Simply A Masterpiece

i must have seen a different film!!

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

The cast is excellent, with Michael Wilding presenting the most convincing performance as the Pharaoh Ekhnaton in the difficult dilemma of being 13 centuries before his time, which actually was historically correct. All the rest is fantasy, although mummies were made indeed and most indefatigably in Egypt for three millennia, it was their prominent speciality, by the help of opening the brain in a kind of prehistoric brain surgery. The protagonist's father excels in this medical art and passes it on to his son, who makes his fortune at the court of Pharaoh, who occasionally suffers from headaches and epileptic fits, so he needs his brain physician. Victor Mature plays Sinuhe's best friend, the more pragmatic and less altruistic coming leader of the future in battles and slaughters, called Horemheb, while Gene Tierney also makes a credible and politically more realistic sister to a Pharaoh only good for sun- and star-gazing. Bella Darvi plays another important part as the ruin of the hero physician, who makes a total mess of his so promising career by reckless passion. Peter Ustinov saves him time and time again only to lose him in the end. Finally there is Jean Simmons, the real heroine of the tale and the only actual martyr among them all, who represents all that they should be living for, presenting that meaning of life that Sinuhe so eagerly quests for, which he ignores as the stupid fool he is. The music of Bernard Herrmann and Alfred Neuman is also apt and perfect all the way like the splendid photography and Michael Curtiz' direction, - so what then is so wrong about this film?It's the story itself that is not at all convincing. All the weakness is found in Mika Waltari's novel, an interesting story by all means, but he understood nothing about Egypt. Another author who wrote novels of ancient Egypt was Joan Grant, whose versions are as almost palpably credible as Waltari's is more like science fiction. Not even the dialogue is good, although the film has improved it by cutting as much of the nonsense as possible. Still, some of the best episodes of the book are missing from the film, above all Sinuhe's adventures in Crete.It's a good film, nothing bad could be said about it, and we must try to forgive Mika Waltari's weakness for fantasizing in the manner of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Flash Gordon and Cecil B. DeMille rather than trying to actually recreate ancient Egypt. Ultimately, only Michael Wilding remains truly convincing.

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.

Michael Curtiz' lumbering, elephantine, lugubrious, and overly-pious epic, The Egyptian is enough to make one slap the next person he or she sees wearing an "Ankh."For what seems more than the stated 140 minutes of film, the viewer has to contend with one of the most unappetizing leading men and protagonists I've ever seen, Edmund Purdom, as he drinks badly, falls in love with a nasty temptress, betrays his pharaoh, his framily, and his profession, and winds up exiled out in East Bumfudge writing his memoirs.What makes The Egyptian so bad is its desire to be an epic, but on a small-screen human scale, a celebration of monotheism, but Akhenaten was a "monolatrist," and a love story, but the only women worth having takes an arrow in a boob before Purdom's Sinuhe can get her to the altar.It's all very prim and proper stuff--for the most part--with European actors sounding regal and Victor Mature looking manly-mannish in his Egyptian tunic. Actually, I was surprised by how the movie tried to be, um, racy, what with Bella Darvi's Nefer showing up nekked in a pool's reflection (you can see the lines of her body suit) and Mature clanking around with shoulder pads, delivering his lines in his sleep, and looking as if he's in drag. The Egyptian tries mightily to be something, to say something important. What it accomplishes is 2 hours and 20 minutes of history being mangled, Egyptian folklore and religion being defiled, and slave Peter Ustinov reaching under his eye patch to take out a prostheses, and delivering a cartoon-level popping noise when the gold thingy clears it's socket. My advice is to look up Steve Martin performing King Tut on YouTube.

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?