'The Egyptian' or 'Land of the Pharaohs'?

I can agree with you on all that. I often wondered why they employed two top composers for this film -- for example, the theme over the credits sounds like Newman's, but the music immediately ensuing is certainly Herrmann's. Did one of them walk off the production, or was he unable to complete it for some reason?

Still, I prefer Tiomkin's score for LOTP, and Hawks's direction, along with the film as a whole. But thank you for a reflective and considered post!

I know I'm getting into this thread a little late, but I just had to put my vote in for THE EGYPTIAN over LAND OF THE PHARAOHS. Both are good but flawed movies, and I can see how most would find LOTP more entertaining than THE EGYPTIAN, which is rather stiff in comparison, but my problem with LOTP is that the score rarely lets up. The music is good, of course, but there's just too much of it and, for me, it becomes annoying. The score for THE EGYPTIAN, on the other hand, is much more effective. When the music is constant during a film, as it is in LOTP, you know somebody involved in the making of it thought the movie needed all the help it could get.

Interesting for me to revisit this thread more than a year after I started it. Good comments, all. Couple of points....

The scores for both films are good, but as an admitted Tiomkin fan I often prefer his music, which doesn't mean I'm uncritical of it or invariably "side" with him over other composers' music. One poster above made the comment that his score for Land of the Pharaohs is good but that there's too much of it. I see the point (though disagree), but as to the remark that the producers may have included so much music because they felt the film needed help, I'll ask: how much help did the producers of The Egyptian need by hiring two composers?! (Two of the greats, by the way.)

I think the late (as of New Year's Day) Edmund Purdom was good but conventional. Yes, you can understand him, but Brando would've have been more interesting. Plus I guess some Egyptians must have mumbled.

Also, I dislike Sinuhe's supposed nobility in stopping Horemheb from drinking the poison after they've (needlessly) knocked off the Pharaoh. What, is this supposed to have been a sudden attack of ethics? He helps kill a good man, then stops a bad one from taking the same stuff. Apart from the hypocrisy, what does this accomplish except make Sinuhe (Purdom) feel morally superior? Not only has he condemned himself, which is his business, but he condemns Egypt and all its people to the whims of an arrogant, brutal dictator. He could have allowed Horemheb to die, then have taken power himself and actually done good for his country, his people, and the world -- as was the plan (or plot). But no: I'll be noble, sacrifice myself, and let millions suffer and die brutally, but I'll have a superior conscience. Ridiculous. Nothing "noble" about any of that. He brings about a reign furthering ignorance, terror and bloodshed and thinks he's accomplished something for humanity. Self-indulgent narcissicism, period, and millions of others will pay for his high-minded selfishness.

I think that's why I ultimately dislike so much about this movie, apart from its cinematic shortcomings. At least Land of the Pharaohs sees justice triumph, and ends on a hopeful note.

And I like Jack Hawkins, too! Great actor -- sad life later on. Much better Pharaoh.

Yeah, well, on that score, with Bella Darvi, The Egyptian can't beat LOTP.

Thanks, s007davis, I think you hit the nail on the head about the relative merits of Land of the Pharaohs vs. The Egyptian.

Not only is LOTP faster and more fun, it's livelier and less full of itself -- the "deep", heavy-handed religious and social messages TE is so determined to convey aren't a concern of LOTP, or at any rate only minimally and unobtrusively. Location filming and a much more original story also help LOTP, and Hawks's direction (I'm also a big admirer) isn't ponderous and bloated the way the usually great Michael Curtiz's is. But I think Curtiz was hampered by the leaden, portentous script he was handed. And The Egyptian is also harmed by its overlength.

The initial hour or so of Cleopatra is pretty good, mainly because of Rex Harrison's perfomance as Julius Caesar, and this first part moves well and has more interesting events. But it sinks under its own weight after that. I thought Liz Taylor was absolutely awful, one of the worst performances of her career -- more "star" than "actress" in that one. And the film just isn't much fun.

Incidentally, s007, I forgot to ask about your comment that you'd seen both these movies on VHS. Neither film was shown in its original, widescreen format (both were shot in CinemaScope) in their VHS releases -- only in grainy, pan & scan versions where you lose half the picture. Both films have since been issued on DVD in their correct widescreen aspect ratios. LOTP is now out of print but can be found for sale on Amazon Marketplace (or, probably cheaper, as part of a box set of three epics of the ancient world, including The Prodigal and The Colossus of Rhodes, still available). The Egyptian can be found on both DVD and Blu-ray, but only at screenarchives.com, the sole outlet for films from Twilight Time; but while both discs are still available the Blu-ray is coming close to being sold out as of this date. If you haven't seen either one letterboxed, the clarity and sharpness of the picture, plus better sound, all aside from seeing the half cut off in the p&s versions, are more than worth the purchase.

Thank you for your post, angelosdaughter.

I realized at the outset that by posting this thread on this board instead of the Land of the Pharaohs board, obviously most posters would prefer The Egyptian, since after all they've presumably come to this site because they like the movie. But I figured I'd get more interesting answers here than on the LOTP board, since as I've said I much prefer that film, and I'd just mostly get comments there that agreed with my view.

It's true that TE is based on history, but as you admit it's very heavily fictionalized, so how close the film itself is to any semblance of reality is a big question. Certainly author Michael Waltari, and later the filmmakers, had the advantage of several thousand years' hindsight and could introduce (with sledgehammer-like subtlety) the parallels to Christianity, which of course would not have been known or possible at the time the story is set. I think this dramatic overreach, of straining to create a link between Akhenaten and Jesus, simply rings hollow and creates a demonstrably false connection, as if the one were the disciple of the other. They would have done better omitting the phony connection to Christianity and just let Sinuhe's (or Akhenaten's) beliefs stand on their own merits. But of course they were making a 20th Century-Fox film for mid-20th-century audiences, so dragging in Christianity and making such a big deal out of its supposed commonality with Akhenaten's beliefs was to be expected.

Of course, LOTP is also based on history, though like The Egyptian its basis in fact is at best only very broad and very loose. I just find it far more engaging, far more entertaining, far more fun, and far, far less full of itself, compared to the overstuffed, humorless, ponderously slow, deadly solemn and annoyingly pretentious The Egyptian.

But it's great that this film stimulated your interest in learning more about actual Egyptian history. In fact, we were studying the pyramids in school when LOTP was first on TV (this is in the early 60s), and the timing couldn't have been better; that film made me want to learn more about ancient Egypt as well. I'm sure this was true for many others as well, so in that sense both films probably served an educational purpose, at least for some of their audience.