Britain's first horror film was Boris Karloff's STRANGEST role

By James Patterson

Ninety years after its release, “The Ghoul” remains a cinematic oddity—part horror, part mystery and entirely “weird.” Though overshadowed by Boris Karloff’s more famous roles in “Frankenstein” and “The Mummy,” the film still fascinates fans of early horror with its mix of gothic shadows, Egyptian curses and eccentric performances.

By 1933, Karloff was already an established star. His breakthrough as the monster in “Frankenstein” (1931) led to starring roles in “The Old Dark House” and “The Mummy” (1932), both box office successes that required him to act under heavy makeup. That same year he appeared in just one project—a Gaumont-British production titled “The Ghoul.”

Biographer Cynthia Lindsay later wrote in her 1975 book “Dear Boris: The Life of William Henry Pratt” that it was intended as Britain’s first horror film. A 1933 British reviewer praised it as “suspenseful entertainment embodying an uncanny theme, brilliant in its weirdness.” That assessment still rings true today.

“The Ghoul” borrows freely from Karloff’s earlier roles. Like “The Old Dark House,” much of the action unfolds in a gloomy mansion. An Egyptian-style tomb recalls “The Mummy.” Karloff even stumbles through underbrush in scenes reminiscent of “Frankenstein.”  

The plot casts Karloff, in a particularly grotesque makeup job, as a dying Egyptologist who has purchased a sacred jewel stolen from an ancient tomb. He insists on being buried with the jewel clutched in his hand, believing it will restore him to life and grant eternal existence. Naturally, grave robbers interfere—and Karloff rises from the dead.

The cast includes several familiar names. Ernest Thesiger, Karloff’s co-star in “The Old Dark House” and later “The Bride of Frankenstein” (1935), provides dry humor. Cedric Hardwicke, who would appear with Karloff again in “Lured” (1947), gets some of the film’s wittiest lines. Ralph Richardson makes his screen debut in this 80-minute curiosity.

 Though long on dialogue, the film is peppered with sly double entendres. After seeing Karloff resurrected as the ghoul, Hardwicke quips, “I am going to mix myself a drink.” Thesiger is equally entertaining with his wry delivery.

That early British critic described “The Ghoul” as “credible, thrilling and uncanny, without being horrific.” I disagree with much of that assessment, though I share the praise of Karloff himself: “Karloff is superb in the role of the Egyptologist.” Even when the script faltered, Karloff approached the part with commitment and seriousness.

That dedication is why fans admired him then and still do today. Even in a flawed film like “The Ghoul,” his presence elevates the material.

If you are a Karloff fan, you will appreciate his performance. And if you enjoy eccentric dialogue from cinema’s early horror era, “The Ghoul” still delivers plenty of “weird” laughs. ●