The Egyptian (1954) User Reviews

Maltin's too hard....

[rupie · 7/10 · 2 July 1999]

Maybe it's just a personal affection for this screen version of the Mika Waltari novel, or a fondness for things Egyptian (I grew up loving to visit the mummies in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts) but I think this is a rather good film. The production values are great regarding color and cinematography, and it appears some effort went into historical authenticity (much of it from the novel, I'm sure).

Purdom is admittedly a bit stiff in the lead role, but one can accept this as part of Sinuhe's character. Victor Mature is, well, Victor Mature. Peter Ustinov is a delight to watch here , in the type of role which he always did so well and so wittily. Bella Darvi's performance as Nefer is classically camp, and I find even Michael Wilding's rather dry portrayal of Akhenaten to have its own appeal.

The historical oddity of Akhenaten's monotheism, a brief detour in ancient Egypt's history, is interesting, as is Akhenaten himself, and well worth reading about; the religious wars portrayed here have a basis in fact.

An interesting footnote regarding Darvi, whose birth name was Bayla Wegier: she was a Polish émigré who producer Darryl Zanuck and his wife Virginia took under their wing (I believe they may even have adopted her). Her screen name Darvi is formed from Zannuck's and his wife's first names. She continued her acting career in France, but never achieved great success and, after a rather unhappy life, died at her own hand in 1971.

Altogether this is an interesting film and enjoyable to watch both for the visual values and for the history. Turner Classic Movies shows this in letterbox, which is essential to capturing the scope and sweep of the story.

Spectacular movie about ancient Egypt history based on historic events

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 7 July 2005]

The picture narrates upon Sinuhe the Egyptian (Edmund Purdom) who works as a medic for paupers and hapless . He meets a good woman (a gorgeous Jean Simmons) and a bad woman called Nefer (a femme fatale Bella Darvi ; Marilyn Monroe lobbied hard to play her , but Darryl F. Zanuck had earmarked the role for his then-mistress Darvi) and an one-eyed , rascally servant (Peter Ustinov). After this , the physician saves and heals pharaoh Amenophis IV (Michael Wilding) from a lion and is appointed as a royal healer . In the palace court from Thebas happens various intrigues with the Pharaoh's sister (Gene Tierney) and the general Horemheb (Victor Mature)and the priest (Henry Daniel) , follower of ¨Amon Ra¨. As Akhenaten tried to bring about a departure from traditional religion, yet in the end it would not be accepted . After his death, traditional religious practice was gradually restored .

The film is partially based on historic deeds and loosely based on Mika Waltari's novel . It's a slice of ancient history set in 1300 B.C and the 18th dynasty : Amenophis IV (son of great pharaoh AmenophisIII) is known as Akenaton , he was proclaimed maximum priest imposing a sole and only God , Aton (the sun God) pitting to priests worshipping Amon-Ra . Amenophis created a new city (called Ajetaton or Amarna). He was married to Nefertiti and would born Tutankhamon but Horemheb rules over and is proclaimed pharaoh . There is an Italian version about similar events titled ¨Nefertiti queen of Nilo , 1961¨ (by director Fernando Cerchio with Jeanne Crain and Vincent Price) but with lack luster and lesser budget . This adaptation by Michael Curtiz is much better with an impressive control of the crowd and scenarios . The musical score from Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann , two greatest cinema musicians is extraordinary with romantic and spiritual chores score . Leon Shamroy's spellbound color cinematography ensure the glimmer spectacle . The casting is of first range , they are mightier than the movie . At a cost of $5 million, the film took two years to research , the designers ultimately cataloging five million items of clothing and properties . As set design , gowns , and production are breathtaking . After shooting was completed, Fox made back some of the film's immense cost by selling many of the set pieces, props and costumes to Paramount, which then employed them in an even bigger epic, Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments . The motion picture will appeal to historical epics buffs. Rating : Good . Well worth watching .

Egyptophiles will "dig" this pix.

[oldfamilydentist · 7/10 · 29 June 2009]

I had the pleasure to view this film when I was 10 years old,(having an existing interest in Egyptology). I know that there are subtle mistakes to the art direction and costuming, but over all this is the best film, to date with the look of the 18th dynasty.

The film only approximates Mika Walteri's "The Egyptian", in plot. A good portion of the text never made it to film, as we have to consider the running length.

The music score by B. Hermann and Alfred Newman is beautiful!!! Performances as follows. The late Edmond Purdom gave an excellent performance as an orphaned child adopted by parents past their child bearing years. He states that he keeps to himself,has the best education available and lets' face it is a rather emotionally distant person, given his upbringing and high intellect.

Jean Simmons is fine as a humble tavern maid; honest loving and sincere. Bella Darvi, people complained about her accent, well she is a Babylonian. It is not that apparent in the film as to why Sinhue is so insanely obsessed with Nefer Nefer Nefer. Her correct name. In the book Sinhue is enjoying her carnal fruits and gets his revenge early in the plot by leaving Nefer Nefer Nefer's drugged body with the "House of the Dead's " workers.

Gene Tierney as Baketaten, is brilliant! When she tells Sinhue that he is pharoah, she looks like she could devour him (in his weakness). She is intense, brilliant and coldly beautiful.

Michael Wilding is heartbreakingly tragic in his mission to bring all people to know his one God. I believe that we are viewing Ankhnaten thru the lens of Egyptologist A. Weigall. A view at the time that had a pre-messiah feeling about Ankhnaten's vocation. Did his monotheism influence the Jewish people? Note Psalm 104. and other Egyption imagery in the psalms?

Mr. Peter Ustinov provided the alter ego to Sinhue. He is street wise and cunning a survivor. Excellent acting as always.

Mature never thought much of his acting personally, His Horemheb is fine as an ambitious "super patriot" who ultimately has Sinhue murder more than one person in his quest for power, (Walteri's book).

I felt that the ending to The Egyptian was confusing as Sinhue's personality changes too easily. He has a living son (Toth dies in the novel), power is handed to him through is half sister Baketaten, he world savvy now and has a grip on international affairs. So he became enlightened? He could have modified the Amon Priesthood as he was capable.

But NO! Sinhue gives everything up, everything including his son's future to become a ragged beggar preaching monotheistic love?

This change was too immediate and the major flaw in the script!

Again the look of the film,colour, most of the costumes(Nefer Nefer Nefer's gold dress was too over the top as she is more richly dressed than the royal family), music is beautiful.

I will watch this film again easily.

P.S. I know that you porbably know that Horemheb did not directly succceed Ankhnaten, but I could not resist stating this fact.

This splendidly lavish film of Mika Waltari's tediously philosophic potboiler set in ancient Egypt, was ripe pickings for Darryl F. Zanuck's CinemaScope agenda.

[TheVid · 15 May 2003]

Zanuck had high hopes for this extravagant production, including a major casting coup when Brando signed on for the lead. Alas, Brando dropped out of the project and was replaced by Edmund Purdom, whose acting is the antithesis of "the method". The completed production is more a tribute to the state-of-the-art in mid-century production values and presentation than a high-quality example of epic filmmaking. The script quality ranges from the sublime (the bordello sequences) to the ridiculous (the royal palace scenes); while the performances, even the best of them (Ustinov, Darvi, Tierney), are mundane at best. That's not to say this picture, like most epics of it's kind, isn't a worthy indulgence. It is, if only for the overbearing production design, magnificently intrusive music score (co-written by two legendary screen composers), and sheer extravagance of it all. It's all relative though, since only the largest TV screens and loudest high-end sound systems can provide anything close to the experience of the 2:55-to-1 CinemaScope ratio employed, featuring dialogue-panning, multi-track stereo. An expensive Fox laserdisc is currently the only available option for viewing this picture as closely as originally intended. It must have been quite a big deal when the movie palace curtains opened on this one in 1956!

Swords and Sandals Saga

[MISSMOOHERSELF · 7/10 · 16 January 2007]

I'll start off right at the beginning by saying "I like this movie." It's sweeping, it's grand, it's gripping and it's fun. Sinhue the physician,sits in front of his small stone hut writing his memoirs. And what a story it is! Taken from a river and reared by an elderly couple who doted on him, he becomes a physician to the poor. He befriends Horemheb who sees glory while Sinhue sees healing. And both run into the future pharaoh Anknaten (forgive my spellings), who endures an epileptic fit.

And this pharaoh has another "flaw": He believes in one god instead of a pantheon of gods. Back then, this was totally revolutionary. Sinhue and Horemheb grow up. One night, Sinhue sees a woman who makes him lose his senses. He gives up his practice, sells his parents' home and even their tombs just to spend a night with her. Does he? I won't tell. Meanwhile, Merit, a tavern maid played with sweet simplicity belying strength by Jean Simmons, falls in love with Sinhue. She falls under his spell and under the spell of the belief in one god.

Victor Mature overacts perfectly as Horemheb. Edmond Purdom is sincere as Sinhue the lost physician (does he find redemption? Stay tuned). Even Bela Darvi, the woman who steals Sinhue's heart isn't as bad as everyone has said. The fact that she was Daryl F. Zanuck's mistress had nothing to do with the casting - right? Yeah, right...still, she wasn't that bad _ I've seen worse. I think she did better in "The Egyptian" than many of today's young actresses have done in anything. I said it before and I'll say it again -- I like this movie. I recommend it. It makes you think despite some hammy acting. Have fun with this movie; it's worth it.

See It For The Art Direction!

[Kirasjeri · 6/10 · 17 August 1999]

The behind-the-scenes story here is that Bela Darvi - atrocious and wooden in a key role - was in fact the main squeeze of 20th Century's Daryl F. Zanuck who liked to arm-wrestler men half his age. Purdom was almost as wooden, and the rest of the cast didn't jell either, although Michael Ansara as a Hittite commander and Victor Mature as his Egyptian counterpart stood out. However, the Egyptian atmosphere and costumes and sets are well worth a look; this production did not skimp on money. Give it a try.

Trying To Change A Culture

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 16 January 2007]

The only thing that prevents The Egyptian from becoming a real classic is the performance of Edmond Purdom. He's way too stiff and formal as Sinhue the physician who loses all. Darryl Zanuck who was usually smart about these things had both Tyrone Power and Cornel Wilde available and either would have brought a certain grace to the part that Purdom lacked. Of course Zanuck's original intention was cast Marlon Brando in the role and Brando backed off in a hurry.

Otherwise the movie is well cast even with Bella Darvi who was Darryl Zanuck's squeeze at the time. Since her part just called for her to be seductive, Darvi was well qualified for that.

The story is narrated by Purdom as an old man setting his life story down on papyrus. He was a physician back in the day, learning the arts of healing from his father who seemed to practice some ancient type of neurosurgery. A young soldier Victor Mature befriends Purdom one night when he's had a bit much at the ancient saloon and both of them befriend the brand new Pharoah, Michael Wilding, when Purdom treats him for an epileptic seizure and Mature shoots a lion about to pounce.

Wilding is a dreamy mystic a kind of Henry Wallace from back in the ancient days. He's playing Akhenaton who tried during his reign as Pharoah to introduce a monotheistic religion to Egypt with a symbol very suspiciously looking like a cross. Of course the religious power structure as is has a vested interest in not seeing a new religion succeed.

Wilding also wants to lay down the swords and beat them into plowshares to coin a phrase when Egypt has a whole lot of enemies ready to do a number on them. This message during the Cold War definitely had an audience appeal, not to mention to those who remembered how Hitler's rise in Germany was unchecked by ill prepared democracies.

The real Akhenaton did not go the way this one does, nor was he succeeded by who the film says he was. In fact his successor was a nephew, the legendary child king, Tutankhamen whose tomb discovery made that rather minor king a household name.

Jean Simmons is radiant as the tavern girl with a big yen for Edmond Purdom and Gene Tierney is vicious as Wilding's scheming sister. In the palace coup d'etat that takes Akhenaton down you will see some of the issues raised in the reasons why Caligula was assassinated in I Claudius.

20th Century Fox and Michael Curtiz made a valiant effort to outdo Paramount and Cecil B. DeMille here. If they only had cast the lead better.

Serious Flaws in the Casting, a Real Pity

[ragosaal · 6/10 · 12 September 2006]

Hollywood's version of Mika Waltari's book, is an interesting film. Placed in ancient Egypt, it is the story of Sinuhe a medicine man that through his life knows about misery, love, passion, treason, richness, ambition and also murder, in the times of Akhenaton the king that -long before Jesus was born- tried to introduce a single pacifist God's religion against his people's beliefs.

The script is good and so are the settings, locations, gowns and ancient Egypt's atmosphere. Direction by Michael Curtiz is correct too and interest is well kept in spite of the film's extense duration. Music is accordingly good also. But then, where did the movie fail to be a classic or at least a well remembered "epic" spectacular?

It fails in a casting with major flaws. Jean Simmons brings a correct performance as Merit the girl in love with Sinuhe but not corresponded, as well as Bella Darvi as the high class prostitute Nefer and Gene Tierney as Baketamon the Pharaoh's ambitious sister. Peter Ustinov (Kaptah), renders one of his usual outstanding jobs as the physician's friend and good old Henry Daniell is a convincing priest.

Nevertheless, two main characters where a complete selection mistake and that hurts the movie badly. Victor Mature as Horemheb the soldier who became king shows his inevitable and usual overacting and literally spoils every scene he appears in (and he is in many). Edmund Purdom plays Sinuhe and shows his traditional wooden acting and a complete lack of charisma and of the minimum strenght the role of a man that goes through everything in life demands. One comes to think that perhaps if Marlon Brando hadn't turned down the role of Sinuhe -he was the first choice- he could have raised high the film and even smooth Mature's devastating performance.

In all, this is a film to see -entertaining and interesting- but a clear proof that miscasting is a serious mistake in movies. It rates a 6 out of 10 for me.

An Ancient Saga as Wide as the CinemaScope Screen!

[Gooper · 10/10 · 23 August 2004]

One of the most pleasurable aspects of movie viewing is to get lost in a film. To have it totally wash over you, so that you absorb it as it is, and thus, experience it to the fullest. Every time I see it, 'The Egyptian' is such a film. Over the years it is a picture critics have loved to hate. Many have thrown darts at its vulnerabilities. But perhaps it is because of the very tone the film brings with it rather than its most obvious characteristics. It is at once forbidding, remote, possibly dangerous; beware of what lies within! The haunting chords of the music, seen over the 20th-Fox logo, usher us into titles of other-worldly turquoise lettering.

Strange! Archaeological! Decadent! It is as if we are descending into some vault of antiquity, wherein might be great treasures, mixed with uncertain hazards. (One might imagine Darryl Zanuck commanding: 'Make it ancient!') Then, what a darkly dramatic story unfolds, all within the same tone set at the start.

Of Hollywood's mid-50s 'Egyptian Trilogy', 'The Ten Commandments' portrayed the civilization's sternness, the phenomenal 'Land of the Pharaohs' its nuts and bolts, while 'The Egyptian' shows it all, from glamour to tragedy, for us to wonder at.

No need to say much about the players here, but I think that, with the passage of time, Bella Darvi is being redeemed. What a perfect face for the role, right out of a Symbolist painting. If her acting does not please some, it might be argued that, in her role as a 'courtesan', she is obviously better in bed than yakking to some poor helpless admirer. I think that Curtiz captured the kinkiness of her sado-masochistic relationship with Edmund Purdom's character with aplomb, censorship being what it was at the time. Sir Peter Ustinov, in his memoirs, was pretty kind to 'The Egyptian', writing that it was 'like being lost in a huge set for 'Aida'. His pronunciation of the word 'beer' I have adopted myself ever after.(One of the film's historically accurate references: the Egyptian's invented beer!) Henry Daniell, egads, what a perfect performance. Gene Tierney, what a screen treasure. Bless DFZ for giving her this 'late' role. C'mon folks, don't be so hard on Victor Mature! He's a cheesemaker's son! Who rose to be pharaoh! Sounds like a peculiarly American opportunity. One of the best moments: John Carradine's existential observations on the sands of time. And Purdom's utterance about dwelling beyond the sunset of the world. If that isn't Grade 'A' epicness, what is?

Of course, along with everything else, the music is sublime. It is frequently noted that Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann created one of the screen's most compelling scores, perfectly harmonious, yet each theme is well developed, with a life of its own. Newman, pressed for time by DFZ, called in Herrmann, someone he could trust implicitly, to take up half the burden.

Benny, not the easiest guy to work with, obviously respected Newman enough to really deliver inspiring music. They alternated cues, an ingenious approach. No spoilers as to who did what here, but Benny brings an edge with him, mysterious, awesome sounds. Alfred brings fulsomeness, longing, poignancy. Both are consummately epic. Even when seen on a squeezed TV print, the effect of seeing the two composers' names side by side in the main credits, which the ultra-wide anamorphic screen could comfortably accommodate, is spine-tingling.

Leon Shamroy, the Dean of CinemaScope, does not let us down here. The lurid greens and moody shadows (probably distortions in all the terrible TV prints I've seen through the years) perfectly accompany the multi-dimensional script (by the great Philip Dunne and WB vet Casey Robinson, whom Curtiz must've brought with him to 20th). How remarkable it is that Shamroy, who was as much of an institution of cinematography at Fox as Newman was with music, would lens 'Cleopatra' a few years later, but in the brighter, sharper images of '60s Todd A-O. These old studio guys are really heroes of mine.

To me, who wants to fret about all the imperfections and criticism opportunities in a picture like this? I'd rather yield entirely to its spell, and dive off into its sea of lavishness, to emerge after the inspiring climax of 'The End' refreshed, moved, and hungry for more.

And yes, we should cry out to 20th-Fox for a DVD release worthy of DFZ's legacy.

Vox Clamantis in Deserto

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 9 October 2007]

"The Egyptian" is set during the reign of one of the most fascinating figures of the ancient world, the Pharaoh Akhnaton, who, thirteen centuries before Christ attempted to introduce a monotheistic religion, Atenism, to ancient Egypt. The main character, however, is not Akhnaton but rather the fictitious Sinuhe. As a baby, Sinuhe is found mysteriously floating in a basket on the river Nile and adopted by the physician Senmut and his wife. When he grows to manhood, he follows his adopted father into the medical profession, initially working (as his father did) among the poor of the city, but he comes to prominence after he and his friend, the ambitious young soldier Horemheb, save the Pharaoh's life while on a hunting expedition in the desert. Sinuhe is appointed Court physician, but becomes obsessed with the Babylonian courtesan Nefer. Sinuhe not only ruins himself in a vain attempt to win her love, but is also disgraced when his neglect of his duties means that he is unable to save the life of Akhnaton's daughter.

Sinuhe flees into exile, where he achieves success as a healer in neighbouring countries, but returns to Egypt when he learns of a Hittite plot to invade. Although Akhnaton readily forgives him for his previous offences, Sinuhe finds the country in turmoil. The Pharaoh's attempts to introduce a new religion have led to civil strife between his followers and those of the priests of the old polytheistic faith, and he is too pacific by nature to take any steps to confront the Hittite threat. Sinuhe becomes embroiled in a plot by Horemheb, now the general of the Egyptian army, and Akhnaton's sister Princess Baketamon to overthrow the Pharaoh and replace him with a more effective monarch.

The film's weaknesses arise mostly from its two romantic subplots. In the course of the film, Sinuhe is revealed as the long-lost son of the previous Pharaoh and half-brother to Akhnaton and Baketamon. It might therefore surprise a modern audience that she should fall in love with him; marriage between brothers and sisters were not necessarily considered as incestuous by the standards of Egyptian royalty, but the standards of 1950s cinema audiences were generally less liberal on this point. In any case, the Horemheb-Baketamon-Sinuhe love triangle is an unnecessary complication and detracts from Baketamon's role in the film, that of the voice of cold-eyed, cynical Realpolitik.

The Nefer subplot, which takes up most of the first hour of the film, is overwritten and excessively melodramatic. Nefer is morally worthless but fascinating, and the role needed an actress of great beauty and also great dramatic skill to make her credible, especially as Nefer achieves the difficult task of winning Sinuhe away from a woman as lovely as Jean Simmons (who plays Merit, Sinuhe's rival for her affections). It is therefore unfortunate that the role went to an actress as comically inept as Bella Darvi, whose only qualification was that she was the mistress of the producer, Darryl F. Zanuck. Darvi was not only a wooden actress, but also spoke with a thick foreign accent, made even more incomprehensible by a lisp. She was not even particularly attractive by comparison with the two legendary Hollywood beauties in the film, Simmons and Gene Tierney who plays Baketamon.

The film is better when it concentrates on its main political and religious themes. The other actors are better than Darvi, although Peter Ustinov as Sinuhe's servant Kaptah makes the same mistake as in "Spartacus", that of trying to bring comic relief into a film that does not need it. His voice, anyway, was far too patrician for a "comic servant" role.

Edmund Purdom, a little-known British actor, was thrust into the main role when Marlon Brando pulled out at the last minute, but more than adequately fills the great man's shoes, even though his style of acting was quite different. He copes well with the challenge of showing the changes in Sinuhe's character, from unworldly idealist, to lovesick fool, to embittered cynic to the enlightened visionary of the final scenes. Victor Mature was never the most expressive of actors, but he is well-suited to the role of Horemheb, a practical, down-to-earth man of action. He is better here than he was in his other epic from 1954, "Demetrius and the Gladiators". Simmons is luminously beautiful as Merit.

Michael Wilding (hitherto best known to me as the second Mr Elizabeth Taylor) plays Akhnaton as a would-be philosopher-king who ends as a sort of holy fool. His inability to make difficult decisions makes him an unsuitable ruler, but he has a prophetic vision of peace and justice which lend him an air of moral greatness far beyond those who hope to replace him on the throne. Although Aten had more in common with the Supreme Being of the Deists than with the Old Testament Jehovah or the Trinitarian Christian God, there is a quite deliberate attempt to draw parallels between Atenism and Christianity. In the film the Atenist symbol is the "ankh", doubtless chosen because of its resemblance to a cross, but in reality it was a common Egyptian hieroglyph for life, not unique to Atenism. Akhnaton's language often has a Biblical ring to it; his comparison of himself to "wind whistling in the desert" recalls John the Baptist's "voice crying in the wilderness" (hence the title of this review). Sinuhe's finding in the river parallels the Old Testament story of Moses.

At the end of the film Sinuhe, who has become the inheritor of the spirit of the dead Akhnaton, achieves a moral greatness of his own. The message of the film is that, while we may need practical men of action like Horemheb, we also need visionaries and thinkers who are prepared to ask the question "why?" For all its faults, "The Egyptian" is a film which is idealistic and humane in its approach to both religion and politics. 7/10

What a disappointment compared to the book

[CattyA · 3/10 · 31 December 2006]

I am surprised that so many comments about this film are positive. Having read the book several times (and all the other historical novels by Mika Waltari) there is no way to say much good in this film. If I forget the origins of the story I might consider it a reasonably good epic. Of course to bring such a brick of a book to the big screen is a task not to be envied, but it could be done with class. I can't understand why even the name of Nefernefernefer had to be shortened to just Nefer. I love Peter Ustinov as Kaptah and Marlon Brando probably would have made a better Sinuhe but the overall attitude is too Hollywood to ever make justice to the book. Mind you Mika Waltari left the Premier of this film in the middle of the showing. That's how much he liked it.

And starring Bella Darvi!

[theowinthrop · 8/10 · 22 May 2006]

Few people realize it, but there was world literature in the ancient world before the Greeks came on the scene. Besides the literary remains that are in the "Old Testament" of the Jews, there were considerable works from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The summit of the former were the religious poetry and "The Epic Of Gilgamesh". The Egyptians produced many poems, but there main addition was a tale of adventure of a traveler and physician called "The Story Of Sinuhe". It is from this work (actually a fragment, that we don't know the ending of) that the novel "The Egyptian" came from.

The story is unique (as is the movie). "The Egyptian" was a best seller in the early 1950s, and Darryl Zanuck decided to take a chance making it: yes he wanted a showcase for his girlfriend Bella Darvi as Nefer, as well as the rest of the cast (Victor Mature, Edmund Purdom, Peter Ustinov, Michael Wilding, and Gene Tierney), but he was aware that these films rarely made large box office. One can chalk up this as an example of Zanuck trying something different.

The number of movies that deal with ancient Egypt are very small. "Land Of The Pharoahs", "The Egyptian", "The Ten Commandments" (both De Mille versions), "Moses", "Holy Moses!", "Cleopatra", "The Mummy" (all versions), "The Scorpion King". If there are 20 films about ancient Egypt it's is tremendous. But "The Egyptian" is unique. While the second "Ten Commandments" discusses Ramses the Great (Pharoah Ramses II - Yul Brynner) and his father Seti I (Cedric Hardwicke), and the films on Cleopatra deal with her, few other names of ancient Egypt crop up in film. Egypt's greatest Pharoah was Thutmose III, who conquered most of the known middle east of the era of 1470 B.C.E. or so. No film about him has appeared, nor of his usurping predecessor, history's first great female ruler Hatschepsut. But the only known Pharoah who attempted a religious revolution that approached what the Jews (and later the Christians) attempted - a type of monotheism - is the subject of "The Egyptian". This is Pharoah Akhnaton.

In reality Akhnaton was practicing a personal form of monotheism that was not meant for public consumption. But it angered the priestly class who worshiped Amon, rather than Aton. Due to our uncertain historic records (although Akhnaton's official records - the "Tel-el-Amana" letters - are quite complete as far as they survive), we do not know if the Pharoah was killed in a palace coup or not. However he died, he was succeeded by a young brother or son of his whose name is better recalled than any other Pharoah except Ramses: Tutankhamon.

This film is actually quite good as far as it goes. Wilding makes a good natured Akhnaton, who is too weak to be as effective as a religious reformer is supposed to be. Mature is good as the ambitious (and - outside the film - ultimately successful future Pharoah) Horemheb. Tierney and Purdom do well in their lead parts and Ustinov is good as Purdom's friend. Also good is Ms Darvi, in a large supporting part. In a wonderful cameo is John Carridine, as a philosophical grave robber. The film is certainly worthy of viewing, as one of the few attempts to show part of the history and culture of Ancient Egypt.

extravaganza for the big screen

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 14 August 2014]

The 1954 film "The Egyptian" is the type of film made to be seen on a huge movie screen. The film, directed by Michael Curtiz, spared no expense in cast, costumes, or photography.

Edmund Purdom stars as Sinuhe, a poor orphan in 18th Century Egypt, who becomes a physician and is given a palace appointment by the Pharoh (Michael Wilding). But Sinuhe's life will take many turns. He becomes obsessed with Nefer (Bella Darvi) and gives her everything, including his parents' house and burial tombs, only to be rejected by her. He has to leave Egypt when the Pharoh's daughter becomes ill and Sinuhe does not appear at the palace to tend to her. He and his self-appointed slave (Peter Ustinov) travel everywhere, and Sinuhe again builds his reputation as a physician, and his wealth. Eventually he returns to Egypt, where his friend Horemhob is now the head of the Pharoh's guards, and war is about to rage.

The star of this film was supposed to be Marlon Brando, but he didn't like anything about it, included Bella Darvi, so Purdom was cast. Purdom just wasn't an exciting actor, and he didn't warm up the camera. In a film that is paced slowly, his performance wasn't much help. There is, however, some wonderful acting from Peter Ustinov, Gene Tierney, Jean Simmons, and a boisterous performance from Victor Mature.

Bella Darvi as Nefer gives basically a one-note performance. She was a protégée of Darryl and Virgina Zanuck, and Mrs. Zanuck thought of her as a daughter. When she found out that her husband thought of Darvi as more of a girlfriend, she threw both of them out of the house. Darvi came to a bad end, committing suicide in 1971. Here she reminds me a little of Linda Christian. She is quite beautiful and speaks with a slight lisp.

Definitely worth watching, especially if you like this type of film.

This is ruining of the great book!

[lomelindi-1 · 1/10 · 7 April 2005]

If you ever have read the book I'm sure you will hate this movie as I do. This movie is spoiled in it's Hollywood directing-style and for real, taking off the best parts of the book. The whole idea of the book is that Sinuhe's life in unhappy and everything goes wrong and in this movie it's not like that. This movie, in it's Hollywood glory sucks. Chraracters doesn't look like they're described in the book and they left half of the event off. I do understand that though as it's movie and it has to be under 3 hours long but still, why drop the most important ones off?

I can't honestly say anything good about this movie to anyone. It has nothing same than the characters as the book. Read the book and don't just watch this because it gives really wrong image of it.

Several Strengths Make Up For A Slow Pace

[Snow Leopard · 15 March 2002]

"The Egyptian" has several pluses that make up for a rather slow pace. There is plenty to the story, which involves a lot of action as well as some interesting themes, and there is a lot of good scenery and cinematography. Most of the cast is pretty good, and there is an assortment of interesting characters.

The setting in ancient Egypt works well and is used to good effect. It makes for many interesting sights, which are filmed nicely and used well in the story. The plot does a good job of weaving the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who tried to bring monotheism to Egypt, into the lives of the main characters. As the central character, Edmund Purdom is all right, but some of the other characters often command more attention. Victor Mature is particularly convincing as the no-nonsense Horemheb, and Peter Ustinov steals more than one scene as Purdom's assistant.

The only real flaw is the length. While there is plenty to the story, there are times when it moves quite slowly, and it doesn't seem as if it would have been all that hard to shorten some of the scenes. In particular, some of the speeches that summarize the conflict of ideas among the characters would have been more effective if they had not been quite so wordy.

But overall, this is a good movie, and it works pretty well both as a period piece and as a story.

Still has an impact!

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 16 June 2017]

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.

"So there has ever been and ever will be."

[brogmiller · 7/10 · 9 December 2023]

The Eighteenth Dynasty of the monotheistic pharaoh Akhenaten and his wife Nefertiti has always held a fascination for Egyptologists and the monumental, best-selling novel by Finnish Mika Waltari, written in a burst of inspiration over a three and a half month period was a vehicle which Hollywood simply could not resist. The novel was praised for its authenticity and although this viewer blushes to disclose that he has not yet read the original, the synopsis confirms that this screen adaptation by Philip Dunne and Casey Robinson is far from being so but of course audiences at the time expected neither historical accuracy nor deep characterisations in sword and sandal epics but paid to see spectacle and attractive actors on display which this Twentieth Century Fox production certainly delivers in spades.

Typically for producer Darryl F. Zanuck no expense has been spared here in terms of sets, costumes and props, many of which were leant to Paramount for 'The Ten Commandments'. Whereas de Mille's film was a resounding success, 'The Egyptian' opened to mixed reviews and acquired the stigma of being the first flop in Cinemascope.

One's view of a film is often influenced by its reputation but this one, under the direction of Michael Curtiz, is not nearly as bad as some would have us believe and has a great deal to recommend it.

It marks an unique musical collaboration between Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann whilst masterful cinematographer Leon Shamroy received one of his eighteen Oscar nominations, a record matched only by Charles Lang. As for the cast, it is the female of the species that dominates with a wonderfully butch Gene Tierney as Baketamon, a beautiful performance by Jean Simmons as Merit, an entertainingly bibulous cameo by Judith Evelyn as Taia and not forgetting the exotic but ill-fated Bella Darvi as Babylonian temptress Nefer. She might not have been the greatest of actresses but one can fully understand Zanuck's obsession with her.

Inveterate scene-stealer Peter Ustinov as one-eyed servant Kaptah provides comic relief whilst remaing 'real' which he was again to do as Lentulus in 'Spartacus'. The dramatic contrast between warlike Horemheb and pacifist Akhenaten is provided by Victor Mature and Michael Wilding. Although as different as chalk and cheese both actors were refreshingly honest regarding their acting abilities with Mature's strong presence and Wilding's immense charm compensating to a degree for their undoubted limitations. Edmund Purdom, borrowed from MGM following the success of 'The Student Prince', grows into the difficult role of physician Sinuhe and is sufficiently earnest. Like Ms. Darvi he was hailed as an 'exciting new talent' but Hollywood is an unforgiving place and a succession of flops scuppered both their careers. Purdom is here replacing Marlon Brando and one cannot help but wonder how the film's dynamic would have changed with Brando in the role.

The theme of Waltari's novel regarding unchanging human nature is timeless and struck a chord in the aftermath of WWII whilst calling to mind that there is indeed nothing new under the sun. I really must get around to reading it.

"You're beautiful beyond all dreams"

[hwg1957-102-265704 · 6/10 · 1 September 2018]

A baby found floating in the river near Thebes in ancient Egypt is adopted by a physician and the baby grows up to be Sinuhe who becomes a physician himself, first wanting to help the poor bur eventually being drawn into the court of Pharaoh and its intrigues. It's a story of ambition, greed, passion and politics. It's also too long and very gloomy so that it becomes a bit dull a lot of the time.

It's not helped by having Edmund Purdom as Sinuhe. What could have been an interesting protagonist is let down by bland acting. There are fine actors in it too like Jean Simmons, Gene Tierney, Henry Daniell and Michael Wilding but they are not served well by the script. It is livened up by Peter Ustinov as Sinhue's servant Kaptah who gives the best performance.There are also characters one would liked to have seen more of like John Carradine's grave robber and Judith Evelyn's queen mother but they only have short scenes. There is also a beautiful fluffy cat which out acts Bella Darvi.

On the positive side it looks lovely in Cinemascope and Technicolour with gorgeous sets and costumes and Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrman together provide a splendid music score. Unfortunately it is all wasted on a story that is not engaging.

Intimate Cinemascope spectacle with weak acting

[Maestro-15 · 7/10 · 22 January 1999]

This was the second Cinemascope spectacle that Fox produced after the Robe. Notice how some of the Roman sets are redressed to pass for Egyptian sets. The film is produced with all first class elements, beautiful photography, stirring soundtrack (Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann - see if you can tell which composer scored specific scenes). However, the principal acting is a bit weak. Edmund Purdom seems to have a limited range of emotions and is uninteresting to watch. The best performances come from Peter Ustinov as the one-eyed slave and Polish actress Bella Darvi as the Babylonian temptress "Nefer". I find this movie in general to be strong on plot which is rare for these large spectacles produced at the time. All in all, the film does an interesting and entertaining job of social commentary on what Egyptian society might have looked like.

"Imortality? I hold it in My Hand."

[thinker1691 · 9/10 · 18 June 2007]

It happens often, while growing up, a Hollywood movie impresses a youth. It not only lasts a lifetime, but inspire him to study ancient cultures as a career. Such was the case, with the 1954 film entitled "The Egyptian." Audience were awed with the sets, costumes and great acting of this film, so much so, other films soon followed in like vain. This is the story of a young Egyptian boy who was left parent less soon after he was born. With such a dubious beginning, it is not hard to wonder why he will spend his life, asking questions. The boy Sinuhe, (Sin-oh-way) which means, 'He that is alone'(Edmund Purdom) grows to manhood and continues asking why, even as he graduates from The School Of Life to become a physician. During his formative years he acquires a lifelong friend named Kaptah brilliantly played by (Peter Ustinov), and Horemheb (Victor Mature) who raises from a simple officer of the guard to Commander of the Armies. His life offers everything from a quick rise in social status to condemned criminal, to outcast, a wondering healer, and eventually to a station in life he never expected. Fine acting goes to Jean Simmons as Merit, Michael Wilding as Akhnaton, Bella Darvi as the temptress, Nefer, and John Carradine as a memorable Grave robber. Tommy Rettig, plays Thoth, the son of the Egyptian. In his final years, 'He that is alone,' finally discovers the answer he had been seeking all his life, which he bequeathes to his son, now in the care of his lifelong friend. Excellent Film! ****

the good and the bad in The Egyptian

[mcarrara · 7/10 · 13 April 2005]

There are many film now on DVD, but producers had forgotten some tittles of importance to many moviegoers. The Egyptian, along with El Cid and other favorites of the era of the wide screen, big budget epics had merit. Many people from my generation learn a lot about history of Egypt, medieval Spain and even the Incas, (The first time I heard from them was a very cheap adventure movie with Charlton Heston called The Treasure of the Incas), same happened to me with Egypt, or Rome seen many "bad" epics of the era. many production values, excellent use of color (The De Luxe color was more Brigit and sharp that the ordinary Technicolor), maybe the cast was wrong but in any case, the film did manèged to give us idea of the life in ancient Egyptin and was in a way the motor to go out and buy the novel, my Mika Waltari, one of the best, if not the best historical-novel ever published. Also oust anding was the superb score by Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann. I saw this film many times when I was a boy, it was not the big box office hit that Fox studios wanted to afther The Robe enormous hit, in CinemaScope and Stereo was a wonderful eye popping sp4ectacle. I have the Lasser Disc version.m the only way to see Ito its wdisescreen format. Soon i Hope will appeared.

Perverse rape of Egyptian history

[the_wolf_imdb · 2/10 · 1 October 2013]

This movie tries to depict itself as a historical movie based on ancient Egyptian literature. The props are quite bad, they use Roman style dresses (late ones) but it was typical for 50ies. They also depict history in a completely wrong way, it is so bad on so many levels! Basically it is Biblical story based on pure fantasy very vaguely based on ancient Egypt. In fact it is hardcore rape of both ancient Egyptian history and the ancient Egyptian literature.

First, story of Sinuhet is from The Old Kingdom. The movie takes place in The New Kingdom during the ruling of Achnaton, who was kinda crazy man who almost destroyed the country because of his forced approach to introduce new religion and abolishing of the old one. In the reality he did not care about the consequences and used terror to achieve his ends. In the movie, however, he is pictured almost as Moses, he is very wise, mild and kind. On the other hand, the general Haremheb who in reality managed to salvage the country from the ruins of the Achnaton's experiment is depicted as murderer and cruel dictator.

The country was not invaded by Hittites at the time of Achnaton as the movie depicts. The decay was based solely on the new religion that is not only admired because it was the first monotheist religion, but at the very end of the movie the reality is even more twisted to the incredible conclusion that the Amon was actually the God of the Christians! This is actually very wrong even by Biblical standards, because Aton was the face of the Sun. The ankh is compared to the cross which is completely wrong, because ankh is very ancient symbol of life whereas the cross is the symbol of death / sacrifice. The fact the pharaoh decides to sacrifice himself for some reason is displayed almost like Christ-style. It is blatant and deliberate lie. It is twist of reality comparable to making movie where Hitler is depicted as nice animal loving extrovert who is forced to fight the world in attempt to defend the freedom of people of Europe. It is THAT huge bunch of lies, really!

The pictures are nice. The message is sick. I really do not know what is worse there: The incredible preaching style lies or the fact the movie completely abused and destroyed interesting book of ancient literature. There is almost no similarity to the Story of Sinuhet including the ending that is absolutely wrong even in the style of the ending - the ending of original story is positive, Sinuhet is pardoned by pharaoh and he is even given a tomb which was very high honor. In this pseudo evangelic movie it ends "positively" also: Sinuhet is pushed into the exile, dies poor and alone yet almost screams the Christian preachings from his lips. There is zero respect to the Egyptian history. It is completely twisted just to create another pseudo Christian movie. This is so so wrong. So wrong!

When the power of sword clashed with the power of thought...

[marcin_kukuczka · 8/10 · 13 November 2005]

Film historians have said much about ancient epics that have been the interest of many directors from the beginning of cinema. The pioneers of such epics, particularly biblical ones, were D.W Griffith with his "mother of all epics" INTOLERANCE (1916), and Cecil B DeMille with his flair for magnificent spectacles, costumes and lavish scenes. Who can forget his TEN COMMANDMENTS (1923, 1956) or THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (1932)? Nevertheless, here comes another epic, made in the 1950s, directed by Michael Curtiz, and based on the novel by Mika Waltari, "The Egyptian." Michael Curtiz, already famous for his great classic CASABLANCA (1941) wonderfully manages to adjust his film to the audiences of that time, to entail the most important ideas and facts from the thick novel, and to recreate the lifestyle of the Egyptians who lived in one of the most amazing periods, in the reign of Akhnaton.

The first and most important fact for me in this movie is the psychological development of the main character that Edmund Purdom plays. Sinuhe, having been brought up in a simple family by his step parents, becomes a physician. All his life, he never stops asking a question "why?" and searching for the answer. Alluring love that he finds in a courtesan Nefer (Bella Darvi) leads him to financial and spiritual disaster. He has to repair the mistakes by hard work in the House of Death and starting to build up his reputation from nothing. First, he thinks that the only cure is revenge. However, in the long run, he realizes that "eye for eye" is no solution. Finally, what stands before him in very strange circumstances is the temptation to be a pharaoh. Nevertheless, there is one moment he finds the answer for his questions that touched him throughout his life... The story of the main character, though based on the book, is so interesting psychologically that every open minded person should consider this aspect in the film. The main character's psychological struggle is intensified by the times he lived in, the times when, probably for the first time to that extend, the power of sword clashed with the power of thought.

Curtiz's movie also retains one rule that all films of his era kept to: great cast and lavish sets. There are mostly British actors and actresses who give very nice performances. How is it possible not to mention the mainstay of ancient epic, Victor Mature. This time, he is not Demetrius, Hannibal or Samson but Horemheb - a fighter, a lover, at last a pharaoh. Jean Simmons appears in a very delicate role of Merit, a woman who loved Sinuhe all her life but it was too late when he realized that. Peter Ustinov, probably most famous for his gorgeous performance as Nero in QUO VADIS? three years earlier, does a great job as Kaptah, Sinuhe's friend. The royalty of the film is also played by two great cast, Gene Tierney and Michael Wilding. Tierney is excellent as cold, desirous of power Baketamon, the sister of pharaoh. Wilding gives a marvelous performance as "insane" Akhnaton. When I was in Louvre in Paris and saw Akhnaton's original face carved in stone, he looked very much the same as the actor in the film. Bella Darvi, an actress born in Poland, is quite memorable as a wicked courtesan Nefer. And there is one more actress who appears only in one scene but whom it is hard to forget, Judith Evelyn as Taia, pharaoh's mother. This voice, these eyes!

The sets are magnificent. The director recreated the most probable image of the outdoor temple of Aaton, the god that the Egyptians worshiped to in the reign of Amenhotep IV. I also loved the scene of pharaoh's first entrance. What a glorious picture that forever lasts in one's memory!!! However, there is also one aspect that I would like to draw the attention of all people interested to see the film. The Egyptian is similar to other epics in many respects, but it also stands out as a unique film. There are very few films which make such a wonderful use of different curiosities as for ancient times. There is a mention of iron used first by the Hetites. It's also the only film about ancient Egypt which talks openly of Egyptians' magnificent curing abilities. It memorably shows the contrasts of lifestyles, particularly the moment of a slave's death for whom no one cares followed by the announcement and consequently the widespread mourning after the death of pharaoh. Finally, "The Egyptian" shows one historical fact: there were other nations except for Jews (before Christ) where the spirit of God shone in some human hearts. Yet, the only difference was that it did not survive that long as at Jews' because it did not have a strong fundament. The scene of Akhnaton's death supplies you with so many biblical and Christian values that you may think you watch a religious movie.

All things considered, I highly recommend Michael Curtiz' film. It is a great production at multiple levels: an entertainment for epic fans, an admiration of marvelous performances for cinema fans, a soul feast for spiritual people. Finally, it is a beautiful story of extraordinary things which happened thirteen centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.

A "peblum" worth your time

[estein-3 · 6/10 · 27 October 2005]

Great for the atmosphere of Ancient Egypt. Storyline lacks believability but acting not bad. The contrasting spiritual journeys of the Pharoah (old gods to monotheism) and the physician (old gods to atheism) works somewhat but film's emphasis only on physician's spiritual journey - the Pharoahs spiritual development is not described as well. Philip Glass wrote an opera on the same Pharoah - if they every tried a remake - his music should fit a "revised" plot with more emphasis on the Pharoah's development. Another missing element is of course the conflict with the Hittites. This is a "peblum" without the "cast of thousands" and very short of the "spectacle" effect of battles, etc. found in equivalent films (e.g. Gladiator). No "clash of civilizations" but a more personal history. A C+ for the decor and atmosphere.