For the benefit of those who came in late, Dr Anton Phibes (Vincent Price) is a celebrated organist and theologian who was killed in a car crash while racing home having been informed of the death of his wife, Victoria (an uncredited Caroline Munro), during surgery. This is, in fact, not true, and he resurfaces a few years later, horribly disfigured and intent on revenge on those he holds responsible for Victoria’s death… or sleeping death… or something. And so he, with the aid of his mute assistant Vulnavia (Lady Not-Appearing-in-This-Film), sets about an elaborate plot to kill the apparently incompetent medical team in manners themed after the plagues of Egypt, albeit sometimes rather tenuously. This film is good enough to run you through the basic gist of its predecessor and what Phibes’ deal is before the titles. Anyway, some three years later, the stars align, rather literally, and Phibes revives from his suspended animation that acted as the coda to his killing spree. The time is right; the position of the moon and planets and all that jazz are such that he can attempt to restore Victoria to life once more. Summoning the mysterious Vulnavia (Valli Kemp) from the aether, they set about their way to Egypt, in search of the River of Life™. Or they would, but, beyond his mausoleum, Phibes’ house didn’t survive the first film, and in the three-year interim someone’s stolen his map to said river from its remains. That someone is Darius Biederbeck (Robert Quarry), as they find out oddly quickly and easily, a society type with a bizarre secret; he is, in fact, centuries old and has been prolonging his life with an elixir that is rapidly running out. He wants that damned river to himself and no cost is too high, and sets out on an expedition to Egypt with a crew of entirely expendable archaeologists in tow. The race is thus on to figure out the secret of waters of life.

The sequel to The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) was seemingly churned out in a hurry, materialising not even eighteen months after the original. Striking while the iron was hot, and all that. Though perhaps not quickly enough, as, as you might have guessed from the previous paragraph, Vulnavia was recast… or maybe too quickly? Apparently original actor Virginia North was pregnant and presumably they were unable to work around it in the time they had. With that said, it would seem the original plan was to omit the character entirely, god knows that it’d be easy enough given the first film (Spoiler alert! She is seemingly killed in its climax), but AIP insisted she be there. Presumably the film would’ve been lacking the quota of beautiful women that AIP demanded, nay, required or something, given as otherwise it’s just Fiona Lewis as Robert Quarry’s squeeze and… I guess Caroline Munro as a corpse. Admittedly this would probably have put it on par with the first film on the female character front. I suppose it might fair a bit better; Fiona Lewis’ Diana is certainly a more developed character than really any of the other women that turn up in the films (in case you’re wondering, the others are Susan Travers as a nurse who gets got in the first film and a cameo by Beryl Reid in this one). Do note, however, that this is not a very high bar. Vulnavia’s revival however does help set the slight shift in tone the second film has compared to the first.

While the first film… I hate to bring up The Avengers (1961-1969) comparison with regard to Robert Fuest, but it’s hard not to. While the first film is not, you know, realistic in terms of subject matter or even aesthetic, it takes place in a similar sort of fantastic reality to the aforementioned spy-fi show. The second takes a more supernatural spin with its mysterious elixirs and waters of life and all that. Really though, it’s not really that much of shift in practice. It also finds somewhat more of an adventure tone compared to the original’s cat-and-mouse detective thing. Only a bit mind; the nature of the plot doesn’t really lend itself to that much adventuring, at least so far as modern adventure films go, nor did the budget, one imagines, with much of the action being centred around the archaeological site; the mummy’s tomb being about three rooms total, plus the campsite. Still, they managed some foreign location shooting, even if Egypt is played by Spain, as is traditional. Oh, yeah, and also I guess John Cater and Peter Jeffrey reprise their roles as the detectives from the first film thereby keeping some cat-and-mouse element, though their relevance to the story as a whole seems pretty tenuous, not even meeting up with the main plot until it’s coming to a head.

Compared to its predecessor, which kept things pretty simple, Dr Phibes Rises Again is perhaps more complicated than it should be. I suppose that makes it sound like it’s a complicated film, what with use of the word ‘complicated’ and all, which, no, obviously; in the grand scheme of things, it’s not really much more complex than its antecedent. What I mean is it seems to have more elements to juggle; you have Phibes rooting around Egyptian tombs looking for the Macguffin du jour while offing people from the archaeology team that pose something resembling a threat to his plans, but you’ve also got the aforementioned reprise of the detective stuff from the first film and you’ve got Robert Quarry’s whole Man in Half Moon Street thing. They’ve got to fit all these pieces together, and explain things like Phibes’ and Vulnavia’s return when they apparently died (in case you’re wondering, the former, as stated, is explained as instead having sealed himself (and his missus) in suspended animation rather than entombing himself, while the latter they seem to have recast as some kind of ethereal spiritual familiar that Phibes summons rather than, you know, a human; again, this is somehow not really much of a shift in practice), and work in an explanation of what Phibes’ deal actually is, and throw in some cameos from notable character actors so they can throw them into the marketing. On that last note, it’s weird they got Terry-Thomas in to do one of them, as he was actually in the previous film playing someone else. Supposedly there was quite a lot of meddling from the studio this time around; as I said, they apparently demanded Vulnavia’s return; so I assume at least some of this probably stems from that, though presumably the short lead time on production didn’t help either. The first film came out around May 1971, the sequel, according to the not especially reliable IMDB, was shooting that same December. Given as it apparently wasn’t ordered until the former’s box office receipts came in, that is not much turnaround time. It’s perhaps remarkable the film is as good as it is. Despite, or perhaps because of, all this stuff, the film is pretty much always moving, its grand guignol near constant. The film relishes in its bizarre excess just as much as its predecessor; the elaborate murder methods, the art deco décor, Price’s ever theatrical stylings.

Actually, this is perhaps a good showcase for Price’s art. For the unfamiliar with the films, Phibes’ face, that is to say the real face of Vincent Price, is meant to be a mask covering up his disfigured one; the idea being that it can’t really move, and so Price spends the film his mouth unmoving. (The conceit is that he instead speaks through a hole his neck that he connects to audio equipment. To that end, all Price’s lines are dubbed in afterwards.) Despite this, he manages to express quite a bit without his voice. It’s quite impressive how much he’s able to (over)play it physically alone. 

It all holds together better than it perhaps should, even without the concrete structure of the first film or imitators such as Theatre of Blood (1973). It’s perhaps difficult to talk about without talking explicitly about its predecessor, although despite comparison it’s unusual in that general consensus tends to place the sequel strictly on par, neither better or worse. The film leans more heavily on the comedy side of the equation rather than the rough balance of the original Dr Phibes or its aforementioned spiritual successor, but it does seem to understand and even plays with the idea that Price tends to be a much more interesting figure than those he spends his films offing; the dichotomy is highlighted even. Phibes might be killing people, but he doesn’t treat their deaths with the callous disregard as the ostensibly ‘heroic’ Biederbeck, nor indeed are his end goals for the quest, similar as they may be, as self-serving.