Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Console best movie i've ever seen.

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 25 August 1954 by Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Roxy, 24 August 1954. U.S. release: September 1954. U.K. release: December 1954. Australian release: 24 February 1955. Sydney opening at the Regent. 12,514 feet. 140 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Egypt, 1300 B.C. An abandoned baby is adopted by a physician. As a young man he follows his foster-father's profession but falls into bad company.NOTES: Color cinematographer Leon Shamroy was nominated for an Oscar but lost to Milton Krasner ("Three Coins in the Fountain"). Edmund Purdom replaced Marlon Brando in the title part at virtually a moment's notice. "Although many stars were considered, when Brando walked out, Purdom was one of the few actors tested for the role. Although this test was made 10 days before the picture started it was not until 4 days later that Purdom learned he had the role. He was vacationing in Acapulco. By the time he arrived back in Hollywood he had only 2 days for preparation — and these days were taken up with wardrobe and make-up tests and fittings." — Unsigned fan article on Purdom, written 1954.COMMENT: Fox's 15th CinemaScope feature was reasonably successful at the box office and returned a modest profit despite both its inflated negative cost and almost universal panning from professional critics (including cast member Peter Ustinov). Actually the movie has not only improved with age but it is one of the few early CinemaScope movies that actually play more effectively on TV than they ever did in a theatre.When The Egyptian was first released, we all thought it a ponderous, heavy-handed, laborious, tediously-paced spectacle. Laughably inept dialogue seriously compromised a cast of straight-faced but wearisome players, of whom Peter Ustinov's tongue-in-cheek Kaptah provided the only welcome diversion. Ustinov managed to wring some mild fun out of the thinnest of threadbare material. At the other end of the scale, Bella Darvi was undoubtedly the chief offender. With an accent as thick as Continental cheese and mannerisms straight out of a gaslight melodrama, you wondered what Zanuck was thinking of when he cast her in such a major role. Closely contesting Miss Darvi for worst performance are Victor Mature, Edmund Purdom and Michael Wilding. With his blatant over- acting and hammy eye-rolling, Mature eventually wins out, but not before Purdom and Wilding with their fixed, poker faces, expressionless delivery and frozen under-emphasis, have given him a good run. Jean Simmons is likewise a dead loss in a goody two-shoes role in which she seems hopelessly miscast. Still she does put up a game try. That she proves so inept is more the fault of the dialogue and characterisation — to be precise the tediousness and triteness of the former and the complete lack of detail in the latter. Henry Daniell does equally little with his part as the high priest, but John Carradine (always reliable even in a bloated epic like this one) contributes a winning cameo as a grave-robber.Some of the scenes of spectacle are admittedly effective (the chariot running over the camera during the massacre; the house of the dead; Mature's triumphal entry into the throne room), though you can pick out more than a few shots that were obviously lensed by a second unit with normal, non-anamorphic equipment, the results being rather clumsily blown up to CinemaScope size in the lab.Technically, "The Egyptian" does not stand up terribly well. For the most part Curtiz has directed the picture like a conventional three- by-four. Most of the action is steadfastly centered in the middle of the screen. What's more there are no reverse angles. The cuts are from two-shots to close-ups, but the camera's point of view always remains the same. There is very little camera movement. Obviously Curtiz was heavily influenced by beliefs on the techniques of using CinemaScope formulated by Henry Koster whilst shooting "The Robe". The wide screen gave sufficient dramatic scope in itself, Koster wrote. A virtually stationary camera was most effective. Panning, tracking and dolly shots should be avoided. Care should also be exercised to minimize sudden jarring cuts in the film editing. It was best that the whole movie be lensed from one angle as if it were being presented on a stage with the camera permanently fixed in the auditorium. (Koster modified these views considerably by the time he got around to directing "The Virgin Queen").Leon Shamroy's photography suffers from the graininess and lack of sharpness in the early CinemaScope lenses, though these defects are less apparent on TV. The music, representing a unique collaboration between two great composers, is not half as interesting as most single works of either. Where the film does hold some fascinating interest is in its sets. The props and artifacts of ancient Egypt do hold a certain intriguing appeal all on their own. It's always hypnotic to see them brought to life — even in as indifferent a manner as here. Oddly enough, "The Egyptian" is rare among the early CinemaScope crop in that it comes across more effectively and actually looks better on TV. True, there are moments when CinemaScope's images cannot be squeezed successfully within the confines of the TV screen, but for the most part Curtiz has so centered all his action in the middle of the frame that the compositions look not only dramatically tighter but atmospherically more effective.

mark.waltz There is so much back story in this luscious looking movie that having not seen this in over 20 years, I had to research the basic plot of this political epic of the ancient worlds. It must have been an absolute sight for wide eyes in 1954 as the new CinemaScope format made itself known to movie audiences. It takes patience now to watch the story of doctor Edmund Purdom unfold, the saga of the secrets surrounding his birth, his friendship with Victor Mature, the unrequited love from Jean Simmons and his involvement with the deadly Bella Darvi, perhaps the most calculating of all ancient screen vixens. A revelation by the elderly Judith Evelyn changes his destiny, leading him closer to the pharaoh, his throne and destruction.Ancient sagas of this nature are fascinating as history as they are as costumed soap opera with family secrets, deadly plots and a quest for power guiding each of them. The bible shows many such sagas in its discussion of ancient history touching more nationalities than just the ancient Hebrews. The Greeks and Romans as well all had their sagas, but the Egyptians allegedly had the oldest of recorded histories. This is not biblical in any manner, but a greatly detailed account of life during the 18th Dynasty. Evelyn, reminding me of Judith Anderson, reveals much in her few scenes, like Anderson "the keeper of the secrets", and ultimately the character who explodes the plot forward.Gene Tierney, as her tough talking daughter, has a few good moments as well, but along with Jean Simmons is overshadowed by the alluring Darvi who even gives Joan Collins in "Land of the Pharaohs" a run for its gold. Purdom is more a reactor, thus seemingly wooden, while Michael Wilding never really gets to establish the character of the pharaoh. It's obvious to me that Tierney had what it took but was doomed by her gender. Peter Ustinov gets a showy part as one of Purdom's associates on the outside, but I'm still not really sure of his connection, the issue being far too many characters and too much to take in, certainly not as well defined as "The Ten Commandments".At a decent running time for an epic of this nature (just under two and a half hours), this is an opponent of riches much like a pharaoh's tomb, but frequently emotionally empty and far too much of a good thing. I still highly recommend it, but it must be seen, preferably on a large screen, when one is fully prepared to pay full attention. It's a difficult film to find in its wide- screen version, so avoid all pan and scans and wait patiently for it with the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, hopefully a large one. To not have that format would be to miss a whole lot.

Robert J. Maxwell First of all, this is a typical 1950s saga of adventure, intrigue, and love in an exotic place. I admit to having a hard time believing this is Ancient Egypt though. Where are all the cats? Only one is to be seen except a lion (promptly killed by the heroic Victor Mature.). Those cats were sacred. People adopted make up that imitated them. Tens of thousands were mummified. And why not? The Egyptians thought they were great in killing the rats and mice that nibbled at the hordes of stored grain. But then the prop department at least got the mirrors right -- polished brass for the aristos. What must it have been like for the masses, not to know what they looked like except from the expressions of others? I'd like you to know that I speak to you as an expert, having once successfully located Egypt on a map of Europe in the fifth grade.This movie was shredded when it appeared, largely because of the ligneous performance of the star, Edmund Purdum, but I don't know that he's better or worse than, Kerwin Mathews, say, or any others of that ilk. There's a well-known supporting cast -- the incestuous Gene Tierney, the treacherous Bella Darvi (Zanuck's main squeeze), the heinous Tommy Rettig, the serene and pretty Jean Simmons, the bald Henry Daniell, the moose-like Victor Mature, and probably the most likable performer Peter Ustinov as a humble but sagacious slave.You might not know it from all the traveling around and the intrigues and the love stories but the central figure in the narrative is Michael Wilding's pharaoh, here named Akhnaton, earlier Amenhotep or something. These names are confusing and hard to spell. In any case, Wilding's figure is an important one. His wife was Nefertiti and he himself may have fathered King Tut. Now, Nefertiti might have been an attractive woman, judging from a bust of her that shows up in popular venues from time to time, but Akhnaton didn't look like Michael Wilding. His statues show a smiling figure with a serpentine twist and a full pelvic girdles, almost feminine. After he death, many of his icons were mutilated and written references chopped out, and here's why.Egypt at the time, say 1350 BCE, worshiped an awful lot of gods representing hordes of real objects and fantasies. Akhnaton developed the idea that there was basically one god who ruled the others, the sun, called Aten, under which Egypt lived day after day unfailingly. This was the introduction of monotheism into the Middle East. It's not surprising that One Big God should come out of the mixed mythologies of the area, like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They all lived under One Big Sun, which probably inspired the idea. No Big God has come slouching out of the jungle.However, it didn't go over too well with the devotees of the other gods. Aknaton and his religion became even more oppressive when he began preaching peace and tolerance, when the Egyptians were accustomed to war with everybody around them. Akhnaton neglected his foreign territories and promoted internal reforms and oversaw the development of arts and sciences instead. Atenism was a violation of traditional religion and after Akhnaton's death -- poisoned by Purdum in this story -- the new religion failed and Akhnaton was seen as a traitor and his monuments defaced. Akhnaton simply overreached. Culture is a patterned thing, everything is woven together with everything else. It's not an easy thing to tear a hole in it and try to patch in some alien content.He is, nevertheless, the central figure, despite Wilding's limited screen time, because this is the story of the bellwether of modern world religions. Hinduism and Buddhism don't have One Big God. It rains too much in India.And what of Edmund Purdom, his youthful foolishness and his gradual maturation? Well, he rises in Egypt from nothing to become a famous physician. It's hard to imagine. At one point he diagnoses what appears to be a brain tumor by pressing the patient's forehead and decides to open the guy's skull. But then they did have laudanum and anyone willing to hand out an opiate is liable to become famous. And some of their instruments look almost exactly like our own, the curette for instance. The form is hard to improve upon. I mean, how would you improve on a perfect modern tool like a hammer? Meanwhile Purdom rises to prominence, then falls, then travels, then re-rises to prominence and ends up bereft of his lover but filled with faith, a kind of John the Baptist of the era.The movie itself is sluggish, with no humor except that provided by Ustinov's lying servant. The two of them move from kingdom to kingdom while geological epochs seem to pass. Yet it's a fulsome rig, with pastel curtains in the breeze, pageantry, elaborate costumes, and a stilted but still legible script. You won't see any great wars or miracles. People of faith move around and talk. It's not a total failure, and a post script at the end points out the importance of Akhnaten's position in history. You might like it.

tomsview This film is fascinating for a number of reasons including its flaws. It is a story full of ideas, and has an intriguing cast, especially if you know a little of their history.Sinuhe (Edmund Purdom), a physician in Ancient Egypt searches for meaning to his life, but he lives in turbulent times. Pharaoh Akhnaton (Michael Wilding) is introducing the Egyptians to the concept of one God, and they don't like it. They prefer to stick to their gods with the crocodile, hippopotamus and chicken heads as well as their mummified cats.Along the way Sinuhe buddies up with the fearless Horemheb played by Victor Mature and inadvertently finds himself with a servant, Kaptah, played by Peter Ustinov who brings a light touch to the film.Sinuhe also learns the meaning of true love through a number of painful experiences. However, this element of the story allows for the casting of three stunning woman; Jean Simmons, Gene Tierney and Bella Darvi.When it was first released, critics attacked the film; Edmund Purdom and Victor Mature were squarely in their sights. However, when Peter Ustinov also derided the film, Bill Collins, Australia's much-loved film presenter, summed up the situation well when he said, "It seems to me sometimes, that actors get so embarrassed when critics in their stupidity revile their work, that they go along with it rather than admit that they actually love their contribution".Bill Collins admires "The Egyptian" and praised Victor Mature's role as perfect casting. However he felt that although she tries hard, Bella Darvi as Nefer wasn't quite right for the part, coming to the film with meagre dramatic talent. And that's where I disagree with him. If anyone was underrated in the film it's her. She plays a scheming Babylonian seductress who ensnares the naive Sinuhe, stripping him of his wealth and dignity before dumping him.Darvi was an unusual beauty who according to some was more beautiful in real life than on film. She also led a life, after much tragedy, which was not that different to the role she played here. Eventually everything caught up with her as it did with Nefer; she committed suicide aged 42. I feel her strangeness with that thick accent was perfect for the role. I can't think of too many actresses who could have projected that same unemotional, calculating and cat-like quality. Marilyn Monroe desperately wanted the role, but I just don't see it.Although the palace interiors are sumptuous, the exteriors of "The Egyptian" don't have the scope of "Land of the Pharaohs" made around the same time, however both have brilliant music scores, the like of which you rarely hear today.Beyond the technical details, "The Egyptian" is a film where the often moving story and the characters rise above deficiencies of set design and historical inaccuracies.Judging by most of the comments on IMDb, it has finally found an appreciative audience.