue of Sekhmet, which are found in the tomb itself. Although Sekhmet was indeed the goddess of revenge, she was not a mortuary goddess. The writers may have confused Sekhmet with Selket, who *was* a mortuary goddess. See more »
Under the influence of mapuchari - or drugs in the desert!
Warner Oland works on behalf of French Archaeological Society concerning Egyptian antiquities being sold to private collectors and rival museums. Before the case is solved, Chan will uncover and solve a murder and avoid being done in. Mystery is pretty straight forward with fewer misleading clues than most of this series. "Theory like mist on eyeglasses -- obscures facts." Chan still (as usual) does not reveal all until the end although this time with the paucity of suspects it is more likely that you can guess the guilty party. Story relies more on travelog-type shots, similarity to real-life and contemporary film mysteries about mummies and tombs, and basic lectures on how X-rays work and archaeology to keep interest. It works. Pat Paterson (Charles Boyer's real life wife) does a credible job as the damsel in distress and under the influence of cannabis. Stepin Fetchit's role as a bug-eyed dim-witted servant will upset modern viewers and probably served as comic relief to contemporary audiences. Although an unrecognizable Rita Cansino (Rita Hayworth's real last name) is given a credit at the beginning of the film, she hardly has any lines. Not as good as Charlie Chan in London or Paris, but one that dedicated fans will not want to miss. Recommended.
11 of 14 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?