Charlie Chan in Egypt (1935)

A very good Charlie Chan movie marred by the unfortunate inclusion of the dated comic relief Stepin Fetchit ( "Mr. Tom won me in a card game"). Despite being introduced in the previous film, Keye Luke's "Number One Son" Lee doesn't appear here. The story sees Charlie coming to Egypt to investigate the theft of Egyptian relics and a missing archaeologist. Most notable today for the early appearance of a young Rita Hayworth (billed as Rita Cansino). This is generally considered to be one of the best of the Charlie Chan series. The mystery is nicely done. The Egyptian trappings provide for a nice horror-movie atmosphere. Lots of great Chan aphorisms that we all love. It's a good film for fans of old detective stories. Just be prepared to grit your teeth through the scenes involving Stepin Fetchit's character Snowshoes.

"Waiting for tomorrow, waste of today!" and other Chan aphorisms account for just a small portion of the delightful entertainment afforded by this eleventh offering in the 47-picture series. But for one distressing lapse, it might even rank as the best. That lapse is Mr Stepin Fetchit, about whom the less said, the better. Fortunately, his role is small, although, alas, it's considerably larger than that enjoyed by the lovely Rita Hayworth who seems to have spent most of her Fox sojourn posing for charming stills. Her role in the actual movie is inconsequential although she does manage to exchange a few lines with Warner Oland. Otherwise, all she does is to hover in the background of a few scenes.Oland, of course, is in top form, but so are the other players, and even more importantly the Robert Ellis-Helen Logan script comes across as a real winner. Although the identity of the killer will fail to stump many viewers, the puzzle is admirably contrived and the plot worked out with commendable pace, precision and power.This is no "B" picture. The sets are stunning. Daniel Clark's noirishly atmospheric photography also deserves special mention and even the normally humdrum director, Louis King (brother of Henry King) has risen to the occasion.

Charlie Chan (Warner Oland) finds mystery and murder, naturally, in the secret chambers of an Egyptian tomb, amid lots of hocus-pocus about figurines and ornaments with mysterious powers. With a runtime of just 73 minutes the story is rather thin, and the whodunit puzzle isn't very good. But I suspect the film's appeal in 1935 had more to do with the novelty of Egyptian decor and production design than with the film's plot, some of which is not explained. And I did not like the Snowshoes character, at all. He may have been included as comic relief, but there is nothing about him that is funny, and the character is irrelevant to the whodunit puzzle. The actor playing the part whines and mumbles in a most disagreeable manner. I found him truly annoying.The film's B&W cinematography is marginally acceptable. However, in the copy I watched the images were grainy. At the film's beginning, they used stock footage of Egyptian sites to foster the illusion of being in Egypt. Acting ranges from acceptable to laughably melodramatic. The man playing Barry Arnold, in particular, dreadfully overplays his role, with those bug-eyed histrionics.Although "Charlie Chan In Egypt" is not a complete waste of time, there are other films in the Charlie Chan series that are much better.

The texture of this movie is as lumpy as the crunchiest peanut butter. The problem lies partly in the conventional 1930's Hollywood wisdom that audiences couldn't be trusted to sit through 60-70 minutes of suspense and sleuthing unless you provided comic relief. Too often, as here, the comic element was totally extraneous to the story. Enough has been said by other commentators about Stepin Fetchit's unwelcome presence. Stupid, lazy, and cowardly, his "coon" stereotype was the answer to a white supremacist's dream. More to the point, he isn't even very funny here. His character fits in with Warner Oland's Charlie Chan like oil and water. One anticipated comic scene in which the bazaar merchant shows SF the long-lost tomb of his "ancestors" fails to materialize. (If it was ever shot, it probably ended up on the cutting room floor.) Paul Porcasi's fastidiously polite Inspector Fouad also seems superfluous. One longs for the presence of Keye Luke in this movie, as the best humor in the Charlie Chan series always came out of Charlie's natural interaction with his sons.The other problem with Charlie Chan in Egypt is thin plotting. Why should Professor Thurston need to kill his nephew Barry and attempt to kill his niece Carol with the mysterious drug "mapuchari" when he has already hidden away the treasures of the 21st Dynasty in a secret room? It seems that Charlie is not given enough clues to go on when he reveals Thurston as the murderer. Actually, the bulk of the evidence, such as it is, seems to point to the major-domo Edfu Ahmad, played by the sinister-looking Nigel de Brulier. As a direct descendant of the High Priest Amete, he has a vested interested in saving his tomb from desecration by foreigners. And what is a teenaged Rita Hayworth doing here as the servant girl Nayda, peeping through the shrubbery as Charlie investigates Barry's murder? Is she is league with Edfu Ahmad, or merely getting some screen exposure while adding her decorative presence to the proceedings? Also, the complicity of the chemist Daoud Atrash is not made clear. He claims ignorance of the drug mapuchari, but is he on the level? If Atrash didn't provide Thurston with the drug, who did? In the last analysis, this is not among the the strongest films in the Chan series due to its unevenness. This in spite of the truly eerie tomb setting, which recalls the chills we got in no less a picture than the original Boris Karloff classic The Mummy.