Land of the Pharaohs (1955)

Waste of time

good back-story, and good acting

Excellent adaptation.

A Disappointing Continuation

I too think that this movie deserves a higher rating. Loved Joan Collins and all the other actors/actresses as well. Call it a B movie or whatever, but I found it to be highly entertaining. Better then most movies that are out today, imo. Of course, the younger generation would likely disagree with me, lol. We all tend to like movies and music more from our generation, but nevertheless, there are always some exceptions. I'm always looking for a good movie and there have been a few recent ones that were to my liking, but only a few. Unfortunately, the people that run the programs for the channels are too young to know what most of us older folks like, so I rarely, if ever, see the movies I typically used to find on TV. Gone are the good old days, but at least I can watch my favorites on DVD.

"Land of the Pharaohs" is on many Guilty Pleasure lists and deservedly so. You know it is only for entertainment purposes. Joan Collins as well as the character she portrays are over the top campy and not to be taken seriously. Her cruel, selfish Queen is utterly devoid of any redeeming qualities, utterly ruthless and wicked- in other words, delicious fun to watch.Most of the acting is high-quality, especially the legendary Jack Hawkins who is magnificent as usual although Yul Brynner or Charleton Heston probably would have fit the role better.Beautifully filmed with a very expensive look it is a movie with an obviously lavish budget. Despite the extravagance, I can fully understand why it didn't do well at the box-office. Focused on death and monuments it can be seen as somewhat depressing and has a grim, doomed aspect overall amid the splendor. Unless maybe written by Edgar Allan Poe, how is a film about a tomb going to attract a great public to the theater? The answer is: it didn't. It is not an adventure about getting to a tomb such as Indiana Jones-type films, it is basically only a film about a tomb itself.Death, murder, slavery, a tomb. If not handled just right these subjects can't succeed alone. Here they do, but just barely.

Land of the Pharaohs is directed by Howard Hawks and collectively written by Harold Jack Bloom, William Faulkner and Harry Kurnitz. It stars Jack Hawkins, Joan Collins, James Robertson Justice, Dewey Martin and Alex Minotis. Music is by Dimitri Tiomkin and cinematography by Lee Garmes and Russell Harlan.It falls into the filmic splinter of historical epics that thrived greatly in the 50s and 60s, where a cast of thousands are costumed up to the nines, the sets sparkle and location photography smooths the eyes. Land of the Pharaohs has all these things, what it does lack is a high end action quotient, the makers choosing to craft a picture about intrigue in Pharaoh Khufu's (Hawkins) court as the great pyramid is constructed. This is not to say it's a dull picture, it maintains interest throughout, with shifty shenanigans afoot, femme fatale connivings and plenty of slaves standing proud for their cause. While the big finale is devilishly potent.However, one has to really close off the ears at times to avoid the dreadfully wooden dialogue, and some scenes are painfully misplaced, such as the sight of a miscast 45 year old Hawkins wrestling with a bull, I kid you not. Also miscast is Collins, undeniably sexy, but never once does she convince as an Egyptian princess, and her make-up is awful. There are stars in the film, but it does in fact lack star power. The real stars are Tiomkin, Garmes and Harlan, who each bring the spectacle of the production to vivid life. It was a minor flop at the box office and Hawks pretty much disowned it, but it's not without intelligence and in spite of its flaws it's a good watch for historical epic loving adults. 6.5/10

To be Totally Honest, Howard Hawks Movies all Look Artificial. As Entertaining as some may be, they Look Staged. If Auteurs by Definition have Stylish Signatures, this is One of Hawk's Charms/Drawbacks. The Thing (1951), The Big Sleep (1946), Rio Bravo (1959), just to name a Few of His more Celebrated "Masterpieces" all Appear Staged and Presented, and for Better or Worse it is Undeniable.Ironically, this one, Considered by Most a Failure, is Somewhat Removed from that because of the Necessity for the Director to be Panoramic and Expansive. So the Staginess doesn't Work Against Hawks here, although some Stiffness Remains, it is some other Things like Miscasting and a Severely Corny Script and Dialog.The Movie, with its CinemaScope is Magical, the Costumes, the Colorful Palette, the Mighty Musical Score, all make this Watchable like some sort of Postcard from Antiquity. But, Oozing in on its Serious Scenario of Megalomania, Greed, and Tyranny is a Fifties Mindset. The Film in all its Grandeur is Full of Clunk. There is Enough here to make it a Pleasurable Viewing, it's Expensive Enough and it is a Showy, but Shallow Story that has Misplaced its Vision with a Contrived and Underwritten Exposure of One of the Most Extravagant and Interesting Periods in Human History.