Too much of everything

Please don't spend money on this.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I'm giving this high marks in one regard -- unlike many Hollywood films about Egypt and pharaohs, where the sets are so Technicolorish-lavish that you can't really imagine things being quite so lush back in that era, this film at least has sets that seem more realistic (although I was surprised to note green ceramic tile!). I could believe the various sets here.And, the story is a decent one...essentially about the lust for gold, and, secondarily, power and how those 2 shiny things (one physical, the other mental) lead to obsession.I was also impressed that quite a few scenes were filmed "on location" in Egypt. And it was obvious that many of the "extras" were real Egyptians (even if the main actors were not).And, I couldn't help but laugh when I learned that this film, which was directed by Howard Hawks, immediately proceeded one of Hawk's films which is one of my favorites -- "Rio Bravo" starring John Wayne and Dean Martin. Quite a contrast.In my view, a good story is close to the same importance as the acting. And the acting here -- overall -- is pretty darned good. I don't think you can go wrong with Brit Jack Hawkins, here as Pharaoh Khufu. The big surprise for me was that Joan Collins could really act (not that she was any Bette Davis) back in the 1950s; I wonder what happened to make her so lousy years later in "Dynasty" where her acting was unintentionally humorous. But, she does nicely here as the scheming Princess Nellifer. Dewey Martin...well, he had a nice body, if minimal acting skills. Alex Minotis, a Greek actor, was quite good as the pharaoh's right hand man. James Robertson Justice was also interesting as Vashtar, the architect of the pyramid in question, and a slave from another country. I guess I never knew that Sydney Chaplin -- Charlie's son -- was an actor; I felt he was quite good here as a somewhat unwilling ally of Princess Nellifer.Interesting how very White the pharaoh's son was.And, I have to admit that the film's conclusion was...well...delicious!An admirable effort by Howard Hawks, an although it was a failure at the box office, in later years it earned some deserved praise.

As tribute to the all-conquering mighty Pharaoh Khufu, Jack Hawkins, Princess Nellifer, Joan Collins, offers herself in place of spoils to fill the pharaoh's treasure vaults given that she's just a poor ruler from an even poorer country. In no time at all, she becomes the fave of the pharaoh using her seductive wiles and allure in an ambitious scheme to usurp the throne, letting nothing and no-one, including the current queen, her son and pharaoh himself stand in her way. Long regarded by many in Hollywood as the poor man's Liz Taylor, Collins' makes the most of her own flawless beauty, and, talent as a legitimate actress in a once-in-a lifetime role as Nellifer. She even manages to overshadow and upstage Hawkins in their scenes together. Other points of interest include our being afforded an insider's POV of how the pyramids might have been constructed from drawing board stage and labyrinthine interior to stone apex. Filmed on location, director Howard Hawks enlisted some 9,787 extras actually recruiting from the ranks of the modern Egyptian Armed Forces. Novelist William Faulkner co-wrote (but didn't necessarily improve upon) the screenplay. Spoiler alert: In the classic tradition of Greek tragedy, Collins' receives her just reward in what has to be the ultimate cinematic revenge.

This film manages to combine the worst of the 1950s bloated historical epic: cheesy dialogue, stilted acting, and spectacle over substance.Everyone gives an uninspired performance. You have Jack Hawkins struggling to make his self-obsessed pharaoh credible while Joan Collins vamps it up as the femme fatale who seeks to usurp his throne and his treasures. Her performance is terrible but also absolutely hilarious, melding together sensuality with unbridled kitsch.The sets and spectacle are impressive, to be sure. I can see why director Howard Hawks was proud of that. However, he rightly regarded The Land of the Pharaohs (1955) as an embarrassment. Only lovers of camp will get a kick out of this.

It has been said that Howard Hawkes had a hankering to try out the step-by-step building process in epic proportions, and ended up with this venue to experiment. TCM film introducer said he wanted first to do the building of the great wall in China, drawing from the huge Chinese population as extras, but was not able to work with the political environ there. Looks like he got it out of his system, to a staggering loss. The remarkable element of the experiment was that it proved his worth -- he was one of the very, very few to survive such a turkey. He went on to make many other memorable films.But it IS a turkey. Time won't fix it. It was a huge critical and financial bust at the time. That means -- a cast of thousands stayed away. And they haven't returned. It has been said of the movie Spartacus, that Kirk Douglas (produced as well as starred) didn't let the spectacle override or get in the way of the human drama. Not so here. If you like to see throngs and the like, there are too many other worthier examples. Or (it's your money) spring for the price of purchase and skip around to the teaming masses scenes, marvel at the execution, etc. Again -- your time, your money.Personally, I would feel a bit of a dunce to give another look-see. Jack Hawkins, being a good actor, is horrible in this. Joan Collins, who isn't, is flatter still. The all-consuming task of managing the crowds perhaps serves as the reason for the acting of (especially the principal players) being so neglected. It's horrible. There are better B movies -- a lot better. Again, if special effects and the like is your thing, to the exclusion of development and execution of storyline, go for it. The acting is easily the closest to an amateur production of anything to come out of Hollywood, glam or no.Seems best to follow the director's example after this movie -- just move on.