chaos-rampant
All you need to know about this is that it's about a pharaoh, the building of his pyramid to house his gold and vanity, and the scheming femme fatale that wants it for herself. And that it's dreadful as a film, the camera is lifeless, the story is a cartoon.Only in Hollywood could they afford a hubris of this sort; huge resources mobilized to prop an empty monument, flamboyant people in dresses pose, mingle and scheme, and no one here minded, going on the thought that the size of the thing will be enough for posterity to remember.The only upside is that Hawks wasn't an overly pious guy like DeMille so we have his overblown spectacle and camp but not the pontificating.
LeonLouisRicci
To be Totally Honest, Howard Hawks Movies all Look Artificial. As Entertaining as some may be, they Look Staged. If Auteurs by Definition have Stylish Signatures, this is One of Hawk's Charms/Drawbacks. The Thing (1951), The Big Sleep (1946), Rio Bravo (1959), just to name a Few of His more Celebrated "Masterpieces" all Appear Staged and Presented, and for Better or Worse it is Undeniable.Ironically, this one, Considered by Most a Failure, is Somewhat Removed from that because of the Necessity for the Director to be Panoramic and Expansive. So the Staginess doesn't Work Against Hawks here, although some Stiffness Remains, it is some other Things like Miscasting and a Severely Corny Script and Dialog.The Movie, with its CinemaScope is Magical, the Costumes, the Colorful Palette, the Mighty Musical Score, all make this Watchable like some sort of Postcard from Antiquity. But, Oozing in on its Serious Scenario of Megalomania, Greed, and Tyranny is a Fifties Mindset. The Film in all its Grandeur is Full of Clunk. There is Enough here to make it a Pleasurable Viewing, it's Expensive Enough and it is a Showy, but Shallow Story that has Misplaced its Vision with a Contrived and Underwritten Exposure of One of the Most Extravagant and Interesting Periods in Human History.
James Hitchcock
I have always thought of Howard Hawks as one of the most versatile directors of his generation. Whereas many of his contemporaries tended to become associated with one particular genre (DeMille with epics, Hitchcock with suspense, Ford with westerns), Hawks could turn his hand to just about any type of film, including crime dramas ("Scarface"), film noir ("The Big Sleep"), comedies ("His Girl Friday"), war movies ("To Have and Have Not"), musicals ("Gentlemen Prefer Blondes") and westerns ("Rio Bravo"). "Land of the Pharaohs" was his only venture into DeMille's territory, the epic. This film can be seen as the middle episode of an unofficial trilogy of epics on Egyptian themes, coming between "The Egyptian" from 1954 and "The Ten Commandments" from 1956. It is a fictionalised account of the building of the Great Pyramid of Khufu. The main characters are the Pharaoh Khufu himself, his second wife Nellifer, his architect Vashtar and his High Priest and lifelong friend Hamar. Khufu is obsessed with securing his place in the afterlife, and has ordered the construction of a magnificent pyramid to serve as his tomb. He has engaged Vashtar to make it robber-proof. Vashtar has little cause to love his royal master; he is a Cushite, captured in battle by the Egyptians after his ingenious defence systems nearly saved his own people from defeat. Moreover, he knows that he himself will be put to death after Khufu's funeral to prevent the secrets of the tomb from being revealed. Nevertheless, he reluctantly agrees to help with the project as Khufu has promised him that if he does he will set free those Cushites being held as slaves in Egypt. The land of Cush occupied, roughly speaking, the same territory as the modern-day Sudan, so its inhabitants doubtless had skins several shades darker than James Robertson Justice. In the fifties, however, the unofficial Hollywood colour-bar made it difficult for black actors to obtain leading roles, so the Cushites are here presented as a Caucasian people. Moreover, the film-makers seem to have intended to draw a parallel between the Cushite slaves here and the Israelites held in slavery in Egypt in Old Testament times. Indeed, it was probably only an unusual (by Hollywood standards) concern for historical accuracy which prevented the scriptwriters from making Vashtar an Israelite. (Khufu reigned long before the events narrated in the Book of Exodus).Nellifer is just as preoccupied with securing her earthly wealth and power as her husband is with securing his place in the next world. Hawks was well known for the concept of the "Hawksian woman", female characters in his films who are not only beautiful but also strong, determined and unafraid to speak their mind; examples include the characters played by Katharine Hepburn in "Bringing Up Baby", Rosalind Russell in "His Girl Friday", Lauren Bacall in "To Have and Have Not" and Jane Russell in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes". Nellifer can be seen as a Hawksian woman gone to the bad, the strong, independent-minded woman as villainess rather than heroine. The role is played by the young Joan Collins, only 22 at the time, in her first American film. During her relatively brief Hollywood heyday (roughly 1955-1962) Collins was more often cast as virtuous young heroines, as in her other epic "Esther and the King", but since the seventies she has more often been associated with scheming, seductive temptresses, and Nellifer is an early example of this sort of character, Alexis Carrington in a previous incarnation. Unusually for an American film, none of the major parts are played by Americans. Three of the four main roles are played by British actors (Collins, Justice and Jack Hawkins as Khufu), and the fourth, the wise and humane priest Hamar, by a Greek, Alexis Minotis. Justice never really seems at home here; he comes across more like a prosperous Home Counties professional man than a native of Ancient Cush. Perhaps he reminded me too much of his most famous creation, the eminent surgeon Sir Lancelot Spratt in the "Doctor in the House" comedies. Collins, however, is splendid in the sort of role which she was later to specialise in, and Hawkins is good as the autocratic Pharaoh, too blinded by his obsession with the next life and his infatuation with Nellifer to realise the harm he is doing to his country. When it came out in 1955, the film was not a success, either critically or at the box-office. To have directed a flop was a new experience for Hawks, most of whose films had been very successful, and this may explain why he did not make any films for the next four years. (His next was to be "Rio Bravo" in 1959). He never returned to the epic again. Yet for those of us who love the epic style, there is much to enjoy in "Land of the Pharaohs" today. It has an intelligent, literate script (the distinguished novelist William Faulkner was one of the scriptwriters), centred upon those familiar epic concepts of freedom and slavery, good and evil, love and ambition. Although there are no battle scenes, or anything as thrilling as the chariot race in "Ben Hur", it nevertheless offers plenty of spectacle, particularly during the scenes of the building of the pyramid, with a cast of literally thousands. I would not rate it quite as highly as some of the classics of the genre, such as "The Ten Commandments" or "Spartacus", but it can bear comparison with something like "The Egyptian", which I have long regarded as one of the best "second division" epics. 7/10
