The Egyptian

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.

Waltari's impressive historical fictional work,"The Egyptian",is a long,well-thought out,well-researched,throughly planned piece of good writing.It covers a period of about 60 years in the life of Sinhue,the narrator,and describes his life,adventures,travels,and spiritual and emotional growth in careful detail.This film adaptation covers about 20% of the original,and as a consequence,looses a lot in the telling.The technical aspects are so impressive as to warrant a Ph.D. for their efforts.And,as for acting,Tierney,Ustinov,Wilding,Simmons,Daniell,and Carradine lead a strong supporting cast.(I especially enjoyed Carradine's cameo as the philosophical grave robber,with his Nitzschean interpretation on the futility of life.He told it the way it was.)Costumes,sets,props,etc. were superb.They should have been-they spent 5 years doing the research.And Purdom was a worthy replacement for Brando in the title part.Let's face it-the film was bound to disappoint anyone who wanted the original story.I don't feel qualified to comment on Darvi's portrayal.And Could anyone else BUT Mature have carried off Horemheb?My biggest criticism comes to the pacing.It does drag.But watch it for a well-done,thoughtful epic.

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.

"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.

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!