I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Lack of good storyline.

An Exercise In Nonsense

Admirable film.

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.

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.

I found this movie to be pretty good for a Hollywood supposedly historical drama. It is not historically accurate, Victor Mature's character never took the throne, at least as depicted in the movie. The next Pharaoh appears to have actually been a son of Imhotep IV, his name before he changed it after about five years in to his reign.The rise and fall of a nobody physician of the time is the main focus of the plot. He rises to become Pharaoh's court doctor, falls for a very high priced whore who gets him to give here everything he has plus all of his parents including their burial site. After discovering her whoreness by seeing his best friend making it with her, he becomes very disillusioned, leaves Egypt and pursues a life of accruing wealth from his skills as a doctor. He returns to Egypt when he gets an iron sword for curing the Hittite leader. Turning the sword over to the army gets him reinstated in Egypt. The Hittites are invading and the Pharaoh will not fight them. The doctor ends up poisoning the ruler and Victor assumes the throne. The doctor is exiled because he had put poison in Vic's cup along with the Pharaoh's. So instead of becoming the ruler with his half sister he gets sent to the Dead Sea in exile where he writes his life story.

The philosophical, meditative tone of this movie renders it one of a kind. I'd give it 10 stars for that alone. That being said, though, what hit me with particular force was what I take, possibly incorrectly, to be its Art Direction. Many of the interior shots feature a rich concoction of color blends seemingly based on very understated Munsell Color Model progressions and complementary juxtapositions. This makes the movie probably unrealistic to contemporary eyes, but, to me, very beautiful as an aesthetic work in itself. I think this movie is genuinely unique for this quality, and if for no other reason, earns it a full, careful, digital restoration. Fox, are you listening?