Artivels Undescribable Perfection

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

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.

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.

vincentlynch-moonoi I tried watching this film several years ago on television, and the print was so bad I simply turned it off. Thankfully, the print being used on TCM now is quite good, particularly important in this film which is filmed quite beautifully with impressive sets and great natural scenery.Movies about Egypt can be rather fickle. Sometimes they do well, other times not. This film made money, and rightfully so...it's a fairly impressive production.One criticism I have of the film is a need for tighter editing in some scenes. This is one reason the film lasts for 139 minutes! It's a good cast. Edmund Purdom plays the physician, around whom the plot turns. Many of Purdom's films were made overseas, so he is not well known to American audiences, but he seems like quite a good actor, and has the looks for it. Victor Mature is here, and essentially plays Victor Mature; I have never been impressed with him. Jean Simmons is here, at a period that was near peak for her career. Gene Tierney is also here as the pharaoh's sister -- a role that seems odd for her, but it works. Michael Wilding is very interesting as the pharaoh. It is interesting to see Peter Ustinov as an aide to the physician. John Carradine makes an appearance as a grave robber. Tommy Rettig ("Lassie") makes an appearance.There is one aspect of the plot, however, that seems very questionable to me. The physician's love affair that brings him to near ruin. It's just not logical. He supposed to be a man of extreme intelligence, advanced almost beyond his time. That he would sell out his parent's chance to live eternally in the Valley Of The Kings, that he would sell his parent's home, resulting in their suicide, seems totally illogical for the character. And all for a woman who was simply base. I just don't buy it.Aside from that, it's a good story. A young physician treats the pharaoh for seizures (epilepsy?). This is a forward thinking ruler who believes in one god (God?). The physician becomes close with a warrior, who eventually wants to murder the pharaoh. In between, he falls in love with 2 women, one of whom, as I indicated, leads him to ruin. The pharaoh's mother dies when the physician is unavailable, and so the physician is sentenced to death, and flees the country. He wanders around that part of the world with Ustinov for a while, eventually discovering the new iron weapons developed by the Hittites. This brings him back to pharaoh, who has forgiven him. The pharaoh is mentally ill and the physician, the royal sister, and the soldier plot to hill pharaoh with the soldier becoming the new leader of Egypt.And that leads to the one thing that I truly dislike about this film. Just before dying, the pharaoh has a soliloquy that sounds very, very Christian. And then, as if to prove that the film is suggesting Christianity, words appear on the screen that prove it. Shame, shame, shame...and pretty poor history.It's worth watching, despite its transgressions.

dglink An engrossing historical drama, "The Egyptian" is the book-ended story of an elderly Egyptian physician, Sinuhe, who sets out to record his event-filled life for posterity. Like Moses, he begins his story as a newborn infant in a tiny reed boat tied with fowlers' knots adrift on the Nile. The abandoned child is found, adopted, and grows into a young man. In the desert, he and his carousing buddy, Horemheb, have a chance encounter with Pharaoh Akhnaton that changes their lives and leads the pair into palace intrigue and power plays among royals and priests. Based on a best-selling novel by Mika Waltari, "The Egyptian" has lofty ambitions that are not quite met. While definitely not high art, the film is not camp or guilty pleasure either. Directed by veteran Michael Curtiz, "The Egyptian" is more than competent, and the multiple plot lines and devious characters will hold most viewers' interest.The cast is stellar for the mid-1950's, although the lead, Edmund Purdom, is probably the least well known and remembered of them. The film boasts Victor Mature, Gene Tierney, Jean Simmons, Michael Wilding, and Peter Ustinov among the usual sandal-clad cast of thousands. While Purdom can only be described as an adequate Sinuhe, seasoned performers like Ustinov, Simmons, and Henry Daniell hold their own. Even Victor Mature seems less wooden than usual as the soldier Horemheb. The film's one acquired taste is Bella Darvi, who likely won the role of the seductive man-eating Nefer on the producer's casting couch. While her Babylonian allure drew the men of ancient Thebes to ruin and despair, her Polish accent, thick features, and transparent motives are the film's weak point. Up against such legendary Hollywood beauties as Jean Simmons and Gene Tierney, Darvi's appeal is as mysterious as the pyramids. Where was Elizabeth Taylor when the role of Nefer was cast?Filmed in Cinemascope by Leon Shamroy, who won the film's only Oscar nomination and would later film another Egyptian epic, "Cleopatra," the art direction is handsome, glossy, and of dubious authenticity. Two legendary composers, Bernard Herrmann and Alfred Newman, contributed the fine musical score, although the simplistic devotional chant to Aton is annoying and repetitious. At 140 minutes, the movie is not unduly long and only goes off course in attempts to suggest Akhnaton's monotheistic devotion to the sun god was a precursor to the Judeo-Christian religion. Wielding the Egyptian ankh as a quasi-crucifix and stating that the film's events occurred centuries before Christ may make some viewers uncomfortable. However, "The Egyptian" is generally well crafted, decently written and acted, and excellent, if undemanding, entertainment for rainy afternoons when only a sand-and-sandals epic will do.