This is the best show ever no matter what you say!I have been watching this show since cycle 1.This show is never boring its wonderful how you see peoples dream come true of being a model.Tyra is trying her best to help young women not be ashamed of their bodies and make them believe that they are beautiful in their own way and that you don't have to feel beautiful by being anorexic.And just as Tyra says on the Tyra show so what if your curvy so what if you have a big round booty so what if you have a big nose so what if your not as beautiful as the people in magazines you are beautiful to her.SO WHAT...............................


I mean let's face it, all you have to do in modelling is pose for photos. The judging is so over the top with it's criticism. The show however is entertaining, especially with Tyra Banks, Nigel Barker, J Alexander and the supermodel herself Twiggy. I've watched season 5, 6, 7 and in the middle of season 8. It looks like American Idol gone sexy but I'm a guy and I only watch it because of the hot girls posing in their bikinis! The show can be quite boring, when it comes to judging, Tyra tends to go on and on and it's really off-putting. Anyway would I recommend it? Yes, Would I recommend it to women wanting to go into the modelling business? No.


America's next top model is a good show, it helps people with their careers, but lately i have become bored with it.

cycle 1: yeah I'm happy Adrienne won, i wanted her to win from the beginning.

cycle 2: its too bad, i think Mercedes deserved it.

cycle 3: i did not like Eva, but i did not like most of the girls in this cycle.

cycle 4: Kahlen should have won. i don't know what they saw in Naima, but i definitely know what they saw in Kahlen.

cycle 5: like cycle 3, this was not a great cycle either. but out of all the girls, NICOLE as a winner? eww!

cycle 6: i liked Sara and Joanie, but Danielle is okay too.

cycle 7: Caridee definitely deserved it.

cycle 8: no, i didn't want Jaslene to win. i didn't like her. i saw other girls in that cycle with definitely more potential than her, although i did not see much of this cycle.

good show, I've just seen it too many times to like it much anymore :D


This is a simple episode ad so far after watching all of the Season 11 episodes (with the exception of the Imaginationland trilogy) this is the one that made laugh the most, definitely is my favourite so far of Season 11. So basically Cartman sees at a toy store a kid who has the Tourette's syndrome and a new idea comes to Cartman. You can imagine, now Cartman has Tourette's syndrome and is great since Kyle once he knows about this is like "he's faking". Cartman is certainly on fire, saying whatever he wants to the teachers, to the principal, to anybody. On the other hand we have Kyle who now is the intolerant one, basically for saying that Cartman was faking he was taken to meet children with Tourette's syndrome just to let him see that Tourette's syndrome is for real and is great since Kyle is like "well maybe someone is faking to have Tourette's for fun", in short Kyle could not explain that Cartman was faking. Probably my favourite scene of this episode is when Cartman is with Kyle's family but right after this scene another kid fins that Cartman is simply faking, the kid with Tourette's who was at the toy store, Cartman basically said to that kid this: "isn't having Tourette's awesome". But to be saying whatever he wants and be for everybody a brave boy is sort of just the beginning for Cartman, his master plan: going on National TV to say anything he wants ("people will call it brilliant TV, they'll probably give me an Emmy"- fantastic, in this episode the word "s***" is used 26 times and certainly that's not all. South Park won an Emmy like a month or so before this episode aired). But here there's a twist, Cartman basically removed all the bricks of the wall, he says now everything without thinking so we hear from Cartman that he wet his bed last night, now is not fun for Cartman and he is like "I can't control what I say" and certainly the person who was with him is like "well of course you can't control what you say, you have Tourette's" so Cartman is like "my Tourette's has gotten worse, before I just blurted out cool stuff about Jews being lame and stuff but now it's gotten really bad". There is also stuff about Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator, actually what happened with a pervert here happens with a lot more perverts, Kyle and Thomas were behind that to stop Cartman, Kyle ends being Cartman's saviour! Fantastic!

TSA VOICES CONCERN Over "South Park" October 3rd Episode

On Wednesday, October 3, the cable network Comedy Central will air an episode of the animated series "South Park" in which one of the young characters, Cartman, "gets" Tourette Syndrome. Given the nature of this program, we fully expect it to be offensive and insensitive to people with TS and garner numerous calls and emails from our members and the TS community.

We have already taken some pre-emptive strikes, such as requesting that Comedy Central air our Public Service Announcement (featuring comedian Richard Lewis) during or after the show. In addition, once the episode airs and we are able to see exactly how TS is portrayed, we will be able to respond with specific issues and problems we have with the show to the writers.

"We are actually surprised it took the creators so long to use TS as comedy fodder in this program, since no disability, illness or controversial topic is off limits to them," said Judit Ungar, President, TSA.

"We always see portrayals of TS (good and bad) as an opportunity for awareness and education, and a show of this magnitude and popularity is certainly no exception and provides a way for TSA to spread factual information about the disorder," said Tracy Colletti- Flynn, Manager of Public Relations and Communications, TSA.

We will be posting an official statement on this site with TSA's reaction to the program after the show airs.

TSA RESPONDS to "South Park" Episode

Unfortunately, as has been the case with far too many media portrayals of people with Tourette Syndrome (TS), the season opener of South Park ("Le Petit Tourette," 10-3-07) served to perpetuate even further the outright myth that most of those affected by TS have involuntary outbursts of foul language. In point of fact, fully 85-90% of people with TS never experience this tragically socially stigmatizing symptom (medically termed coprolalia). For viewers less familiar with the symptoms of this neurological disorder, the misleading take away message couldn't have been clearer  unless you curse, you don't have TS.

Despite our pre-airing trepidations, we do concede that the episode was surprisingly well- researched. The highly exaggerated emphasis on coprolalia notwithstanding, for the attentive viewer, there was a surprising amount of accurate information conveyed. The scripted input from parents, a neurologist, peers and the therapy session with the "TS children's support group" all served as a clever device for providing these facts to the public. "No doubt this South Park episode did generate increased national awareness about TS. Nevertheless, we are very concerned that school children with TS will be mocked and even bullied by insensitive peers who may have seen the program," said Judit Ungar, TSA President. "We realize that for over a decade the writers' satirical parodies have spared no group be they celebrities, the disabled or political figures. The fact that TS was the subject of a popular TV show attests to the fact that the public is so much more aware of the disorder. Obviously, this increased awareness we've worked too hard to accomplish can at times prove to be a double-edged sword."

TSA contacted the program's executives prior to the airing, and we will be in touch with them again. Perhaps we'll succeed in turning this into an opportunity for positive TS awareness.


This was another great episode from season 11 of South Park.

Cartman fakes having Tourette syndrome in order to be able to say whatever he wants without getting in trouble. He is able to swear at the other kids at school. Kyle tells the Principal that Cartman is faking it. But, she doesn't believe it. Chris Hansen is planning on having Cartman to be on Dateline to talk about Tourette syndrome live and uncensored. But later on, Cartman starts to get so addicted to be able to say whatever he wants, that he later on starts to accidentally say embarrassing stuff. This was a funny episode about Cartman faking Tourette syndrome. I Recommend it to any South Park fan.


La Petit Tourette is a pretty funny South Park episode.Cartman is at the toy store one day and here's a kid swearing out loud but not getting in trouble for it.His mother then tells everyone that the kid has "tourette syndrome".Cartman loves the fact that he can swear without getting into trouble so he tells everybody that he has tourette syndrome.Kyle, however finds out that Cartman is lying and tries to tell people, but they think he is insensitive and is put in a "Tourette sensitivity training" type place.Cartman's tourette's eventually land him a spot on a talk show, however he finds that he cannot control his tourettes and starts saying embarrassing things that happen to him.Meanwhile, Kyle tries to sabotage the show in an interesting way.


I tell you although it is funny how how this many swear words are in this one I'm sure the number of profanities and swear words in it would probably count up to about 200 because from what i last heard the greatest number of swear words on a south park episode is 165 counts of the word s**t but aside from that its so funny because in it there is swear words and also paedophiles shooting themselves in the head Watch this for your own survival also look out for a mention of cartmans father and also the annoying voice of Chris Hanssseeeen and also kyle has to save cartman from paedophiles (the catch a predator show is also on dateline) and they track a peado down and when they got there the peado "shot himself"


Although, this episode was offensive to the Tourette Syndrome Association, others thought it was funny, while others thought it was a bad way to start the new season.

This episode was funny and just shocking. South Park has made history as being their first episode with the most cuss words, unless you count the movie as an episode.

I enjoyed how they made fun of Chris Hansen and his television show, to Catch a Predator. I didn't like the idea on how they thought Chris Hansen would do a show on tourettes and let a boy speak out and bash the Jews.

One thing I did not like is how South Park thought that people with tourettes syndrome would just blurt out bad language like that. I've seen people on television with Tourettes syndrome and they do not just blurt out bad words. Unless I am incorrect.


One of the most pleasurable aspects of movie viewing is to get lost in a film. To have it totally wash over you, so that you absorb it as it is, and thus, experience it to the fullest. Every time I see it, 'The Egyptian' is such a film. Over the years it is a picture critics have loved to hate. Many have thrown darts at its vulnerabilities. But perhaps it is because of the very tone the film brings with it rather than its most obvious characteristics. It is at once forbidding, remote, possibly dangerous; beware of what lies within! The haunting chords of the music, seen over the 20th-Fox logo, usher us into titles of other-worldly turquoise lettering.

Strange! Archaeological! Decadent! It is as if we are descending into some vault of antiquity, wherein might be great treasures, mixed with uncertain hazards. (One might imagine Darryl Zanuck commanding: 'Make it ancient!') Then, what a darkly dramatic story unfolds, all within the same tone set at the start.

Of Hollywood's mid-50s 'Egyptian Trilogy', 'The Ten Commandments' portrayed the civilization's sternness, the phenomenal 'Land of the Pharaohs' its nuts and bolts, while 'The Egyptian' shows it all, from glamour to tragedy, for us to wonder at.

No need to say much about the players here, but I think that, with the passage of time, Bella Darvi is being redeemed. What a perfect face for the role, right out of a Symbolist painting. If her acting does not please some, it might be argued that, in her role as a 'courtesan', she is obviously better in bed than yakking to some poor helpless admirer. I think that Curtiz captured the kinkiness of her sado-masochistic relationship with Edmund Purdom's character with aplomb, censorship being what it was at the time. Sir Peter Ustinov, in his memoirs, was pretty kind to 'The Egyptian', writing that it was 'like being lost in a huge set for 'Aida'. His pronunciation of the word 'beer' I have adopted myself ever after.(One of the film's historically accurate references: the Egyptian's invented beer!) Henry Daniell, egads, what a perfect performance. Gene Tierney, what a screen treasure. Bless DFZ for giving her this 'late' role. C'mon folks, don't be so hard on Victor Mature! He's a cheesemaker's son! Who rose to be pharaoh! Sounds like a peculiarly American opportunity. One of the best moments: John Carradine's existential observations on the sands of time. And Purdom's utterance about dwelling beyond the sunset of the world. If that isn't Grade 'A' epicness, what is?

Of course, along with everything else, the music is sublime. It is frequently noted that Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann created one of the screen's most compelling scores, perfectly harmonious, yet each theme is well developed, with a life of its own. Newman, pressed for time by DFZ, called in Herrmann, someone he could trust implicitly, to take up half the burden.

Benny, not the easiest guy to work with, obviously respected Newman enough to really deliver inspiring music. They alternated cues, an ingenious approach. No spoilers as to who did what here, but Benny brings an edge with him, mysterious, awesome sounds. Alfred brings fulsomeness, longing, poignancy. Both are consummately epic. Even when seen on a squeezed TV print, the effect of seeing the two composers' names side by side in the main credits, which the ultra-wide anamorphic screen could comfortably accommodate, is spine-tingling.

Leon Shamroy, the Dean of CinemaScope, does not let us down here. The lurid greens and moody shadows (probably distortions in all the terrible TV prints I've seen through the years) perfectly accompany the multi-dimensional script (by the great Philip Dunne and WB vet Casey Robinson, whom Curtiz must've brought with him to 20th). How remarkable it is that Shamroy, who was as much of an institution of cinematography at Fox as Newman was with music, would lens 'Cleopatra' a few years later, but in the brighter, sharper images of '60s Todd A-O. These old studio guys are really heroes of mine.

To me, who wants to fret about all the imperfections and criticism opportunities in a picture like this? I'd rather yield entirely to its spell, and dive off into its sea of lavishness, to emerge after the inspiring climax of 'The End' refreshed, moved, and hungry for more.

And yes, we should cry out to 20th-Fox for a DVD release worthy of DFZ's legacy.


Few people realize it, but there was world literature in the ancient world before the Greeks came on the scene. Besides the literary remains that are in the "Old Testament" of the Jews, there were considerable works from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The summit of the former were the religious poetry and "The Epic Of Gilgamesh". The Egyptians produced many poems, but there main addition was a tale of adventure of a traveler and physician called "The Story Of Sinuhe". It is from this work (actually a fragment, that we don't know the ending of) that the novel "The Egyptian" came from.

The story is unique (as is the movie). "The Egyptian" was a best seller in the early 1950s, and Darryl Zanuck decided to take a chance making it: yes he wanted a showcase for his girlfriend Bella Darvi as Nefer, as well as the rest of the cast (Victor Mature, Edmund Purdom, Peter Ustinov, Michael Wilding, and Gene Tierney), but he was aware that these films rarely made large box office. One can chalk up this as an example of Zanuck trying something different.

The number of movies that deal with ancient Egypt are very small. "Land Of The Pharoahs", "The Egyptian", "The Ten Commandments" (both De Mille versions), "Moses", "Holy Moses!", "Cleopatra", "The Mummy" (all versions), "The Scorpion King". If there are 20 films about ancient Egypt it's is tremendous. But "The Egyptian" is unique. While the second "Ten Commandments" discusses Ramses the Great (Pharoah Ramses II - Yul Brynner) and his father Seti I (Cedric Hardwicke), and the films on Cleopatra deal with her, few other names of ancient Egypt crop up in film. Egypt's greatest Pharoah was Thutmose III, who conquered most of the known middle east of the era of 1470 B.C.E. or so. No film about him has appeared, nor of his usurping predecessor, history's first great female ruler Hatschepsut. But the only known Pharoah who attempted a religious revolution that approached what the Jews (and later the Christians) attempted - a type of monotheism - is the subject of "The Egyptian". This is Pharoah Akhnaton.

In reality Akhnaton was practicing a personal form of monotheism that was not meant for public consumption. But it angered the priestly class who worshiped Amon, rather than Aton. Due to our uncertain historic records (although Akhnaton's official records - the "Tel-el-Amana" letters - are quite complete as far as they survive), we do not know if the Pharoah was killed in a palace coup or not. However he died, he was succeeded by a young brother or son of his whose name is better recalled than any other Pharoah except Ramses: Tutankhamon.

This film is actually quite good as far as it goes. Wilding makes a good natured Akhnaton, who is too weak to be as effective as a religious reformer is supposed to be. Mature is good as the ambitious (and - outside the film - ultimately successful future Pharoah) Horemheb. Tierney and Purdom do well in their lead parts and Ustinov is good as Purdom's friend. Also good is Ms Darvi, in a large supporting part. In a wonderful cameo is John Carridine, as a philosophical grave robber. The film is certainly worthy of viewing, as one of the few attempts to show part of the history and culture of Ancient Egypt.


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.


It happens often, while growing up, a Hollywood movie impresses a youth. It not only lasts a lifetime, but inspire him to study ancient cultures as a career. Such was the case, with the 1954 film entitled "The Egyptian." Audience were awed with the sets, costumes and great acting of this film, so much so, other films soon followed in like vain. This is the story of a young Egyptian boy who was left parent less soon after he was born. With such a dubious beginning, it is not hard to wonder why he will spend his life, asking questions. The boy Sinuhe, (Sin-oh-way) which means, 'He that is alone'(Edmund Purdom) grows to manhood and continues asking why, even as he graduates from The School Of Life to become a physician. During his formative years he acquires a lifelong friend named Kaptah brilliantly played by (Peter Ustinov), and Horemheb (Victor Mature) who raises from a simple officer of the guard to Commander of the Armies. His life offers everything from a quick rise in social status to condemned criminal, to outcast, a wondering healer, and eventually to a station in life he never expected. Fine acting goes to Jean Simmons as Merit, Michael Wilding as Akhnaton, Bella Darvi as the temptress, Nefer, and John Carradine as a memorable Grave robber. Tommy Rettig, plays Thoth, the son of the Egyptian. In his final years, 'He that is alone,' finally discovers the answer he had been seeking all his life, which he bequeathes to his son, now in the care of his lifelong friend. Excellent Film! ****


Maybe it's just a personal affection for this screen version of the Mika Waltari novel, or a fondness for things Egyptian (I grew up loving to visit the mummies in Boston's Museum of Fine Arts) but I think Maltin is a tad tough on this rather good film. The production values are great regarding color and cinematography, and it appears some effort went into historical authenticity (much of it from the novel, I'm sure). Purdom is admittedly a bit stiff in the lead role, but one can accept this as part of Sinuhe's character. Victor Mature is, well, Victor Mature. Peter Ustinov is a delight to watch in this type of role, which he always did so well and so wittily. Bella Darvi's performance as Nefer is classically camp, and I find even Michael Wilding's rather dry portrayal of Akenaten to have its own appeal.

The historical oddity of Akenaten's monotheism, a brief detour in ancient Egypt's theological history, is interesting, as is Akenaten himself, and well worth reading about; the religious wars portrayed here have a basis in fact.

An interesting footnote regarding Darvi, whose birth name was Bayla Wegier: she was a Polish emigre who producer Darryl Zanuck and his wife Violet took under their wing (I believe they may even have adopted her). Her screen name Darvi is formed from Zannuck's and his wife's first names. She continued her acting career in France, but never achieved great success and, after a rather unhappy life, died at her own hand in 1971.

Altogether this is an interesting film and enjoyable to watch for the visual values alone. American Movie Classics shows this occasionally in letterbox, which is essential to capturing the scope and sweep of the story.


I first saw this movie around 1968 and if I don't see it once or twice a year, I'm surprised. I've always found it engrossing, well acted, and, for Hollywood, surprisingly accurate historically. I heartily give it 10 stars and recommend it highly!


As a dedicated lover of all things Egyptian this is a classic piece from the 50's, along with my other favourite, Land of the Pharaohs". The sets and colours are just wonderful and everything seems so "neat" in the production quality. I thought Victor Mature was well cast and Peter Ustinov a real gem! The whole look of the movie (along with others made in this era) has an appeal that you just don't get with modern movies with all their digitized effects (I have yet to see the 1999 movie "The Mummy but am sure I will love it!).

Top stuff!


Having been interested in Akhenaton for many years I was surprised to learn about this film via E-bay and bought a copy on DVD for 99p. I enjoyed the film, the twists and turns in the plot and that the file was mainly about the main character Sinuhe makes it more of a "family saga" rather than an action film. The costumes and attention to detail was remarkable for its time (1955). The back projection during the chariot ride now looks clumsy. My main interest was in the character of Akhenaton and his monotheistic religion. In this film he was portrayed as being "Jesus" like in his refusal to go to war with the Hittites even through they were invading Egypt and in his closing speech about the futility of materiality and political power. Initially one makes a connection between Sinuhe, who was cast adrift in the river Nile in a reed basket, and the Old Testament Moses. But this connection is not carried no doubt this will be fully explored in a new film wherein a Moses like character carries Akhenaton's monotheistic religion out to the wider world, if such a film will ever be politically possible to make. It is universally accepted that were women are concerned we man are stupid creatures but the relationship or lack of one between Sinuhe and Merit, the character played by Jean Simmons is hard to accept. And that Sinuhe, an educated physician, would be so smitten by Nefer the Babylonian "femme fatal" to the extent of giving her his adopted parents house and Tomb is not really believable, neither that his parents would even have a tomb. In real life Nefer (Nefertitti) was the wife of Akhenaton. And although Horemheb did become Pharaoh it was after a few others including Tutankhamen , who was the son of Akhenaton.

But of course this is just nit picking and the film is enjoyable to watch and that it is about Akhenaton and his monotheistic religion is a big bonus. Maybe following "The De Vinci Code" book and film this film be re-made with the central secret being the foundation of our current monotheism! I wait in great anticipation of such a film, there are already numerous books on the subject.


Having read all of the comments on this film I am still amazed at Fox's reluctance to release a full screen restored version in DVD. Yes, the history may be a bit inaccurate and it is certainly not as powerful as the book, BUT it was the 2nd film by Fox made in Real Cinemascope and the production values alone merit a restoration and distribution. I saw this film in second grade and it triggered my lifelong interest in all things Egyptian, culminating in my visiting Egypt 4 years ago! Amazing the power of film on a child's imagination, eh? In high school I read the book and made a promise to myself to one day take that dream trip. Now, true this film was made in the "old school" style, meaning that Egyptians were portrayed by pink skinned and blue-eyed Brits. However, has anyone seen the current HBO series "ROME"? Everything old is olde again. One can't imagine why in this day and age we are still casting actors mincing around as Mayfair aristocrats in Roman drag. Not one actor on ROME could pass for an ancient Italian. That being said, the AMARNA period in Egypt is still one of the most fascinating events in human history. This film is immensely appealing ( to borrow a word from NEFER) for its historical information (BEER! BRAIN SURGERY! IRON!) and its gorgeous cinematography and score. I have a dreadful Taiwan DVD version which I watch over and over again praying that one day a true restored widescreen version will be available. For anyone else interested in this subject I highly recommend the historical novel "A God Against The Gods" by the author of Advise and Consent. If anyone of you film buffs out there knows how to contact Fox to urge them on, please let me know!


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.


This is not what one would term a happy tale. The titled leading character (Edmund Purdom as THE Egyptian) does not get the gal - although he does (?) evidently get the 'last' word, the otherwise principal tragic figure (Michael Wilding as the politically myopic Pharaoh) ends up tragically, and the wrong guy  even if it is Victor Mature, winds up winning-all the marbles. Peter Ustinov possibly had gotten the best part (Kafka) and arguably may have stolen some if not most of the movie except for top-billed Jean Simmons as the somewhat brighter-thanaverage barmaid (Merit) whom just possibly has more on the ball  intellectually and spiritually, than all of the rest of them put together.

The brooding and pessimistic Sinuhe the physician (that's Purdom) is portrayed as a dark, cynical, tortured soul whom spends the entire plot  his lifetime, seeking the meaning of 'Life.' (Btw, and to paraphrase John Lennon, 'Life' is what happens while you're making other plans.) Pardon the lack of philosophical depth in the prior parenthetic comment, but eventually the plot unfolds to reveal just that !

And speaking philosophically, as if things aren't morose and negative enough, John Carradine (as the un-named grave robber) pops-up in a cameo role in the middle of the flick espousing that 'Life' basically is meaningless and is only worth living as a poor alternative to the eventual ultimate disappointment.

So here we are over 200 words in and I haven't really had a kind word, so why the heck did I rate it so high ? Well there is a lot of Shakespherian tragedy and bunch of moral worth in it. There's ethical contrasts, true friendships, true & unrequited (almost) love, and - despite limitations of 50s production capabilities, it is very well (sound) staged, pleasing both the eye and ear, and very well/evenly paced . The acting is, for the most part, uniformly very good  given it's a 50s costume drama, and the interactions are believable right down to the characters' fatal flaws - which abound, and in that doing justice to the best of Greek tragedy.

There is some redemption, Sinuhe does discover and embrace his son  played by Tommy Retigg whom, despite Ustinov's best efforts, really needed Lassie to pull it off. A couple of other 'misguided' souls get their just desserts  the 'foreign' fleshpot Nefer (Bella Darvi)  apparently in Egypt on a carnal exploitation work-study visa, whom earlier cruelly even mercilessly spurned Sinuhe -\and\- the dyke'ish Princess Baketamon (Gene Tierney as Pharoah Wilding's sister) whom knew a deep dark secret about Sinuhe's ancestry, and then tried to use it to set him against his friend, her brother the Pharaoh  nice people, huh.

Purdom's performance is actually something to behold. He carries off the dirge well enough that somewhere before the end of the pix you want to smack him across the puss, grab him by the lapels, and say "look dummy pull yourself together, the glass ain't half empty it's half full !" and then finding that you're personally disappointed in Horemheb - truly Sinuhe's best friend, (Victor Mature as Pharoah's Top Soldier) for himself having that flaw in his character that prevents him succeeding at doing something positive.

I wonder if the secret to the whole movie is that it very quickly achieves and then sustains the necessary "suspension of disbelief" and early on gets you understanding and worrying about the characters, caring to the point that you really feel sorry for them and their missed chances at happiness; a happiness that otherwise wasn't all that far from their grasp.

can't understand why this one isn't already out on DVD and hope that gets corrected soon.


Based on Mika Waltari's Book,This Second CinemaScope movie ever made is full of rich color,beautiful music and panoramic spectacle.The Plot sometimes gets muddled in contrite wording,But all in all it has a strong social content:Man is ruled by his emotions,and that every action has an equal consequence.But to truly enjoy this film,First see the movie,then read the book.Although different,it sheds light on a whole lot of things that were not seen on the screen,and gives breath to some more of the depth of Sinuhe.


...as valuable as King Tut's tomb! (OK, maybe not THAT valuable, but worth hunting down if you can). I notice no one has commented on this movie for some years, and I hope a fresh post will spark some new comments. This is a film that I remembered only snippets of from childhood, and only saw recently when I tired of waiting for Fox to honour its own past, and hunted down the Korean DVD (in English, but with unremovable Korean subtitles). I won't go through another long plot description - suffice to say that seeing it for the first time in its proper widescreen format left me agape at the vistas and the scope of the film. The matte paintings still hold up, and the palace sets are truly breathtaking. But it is the smaller scale details that lend this film its depth and richness, offering a glimpse into the lifestyles of Egypt's poor as well as its elite. The bazaars, hovels, docks, embalming houses, and taverns are as fascinating as Pharaoh's throne room. While errors abound on the large scale (most notably the dynastic succession), the details are more meticulously researched than the vast majority of Hollywood's films. Visually, it's not without its flaws - the interiors are often too overly lit and colourful to blend seamlessly with the exteriors. Nevertheless, this is a movie that should be credited for being as audacious in the small as it is in the large. Tedious? In parts, absolutely. Overacted? Underacted? Yes, both - though 'understated' might be a more apt description. Too long? Absolutely not. I wished they had spent more time with Sinuhe's experiences in the House of Death, and among the Hittites, and less with his 'romance' with Nefer, though. Historically inaccurate? Yes, that too, but so was Shakespeare. Nobody chastises him for it. I appreciate historical accuracy as much as the next guy, but ultimately it has to be remembered that cinema is theater, not a history lesson.


When this film gets it right it really gets it right. And when it goes wrong... I'd say that a full 3/4s of the film is great. I can even isolate the bad bit. It's everything that has to do with the romance. Everything that you need to know about it is said in the first five minutes but it drags on for about 30. I'd recommend skipping that section if you can. It does nothing except explain his exile. It should have been a minor plot point quickly thrust aside. Fortunately, the period from about 0-30 and 1:00-2:19 (The End) is excellent.

There are a number of excellent performances in this film, and an equal number of terrible ones. Just like everything else in this movie the acting is either perfect or terrible. Peter Ustinov as the slimy one-eyed slave Kaptah is perfect. It is one of his best performances, up there with his role in Spartacus. Victor Mature as the ambitious Horemheb is also perfect. Again, one of his best roles. Jean Simmons is wasted as Merit, the perfect girl in love with our hero John Carradine gives a nice supporting role as a philosophical grave robber; and Michael Wilding is excellent as Akhnaton, the idealistic pharaoh who tries to bring peace and monotheism to Egypt only to see it fall apart due to his unwillingness to fight. Now for the bad. Edmund Purdom as Sinuhe is sadly miscast. This is doubly unfortunate as he is the main character. The entire film revolves around him. He actually does rather good as the disillusioned exile and the wise old man. This is because of his sorely limited range. He doesn't seem able to put any passion into his words. This is especially apparent during the love scenes which are beyond awkward. He spends the last half of the film as an old man, a performance at which he is decent enough at. He does have the perfect voice for the character. The less said about Bella Darvi as Nefer, the treacherous Babylonian woman, the better.

The costuming and sets are magnificent. This is the only film that I know of that attempts to depict life in Egypt that isn't overshadowed by Jews or Romans. The film takes place in the 14th Century B.C. which is before even Exodus. The only monotheists are the pharaoh Akhenaten and his followers. There is the same strong element of religious zeal that can be found in most epics, but it is done differently and it only shows up at the very end. An interesting note: by having Akhenaten followed by Horemheb as pharaoh, the film completely skips over the most famous pharaoh of all: Tutankhamen. Seems kind of a strange thing to do when using that name could increase awareness of the film.

Be warned: this is a 1950s epic film. If you don't like that type of thing then don't expect this one to be different. It is different, but it is still an epic. I appreciate this film, and I appreciate what it did and what it tried to do. This is a film that should be better remembered than it is.


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?


I had the pleasure to view this film when I was 10 years old,(having an existing interest in Egyptology). I know that there are subtle mistakes to the art direction and costuming, but over all this is the best film, to date with the look of the 18th dynasty.

The film only approximates Mika Walteri's "The Egyptian", in plot. A good portion of the text never made it to film, as we have to consider the running length.

The music score by B. Hermann and Alfred Newman is beautiful!!! Performances as follows. The late Edmond Purdom gave an excellent performance as an orphaned child adopted by parents past their child bearing years. He states that he keeps to himself,has the best education available and lets' face it is a rather emotionally distant person, given his upbringing and high intellect.

Jean Simmons is fine as a humble tavern maid; honest loving and sincere. Bella Darvi, people complained about her accent, well she is a Babylonian. It is not that apparent in the film as to why Sinhue is so insanely obsessed with Nefer Nefer Nefer. Her correct name. In the book Sinhue is enjoying her carnal fruits and gets his revenge early in the plot by leaving Nefer Nefer Nefer's drugged body with the "House of the Dead's " workers.

Gene Tierney as Baketaten, is brilliant! When she tells Sinhue that he is pharoah, she looks like she could devour him (in his weakness). She is intense, brilliant and coldly beautiful.

Michael Wilding is heartbreakingly tragic in his mission to bring all people to know his one God. I believe that we are viewing Ankhnaten thru the lens of Egyptologist A. Weigall. A view at the time that had a pre-messiah feeling about Ankhnaten's vocation. Did his monotheism influence the Jewish people? Note Psalm 104. and other Egyption imagery in the psalms?

Mr. Peter Ustinov provided the alter ego to Sinhue. He is street wise and cunning a survivor. Excellent acting as always.

Mature never thought much of his acting personally, His Horemheb is fine as an ambitious "super patriot" who ultimately has Sinhue murder more than one person in his quest for power, (Walteri's book).

I felt that the ending to The Egyptian was confusing as Sinhue's personality changes too easily. He has a living son (Toth dies in the novel), power is handed to him through is half sister Baketaten, he world savvy now and has a grip on international affairs. So he became enlightened? He could have modified the Amon Priesthood as he was capable.

But NO! Sinhue gives everything up, everything including his son's future to become a ragged beggar preaching monotheistic love?

This change was too immediate and the major flaw in the script!

Again the look of the film,colour, most of the costumes(Nefer Nefer Nefer's gold dress was too over the top as she is more richly dressed than the royal family), music is beautiful.

I will watch this film again easily.

P.S. I know that you porbably know that Horemheb did not directly succceed Ankhnaten, but I could not resist stating this fact.


One cannot help but be impressed with the intelligence and scale of this film, and simultaneously disappointed by the lost opportunities.

I found the script to be excellent, and the vocal talent of Edmund Purdom quite impressive. However, as an artifact of its time, the film suffers from too many Hollywood-isms, especially poor casting, too much lushness of the sets, and too much pretentiousness. Edmund Purdom (who plays the title character) is so obviously awkward with physical acting, I suspect he had primarily been in Shakespearean theater before this.

So if movie people are reading this, I propose this as an excellent candidate for a remake, especially if you cast real Egyptians as Egyptians!


This Fox spectacle was a big hit when released in 1954. Sumptiously produced, with great music and sets, intriguing cast, it moves slowly, but interestingly. Edmund Purdom is strikingly handsome as an Egyptian who becomes a renowned doctor, juggling three stunning women: a handmaiden Jean Simmons who passively adores him, temptress Bella Darvi who eludes him, and a pharoah's sister Gene Tieney who wants him as HER pharoah. The movie's popularity has not waned, since being re-shown on AMC (preferably in widescreen). Purdom is particulary great, his character apparently striking out with the women, and ending up never married and a "thinker." Darvi is amazing and tantalizing in her femme fatale role. Victor Mature, Michael Wilding, Peter Ustinov co-star. Check it out.


It came before "the ten commandments" "land of the Pharaohs" "Ben Hur" and it's overlooked today.How unfair!Based on Mika Waltari's mammoth novel ,it doesn't cheapen it!Waltari's novel was so huge only a miniseries could have done it justice (I hope it will be done some day).Waltari,whose message is essentially Christian remains intact(another of his books "the secret of the kingdom" (first part) takes place after Christ's death in the Holy Land).

"The Egyptian" is the rising of a monotheism close to Christianism long before Christ:the Pharaoh(Wilding) is some kind of Messiah who sacrifices his life because he knows that the true kingdom is not in the material world:he asks to return good for evil!And he has disciples ,who will eventually turn into martyrs (the scene when Simmons and the other worshippers of the Sun God are slain is visually stunning,looking like some pagan ballet).For the priests ,on the other hand,this new religion would mean the end of their influence on the populace,and that's why they look for a strong man (Mature)who can lead the army against the Hittites as well as against their dangerous compatriots.Another religion,or non-religion should we say, is Sinouhé's (Purdom)who during two hours believes in nothing (the sequence of the grain of sands is absolutely sensational and rises the whole movie well above the average peplum !!)

There's another fascinating side:the movie looks like a flamboyant melodrama.Not only for the screenplay (notably pharoah's sister's (Tierney)final revelation which predates "the ten commandments" by two years),but also the splendor of the cinematography:Viviani ,in his book about Curtiz,talks about a Baudelairian atmosphere ,blue and gold,notably in the scenes which involve the prostitute (Darvi)who contemplates her reflection in the water of her bath,supreme narcissism. Around the hero,all the characters appear,disappear,appear again,but when they reappear ,they have followed their way and all the subplots come together with consummate skill.Besides,as such is often the case in "modern " melodramas ,the story is a long flashback,framed by two short sequences showing Sinouhé an old man who's remembering.

This is a wonderful sword and sandals,that had a strong influence,not only in America but also in Europa,notably in Poland where Jerzy Kawalerowicz directed a spellbinding "faraon" (1966) which owed a lot to Curtiz.


I was on my way out one morning when I was checking something on the T.V. and came across this film. I don't ever remember seeing this or hearing of it. What a fun and interesting one to watch. Well, my meeting was pushed back, because I couldn't get out of this film. It had some real interesting things in it that marked it's time in history, and some fun things that they don't have people do in today's film because it's not pretty. Well, there was a lot of realism in it. The acting was good for a 1954 film. Subtle and genuine actions on the part of the characters that had me watching what they were going to do next. That is why I ended up watching it. I don't know why they don't show it more often. I would rather watch this than some films they play more than necessary. For history buffs, people who like period films, and those that are in the film appreciation groups will like this one. "The Egyptian" has a variety of flavors dealing with a lot of things to look at in human nature that has not changed since it's time. What does that say about us? Those that don't like movies that take their time to unfold and tell a good story....are not into film.

I haven't had the time to rent it if it is available, but if I get a chance to see it again, I would probably vote it a 10.


"The Egyptian" is set during the reign of one of the most fascinating figures of the ancient world, the Pharaoh Akhnaton, who, thirteen centuries before Christ attempted to introduce a monotheistic religion, Atenism, to ancient Egypt. The main character, however, is not Akhnaton but rather the fictitious Sinuhe. As a baby, Sinuhe is found mysteriously floating in a basket on the river Nile and adopted by the physician Senmut and his wife. When he grows to manhood, he follows his adopted father into the medical profession, initially working (as his father did) among the poor of the city, but he comes to prominence after he and his friend, the ambitious young soldier Horemheb, save the Pharaoh's life while on a hunting expedition in the desert. Sinuhe is appointed Court physician, but becomes obsessed with the Babylonian courtesan Nefer. Sinuhe not only ruins himself in a vain attempt to win her love, but is also disgraced when his neglect of his duties means that he is unable to save the life of Akhnaton's daughter.

Sinuhe flees into exile, where he achieves success as a healer in neighbouring countries, but returns to Egypt when he learns of a Hittite plot to invade. Although Akhnaton readily forgives him for his previous offences, Sinuhe finds the country in turmoil. The Pharaoh's attempts to introduce a new religion have led to civil strife between his followers and those of the priests of the old polytheistic faith, and he is too pacific by nature to take any steps to confront the Hittite threat. Sinuhe becomes embroiled in a plot by Horemheb, now the general of the Egyptian army, and Akhnaton's sister Princess Baketamon to overthrow the Pharaoh and replace him with a more effective monarch.

The film's weaknesses arise mostly from its two romantic subplots. In the course of the film, Sinuhe is revealed as the long-lost son of the previous Pharaoh and half-brother to Akhnaton and Baketamon. It might therefore surprise a modern audience that she should fall in love with him; marriage between brothers and sisters were not necessarily considered as incestuous by the standards of Egyptian royalty, but the standards of 1950s cinema audiences were generally less liberal on this point. In any case, the Horemheb-Baketamon-Sinuhe love triangle is an unnecessary complication and detracts from Baketamon's role in the film, that of the voice of cold-eyed, cynical Realpolitik.

The Nefer subplot, which takes up most of the first hour of the film, is overwritten and excessively melodramatic. Nefer is morally worthless but fascinating, and the role needed an actress of great beauty and also great dramatic skill to make her credible, especially as Nefer achieves the difficult task of winning Sinuhe away from a woman as lovely as Jean Simmons (who plays Merit, Sinuhe's rival for her affections). It is therefore unfortunate that the role went to an actress as comically inept as Bella Darvi, whose only qualification was that she was the mistress of the producer, Darryl F. Zanuck. Darvi was not only a wooden actress, but also spoke with a thick foreign accent, made even more incomprehensible by a lisp. She was not even particularly attractive by comparison with the two legendary Hollywood beauties in the film, Simmons and Gene Tierney who plays Baketamon.

The film is better when it concentrates on its main political and religious themes. The other actors are better than Darvi, although Peter Ustinov as Sinuhe's servant Kaptah makes the same mistake as in "Spartacus", that of trying to bring comic relief into a film that does not need it. His voice, anyway, was far too patrician for a "comic servant" role.

Edmund Purdom, a little-known British actor, was thrust into the main role when Marlon Brando pulled out at the last minute, but more than adequately fills the great man's shoes, even though his style of acting was quite different. He copes well with the challenge of showing the changes in Sinuhe's character, from unworldly idealist, to lovesick fool, to embittered cynic to the enlightened visionary of the final scenes. Victor Mature was never the most expressive of actors, but he is well-suited to the role of Horemheb, a practical, down-to-earth man of action. He is better here than he was in his other epic from 1954, "Demetrius and the Gladiators". Simmons is luminously beautiful as Merit.

Michael Wilding (hitherto best known to me as the second Mr Elizabeth Taylor) plays Akhnaton as a would-be philosopher-king who ends as a sort of holy fool. His inability to make difficult decisions makes him an unsuitable ruler, but he has a prophetic vision of peace and justice which lend him an air of moral greatness far beyond those who hope to replace him on the throne. Although Aten had more in common with the Supreme Being of the Deists than with the Old Testament Jehovah or the Trinitarian Christian God, there is a quite deliberate attempt to draw parallels between Atenism and Christianity. In the film the Atenist symbol is the "ankh", doubtless chosen because of its resemblance to a cross, but in reality it was a common Egyptian hieroglyph for life, not unique to Atenism. Akhnaton's language often has a Biblical ring to it; his comparison of himself to "wind whistling in the desert" recalls John the Baptist's "voice crying in the wilderness" (hence the title of this review). Sinuhe's finding in the river parallels the Old Testament story of Moses.

At the end of the film Sinuhe, who has become the inheritor of the spirit of the dead Akhnaton, achieves a moral greatness of his own. The message of the film is that, while we may need practical men of action like Horemheb, we also need visionaries and thinkers who are prepared to ask the question "why?" For all its faults, "The Egyptian" is a film which is idealistic and humane in its approach to both religion and politics. 7/10


There are many film now on DVD, but producers had forgotten some tittles of importance to many moviegoers. The Egyptian, along with El Cid and other favorites of the era of the wide screen, big budget epics had merit. Many people from my generation learn a lot about history of Egypt, medieval Spain and even the Incas, (The first time I heard from them was a very cheap adventure movie with Charlton Heston called The Treasure of the Incas), same happened to me with Egypt, or Rome seen many "bad" epics of the era. many production values, excellent use of color (The De Luxe color was more Brigit and sharp that the ordinary Technicolor), maybe the cast was wrong but in any case, the film did manèged to give us idea of the life in ancient Egyptin and was in a way the motor to go out and buy the novel, my Mika Waltari, one of the best, if not the best historical-novel ever published. Also oust anding was the superb score by Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann. I saw this film many times when I was a boy, it was not the big box office hit that Fox studios wanted to afther The Robe enormous hit, in CinemaScope and Stereo was a wonderful eye popping sp4ectacle. I have the Lasser Disc version.m the only way to see Ito its wdisescreen format. Soon i Hope will appeared.


I would give this movie high marks for the cinema-photography and performances. I just read a user comment concerning the performance of the actress who plays a conniving courtesan who fleeces Sinuoeh, the lead character. I remember a mini-biography of this actress following the movie the last time I saw it. Apparently, she was a Holocaust refugee, discovered by a French husband and wife in the movie industry who were taken with her extraordinary beauty. She died very young and under tragic circumstances. Gene Tierney is also outstanding in this film. Like other neo-Biblical films of the 1940's and 50s, "The Egyptian" reflects the morals and values of that time, but is still great entertainment because the performances are terrific and the story so well told.


I saw this movie back in 1954 on a double-bill with "Valley of the Kings." These movies helped inspire a lifelong interest in Egyptology. (In 1975 I visited Egypt!) Seen today, "The Egyptian" suffers from flat dialog and a few gauche touches, but it's a glorious movie to look at -- the sort of thing Hollywood, alas, just doesn't do anymore -- and it has a great story... not just the usual boy-meets-girl or vengeance-is-mine affair. Too bad 20th won't re-issue restored prints of this to be seen on the Big Screen.


This was the second Cinemascope spectacle that Fox produced after the Robe. Notice how some of the Roman sets are redressed to pass for Egyptian sets. The film is produced with all first class elements, beautiful photography, stirring soundtrack (Alfred Newman and Bernard Herrmann - see if you can tell which composer scored specific scenes). However, the principal acting is a bit weak. Edmund Purdom seems to have a limited range of emotions and is uninteresting to watch. The best performances come from Peter Ustinov as the one-eyed slave and Polish actress Bella Darvi as the Babylonian temptress "Nefer". I find this movie in general to be strong on plot which is rare for these large spectacles produced at the time. All in all, the film does an interesting and entertaining job of social commentary on what Egyptian society might have looked like.


I'll bet I watch this film 4 or 5 times a year, and will do so more often, now that the Hollyweird moguls have seen fit to put it on DVD, because it's a Classic with a capital "C"! This film is timeless! How can people pay $10.00 nowadays to see the JUNK that comes out of Hollyweird with movies like THE Egyptian; THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; BEN HUR; CAPTAIN NEWMAN MD on tape; DVD; and cable movie channels; I could go on forever, but this film is so great, and for a relative unknown, Edmund Purdom carries the movie like Atlas carried the world. The story is wonderful, the acting is first-rate, and the graphics at the end are so powerful, you sit in your seat for a few minutes, just trying to let the words sink in! Really a knockout of a film. I'd give this one 15 stars if they'd let me! They don't make them like this anymore, But they should!!!!!


Personally, I regard "The Egyptian" in an extremely favourable light.

It was introduced to me by a well-known Australian movie commenter & critic named Bill who was renowned for his insight & broad vision of people & places & particularly of films. This movie fitted the Bill perfectly & I came to appreciate his commentary & enthusiasm for this movie that emerged all the more as I watched it, as I was literally drawn into it, minute by minute, beyond his introductory comments, on my initial viewing many years ago.

To me, it was propelled, layer upon layer, within half an hour, into an intriguing & fascinating production! Yes, I am aware of its flaws! But it was so enticing  the young man of idealism learning from & inspired by his father  the peasant treated like rubbish in his suffering  the opportunistic friend however flawed but nonetheless loved by his friend, the central character Sinute  and to be sure, a flawed hero too, like so many across humanity of all societies & across all timebut lovable & worthy of love too! Yes, I believe in a Christian God, but too, I acknowledge the rights & respect that should be due ANY human being of good heart, who would not or will not disrespect the rights of his fellowman without just cause. As such, I endorse this film & its presentation of a man of good heart & conviction in his belief in the sun-god he was devoted to. Such people will always be welcome in my world vision, and hopefully, in many more beyond.

So too, the drama in the ensuing movie I have watched often as surely as it has touched my heart & soul, as surely as it seems to have infuriated critics in its era. It is captivating, watching the struggles & grief & loves of Sinute, the physician! When I watch it again, I am always reminded of my friend in heart Bill, the film critic, who dared to oppose ALL the critics long ago who rubbished it. He added criticism of too many critics  that they make statues to honour stars, on the screen or in history, but they do not make statues to honour critics! And beyond all this, I am reminded with each viewing of a SUPERB & TOUCHING spectacle, of a beautiful & well-presented drama, that was not just relevant to the 1950s or some bygone era. It was meant for YOU & ME, across time & place, to every man & woman & child & to their personal aspirations for love & freedom & overcoming obstacles to misunderstanding & gross injustice & tragedy appealing to those of simple faith of many religions, that it seems too many regard as cause for war! Take a night off from invitations or unjust violence, from bigotry & judgemental attacks on others injustly executed & consider the merits of this offering. Not to the sun god, or to power that proves time & again to be so transcient .. let this OUTSTANDING movie wash over you, like waves onto a beach, like the passing hands of time  like life was meant to be. And maybe, you will find yourself carried into its world of possibilities! Lost offerings no more! 9.9 out of 10!


How do these guys keep going? They're about 50 years old each, and act as if they're only 30. They play 3 hours of music at every concert, and barely break a sweat. This DVD is their first concert in Rio, Brazil. Although the people don't speak English, they try to memorize the words to the most famous Rush songs, and try to sing a foreign language at the concert with their best friends.

From Tom Sawyer to The Spirit of Radio, this concert DVD will keep you in the chair not wanting to pause or move away from the classics that you've listened to when you were young. This is their 30th reunion tour (started in 1974). I went to their Scranton PA concert, and this was just as good, although in PA they didn't play Freewill, so I was upset.

They have Freewill, they have The Trees, they have YYZ, The Pass, Driven, Dreamline, Red Sector A, Limelight, Roll the Bones, 2112, and much more. 10 out of 10, because nothing else compares. If you never go to a Rush concert, then at least buy this DVD.


This DVD will be treated with indifference by mllions of classic rock music devotees across the world because Rush just aren't cool. It is a shame that Rush have had to overcome sneering disdain from the majority of North American and British music journalists over their thirty odd year history as this has deprived many people the chance to get into a real band.Each of the last four decades are well represented here and what a catalogue of songs it is! We have the seminal "2112", the magical "The Trees" and the lyrical "Tom Sawyer" interspersed with the high-energy, genre-challenging pieces from their latest album "Vapor Trails." The musicianship is almost flawless, the stage show is spectacular and the Brazilian fans are just plain crazy (at one point they sing along to an instrumental!)Each band member plays at a level that defies belief-real craftsmen performing art.If you doubt this try out the instrumentals "La Villa Strangiato" or "The Rhythm Method" for size-and yes the latter is a drum solo (which has to be seen to be believed.)

Sound and vision production values are very high as befits the Rush experience and you also get a documentary and multi-angled set pieces to boot.

This is an astonishing performance and tribute to the Canadian rockers and all serious classic rock fans should own a copy.


This much anticipated DVD memento of Rush's visit to South America in 2002 is possibly the finest rock video ever set down on disc.The picture and sound production values are amazing,even more so as they constantly battled the elements to bring this production off. All the tracks you would expect from the RUSH catalogue are here from Tom Sawyer to The Pass gloriously reproduced for the frankly,orgiastic Brazilian crowd.They actually singalong to YYZ-which is an instrumental, and gives you an indication of their fervour!The first disc is the concert and the second disc contains 3 multi angle set-pieces -la Villa Strangiato,YYZ and the awesome drum solo, plus a 30 minute documentary about the bands visit to Brazil. All in all this is a triumph and all serious classic rock fans should own a copy.


A long overdue concert release, Rush-in-Rio DVD is both compelling and disappointing. This slick two-disc set shows Rush at their finest. After 30 years of honing their unique sound, it's great to have this record of one of the most talented rock bands ever.

The concert features over two dozen songs, a documentary, and three songs that feature multi-angle viewing. Packaged in a bi-fold holder with sleeve and a small insert, it's priced very well for the amount of material it contains.

I'm a Rush fan of the late seventies to early eighties period, and this DVD comes through big, with half of the show highlighting songs from that era. I won't list the songs, in case you want to be surprised. If you attended the Vapor Trails tour, then you'll know what they'll be playing.

Playing in Rio to their biggest crowd ever, Rush is a huge crowd pleaser here. In fact, that was one of the first things I noticed that was peculiar about this show. Throughout most of this two hour concert, you hear and see the crowd, actively chanting and dancing wildly to the music. At first, it's heartening to see the fans give Rush a well deserved response. But after several songs, I was ready to hear and see more of the band and less of the crowd. This is in no way a slam of the crowd of Rio. More power to them! It's a critique of the final editing of the DVD.

Which brings me to my second and main reason "I hate it". The video editing is terrible in my opinion. Save for the multi-angle view bonus cuts, the entire show is a frenzy of visual chaos. It's like the director wanted to see how spastic he could make it. I count changing camera angles, on average, between every one and four seconds, constantly! After about three or four songs, my head and eyes were ready for a break. Which is too bad, because I would have liked to have sat through the whole show, like I was able to at the concert last year. Maybe this fast-cut editing is the latest craze for concert DVD's, but I really think it's an annoyance and detraction from the overall experience. As stated before, I wouldn't mind it for a song or two, but the whole visual aspect of this disc is hurried, or RUSHed. It's really ironic, because all the previous concert clips I've seen of Rush, mainly from Moving Pictures, are strictly straight-filmed, with little switching back and forth. It's almost boring, visually speaking. This DVD has taken it to the other extreme. I know a lot of dyed-in-the-wool Rush fans will vehemently disagree with my statements, but that's just my impression of it.

The bottom line: If you're a Rush fan, you'll buy this DVD regardless of my review, or any other. I still would have bought it after I had read my review. Just don't get expect a "normal" concert. Who knows, the things mentioned above might not bother you.


I have been a "huge" rush fan ever since "moving pictures" and this concert is simply and example to everyone who is a fan why Rush is so popular. They completely admitted to playing their biggest concert yet, and, despite the rain in a soccer arena, they still manage to give an outstanding performance from start to finish. A real example of this is during "yyz" the entire crowd start to sing along to it in a real classic manner, in perfect sinc. They really play all of everyone's favorite songs with a real powerful "lust" that rarely happens anymore. You get the best seat in the house for one of their best concerts given. The second DVD is a fascinating documentary of the band while they are in brazil and shows you a lot of the backstage things going on and it allows you to see them not just a musicians but as actual people in their everyday life. This DVD gift set is a must for any Rush fan young and old and is definitely a keeper for your DVD collection. Their is even a cd of the concert for those who just want to listen to the music. This DVD is worth it!


"Rush in Rio" is, no doubt, one of the most exciting DVDs I have purchased. Although I am a biased Rush fan of almost 20 years, I found this performance to be flawless. The music is heavy and sharp (which sounds great on any surround sound system), the band is energetic, the crowd has a constant smile... it's like they were able to capture every concert I've been to. For any Rush fan, this DVD is a must; if anything, just to see the "Boys in Brazil" documentary (which reveals the travels of this rather isolated, personal band). For any non-Rush fan, this DVD is an enjoyable concert. Rush fans know the talent of these three Canadians. We have rather firmly stood by them for years. I've shown this DVD (or portions of it, anyway) to those who have never heard of Rush, or those who think Rush is less than good because they do not appeal to the pessimistic masses of rock (i.e., sex, drugs, and a drunken frenzy). The bottom line is this DVD is worth every penny and more than worth the time to view it.


Having seen Rush live, I'm able to appreciate the awesomeness of this. Others may complain of sound problems, but it's sometimes over dubbed by the overwhelming screams of 60,000 Brazilians and it goes to show the band's territorial gain of attention


I purchased this DVD recently and I was totally awed that Rush's songs sound the same as they did when I first listened to them in 1980. The lineup of Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart is so talented that I want to listed to them play again and again.

Songs I remember like Tom Sawyer, XYZ, The Big Money, The Trees, Freewill, Closer to the Heart, 2112, Limelight, and The Spirit of Radio were played and the 40000 plus fans there singing along and having a great time and I swear over half the audience was under 25!

Writers who put down Rush as far as Rush fans like myself are concerned are a bunch of jealous dunderheads who like to taste rancid sour cream mixed with lemonade in a taco.

Rush doesn't put on makeup, wear spikes, lip sync,wear lipstick, get in trouble with the law, and have a band member brag about how long they have been unmarried. All they do is entertain!

I give this DVD a 100 out of 100.


Rush in Rio is simply an amazing DVD. This concert is one of the peak moments of the history of Rush and they deliver their music brilliantly and with more power than ever.

I was lucky enough to actually be in this concert, and not only that, I was in the very first row grabbing the gate that separated the audience from the stage!! It's the first and only time I've seen a Rush concert live and it was a dream come true for me. I have no words to accurately describe this experience but I can tell you it is one of the highlights of my life.

Some people complain about the sound of this DVD saying it is not very clear and polished, but the sound you listen is real, true to how it was in the concert. It is raw and powerful and so authentic that every time I watch it I go back and re-live that beautiful moment. Many artists record live shows and then they make a lot of tweaking, so the final product is far from what the actual concert really was. Sure you can achieve a very sophisticated and polished sound this way but you don't get the real thing. This is not the case with Rush in Rio, this is the real deal!! I admit that I enjoy those fancy sounding concert DVD's, I love music and the sound is a very important aspect, but it's refreshing to listen to a concert that is so honest. You listen to Rush just the way they sound in a live performance, no tricks, no tweaks. This is a real live concert DVD.

I highly recommend Rush in Rio, the set-list is fantastic and the performances by Geddy, Alex and Neil are mind-blowing. Not to mention the crowd, you can see how much they love Rush and sing along to every tune, even YYZ which is an instrumental!! I actually appear singing twice; in Tom Sawyer I sing "always hopeful yet discontent" and in Earthshine I sing "only reflect". It's just a few seconds but I simply couldn't believe my eyes when I saw myself in a rush DVD!! Awesome!! I hope you enjoy this magnificent concert from the greatest band on Earth.


These guys are excellent and anything they put out to the public is first class. The musicianship of this band is amazing and we should all be very thankful we live in a world where Rush exists. Future generations will never be able to see such mastery live and in person. Get this DVD and you will enjoy it throughly!! I was recently able to see these incredible musicians play in Houston, TX and was blown away. I have not missed a show since power windows and I have to say that they are better than ever. Everyone should embrace these guys and teach others what real musicianship is! There will never be such a tight and well put together trio again in our lifetime. Lets just hope and pray that they do not retire anytime soon!


After searching for 6 months, I finally found this DVD. All I can say is it was damn well worth the wait! "Rush in Rio" may very well be the greatest rock DVD in existence. I'm not joking. It's incredible! All the fuss about the sound being crappy is true, however it doesn't make the concert unwatchable. I find it makes you feel like you're actually in Rio watching the concert from the audience. That's one of the reasons I love this DVD. It makes you feel like you're actually there. Also, Geddy, Alex and Neil have never been in better form! Geddy's vocals are flawless, Alex's guitar playing is still incredible, and Neil - absolutely no words to say. The camera work on this concert was very good I must say. They gave us a good look at everything that was going on on-stage, and in the audience. Kudos to the cameramen! Anyways, enough of my raving! Go watch "Rush in Rio" for yourself. You will be amazed. I guarantee it.

10/10


Admittedly Alex has become a little podgey, but they are still (for me) the greatest rock trio, ever. I wholeheartedly recommend this DVD to any fan.

I was very disappointed that they canceled their planned recent Munich gig (logistics) and regret not making an effort to see them elsewhere. The DVD is a small consolation - the greatest incentive to acquire a proper DVD playback setup.

Naive perhaps, but I still don't understand the significance of the tumble-driers on-stage; I would be grateful for any clarification.

Cheers, Iain.


This is a great concert which featured the best songs of the band's 30 year career. Lee, Lifeson, and Peart were animated and fun on stage and delivered a great show. That being said, I think the audio recording was botched at the mixing console and/or through the miking process. This is not the fault of the boys however. They even mentioned that the show was setup last-minute, so the band and their crew obviously did their best. They just shouldn't have put the show out for public consumption. Neil's snare sounds distant and Geddy's bass has good harmonic content, but no bottom end at all!! They should have held out on this concert and waited for a better occasion. Only buy this DVD if you are a hardcore Rushian. The quality is lacking in the audio department.


Onstage John Osborne's adaptation of "Picture of Dorian Gray" is a fine tribute to Oscar Wilde's talents as both novelist and playwright.On screen with some editing it becomes a bit sloppy due to the cutting of 3 crucial scenes from the play (one being an important scene between Basil and Henry showing that time has passed.)The acting however is brilliant. Sir john Gielgud return's to his Wilde roots as lord Henry,and although about a decade too old for the role,he totally becomes the enigmatic,life loving cad and cynic that Wilde brought to life so meticulously in his novella. Jeremy Brett is also strong,offering a touching portrait of the anguished artist Basil Hallward.Peter Firth,while not originally my vision of Dorian, handles the role with style and grace...and later with a convincing strain of cruelty. The supporting cast is equally fine, Gielgud's former 'Importance Of Being Earnest" co-star Gwen Francon-Davies plays his philanthropic Aunt Agatha with dignity and Judi Bowker makes a touching Sybil Vane. The wit,pathos and tension of Wilde's work have been remarkably transferred to the screen. My only other qualm is with the hair styles. Many of them seemed out of place,looking more like 1970's versions of Victorian hairdos rather than the actual style. Overall however,the acting and writing elevates this production to a high level of small screen excellence.


In dramatising Wilde's novel, John Osborne has condensed events, eliminated a number of characters, and generally implied rather than shown Dorian's essential wickedness. If you want a more explicit rendering, see the 1945 film. Wilde and Robert Louis Stevenson lived in about the same time frame, but were certainly vastly different men and writers. This story really treats of a theme similar to Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", but note that Wilde chose to treat his story as fantasy, whereas RLS took the scientific route. Both the protagonists are men in whom good wars with evil, with evil winning in the end.

The actors in this BBC movie, take a different route, too, from those in the 1945 film. John Gielgud says all the same caustic and cynical quips as George Sanders, in his role really projecting Wilde himself, but with a subtle difference. You'll suspect that Sanders really believed what he was saying, but Gielgud may be saying what is expected of him rather than what he sincerely believes. Peter Firth, too, shows the two sides of his character in restrained fashion, but then we don't get to see as many of his escapades as Hurd Hatfield had a chance to display.

It's a very good production, with the dramatisation reflecting the essentials of the novel, if not all of its ramifications.


I enjoyed this film and after it finished it still makes you think about it. I believe Jeremy Brett is brilliant in this role although his "death" acting was a little over the top, but as its Jeremy Brett I didn't mind.

This is a good piece of drama and does follow Oscar Wildes novel very closely. If you enjoy this film then I recommend you also watch "An Ideal Husband" with Jeremy Brett as Lord Goring.

This film gives a great insight into Oscar Wildes way of thinking.And while watching it the viewer is reminded of how in a way Dorian Grey is Lord Alfred 'bosie' Douglas and Basil Halward is Oscar Wilde.


I will always think of Mr. Firth as Dorian Gray, if I live to be 100.

Perfectly acted and directed, bringing Oscar Wilde's insight, wit and humor alive with an absolute and utter perfection unusual in television.

More proof that the BBC more than makes up in talent what it doesn't always have in money.

A must have for all Wilde fans-and indeed for everyone else. Inspired and perfected, every one of the actors looked exactly right for the role and every shot was well done.

By the end I found that I loved every single character in a way that no other movie of the type had ever inspired. Watch it, then try to watch another version. It's just not the same, is it?


Playwright John Osborne's (Look Back in Anger, The Entertainer) dramatisation of Oscar Wilde's only novel positively revels in the homosexual subtext of the original, perhaps too much so. Nonetheless, the dialogue, the acting, with a cast headed by Sir John Gielgud & Jeremy Brett, and the brilliantly cerebral production (marred only by a "too quick" ending) make this worth the while of any lover of Theater, with a capital "T".


The problem with other actors cast in the rôle of Dorian Gray is that they either looked too old for the part (Hurd Hatfield, Helmut Berger, Josh Duhamel, David Gallagher, Ben Barnes) or that they were unable to pull off the English aristocratic manner without being stilted. Dorian is the perpetual 19-year-old (or so), all milky skin and honey'd locks, as described by Wilde, so the challenge is finding an actor that has the maturity and range for the part (i.e., who can portray the naivité, callousness, and manipulativeness), but at the same time looks like someone in his late teens. And Peter Firth pulls it all off in this excellent British TV adaptation.

Gielgud as Henry Wotton, while considerably older than what Wilde had in mind, does wonders with his scenes--Wilde's aphorisms have never sounded so natural and unforced. Especially George Sanders in the 1945 version was pretty feeble by comparison (and his costume didn't fit).

Finally, Jeremy Bratt plays Basil as the most masculine and at the same time the most gay of the trio, again a fitting interpretation. In general, the film includes enough gay subtext without turning Dorian himself gay--he's all things to all people and supposedly there's no drug or sexual perversion he hasn't tried in the 18 years covered by the story, but that makes him more narcist than homosexual. He seems to equally wreak havoc on both sexes here, as he should according to the novel.

Of course the budget of this production was not very large, so everything feels a little stagey. Particularly Dorian's encounter with Sybil's brother suffers from the obvious studio look. Also, the final shot of Dorian (a puppet I suppose) in his white toad-like make-up is more hilarious than convincing and Basil's death scene is inadvertently funny. (Also, as far as I recall, Basil should have been killed seated at the table.)

But all in all, this is a very worthy adaptation. I'm sure Wilde would have liked it. The only thing missing is the sensual side. Not so much sex scenes, but Wilde's decadent world of fragrant flowers, luxurious cloths, and precious gems isn't really explored here, i.e. the aestheticism is completely missing. But like "I, Claudius", the excellent acting makes one easily forget these shortcomings of production values.


This, ladies and gentlemen, is truly a modern B-movie. The dialog is stilted and delivered with wooden rigidity, the premise is predictable (there are a few decent twists) and characters remain 2D for most of it. And yet there is a certain...charm. WWE wrestler Kane brings to life the sick, twisted monster of a man with a lot of pathos (though it is somewhat like his character that he's been playing around ten years) and so I'll find it quite amusing when people say it's "not much of a reach for him," but Glen Jacobs is, apparently, quite the nice guy, so actually it is. In any event, he's cast perfectly as the hulking brute and the deaths are suitably over the top (Jason would be proud), but I heard at least four applause breaks for four different kills scenes. Frankly go into this movie thinking that you'll have some fun and a gorefest, oh it is QUITE the gorefest. The R-rating IS richly deserved and I actually got a little nauseous during some of the more graphic times. In any event, a very, very fun, but fairly bad, movie.


I was expecting this movie to suck, but what I got was a pretty good slasher/gore film. Most of the death scenes are adequately brutal. The teens are decent, with Penny McNamee definitely the best of the bunch. Rachael Taylor looks like a young Christie Brinkley, but doesn't bring much to the movie other than that. Kane was good as the killer, and is totally believable as a fearsome juggernaut. I saw the "twist" coming from miles away, but I still enjoyed the movie.

But what really stood out to me was the direction. Gregory Dark might actually have a career in legit film ahead of him. Aside from overusing the horror film "speed cam"(you know, where like the guy's face shakes all fast?), there's some good shots here. The camera angles and environments really emphasize Kane's size, making him look even bigger than he actually is.

If you're looking for deep story or characters, this ain't it. But that's not what slasher films are about. If you're looking for some good violence, or if you're into gory films, go check this out!


So the WWE has done it. They have poured over into film;their first one being See No Evil, starring their very own Kane. I caught this movie and went in not expecting it to be a great film...It just seemed to cliché and looked like nothing new. To my surprise it actually wasn't half bad. A viewer stated above that it is good B-horror movie fun, and honestly thats the best way to describe it. Now the question I was asking myself was how was Kane going to hold up...Well let's just say he made an absolute bad ass out of the 'Jacob Goodnight' character. He sold the role really well, and really did look menacing. But what can you expect from someone who is almost 7 feet tall and weighs around 320 in solid muscle. The acting was decent, and the story was nothing new of course, but we all know that. The directing as well as the cinematography was done very well and the hotel backdrop really looked dilapidated and well done. Considering this was directed by a porn movie director, I was quite surprised. I'd recommend this movie if you're looking for mindless gore and killing and just some overall fun. Think of this movie as a modern day latter Friday the 13th film. And save room for the ending too, cuz it's a good one. And stick around after the credits too...


A dangerous psychopathic killer Jacob Goodnight is holed up in the abandoned and rotting Blackwell Hotel,alone with his nightmares until eight teenage delinquents show up for community service duty along with the cop who wounded Jacob four years ago.When one of their own is kidnapped by the killer and her fate uncertain,the remaining petty criminals must fight for their lives..."See No Evil" was directed by the porno filmmaker Gregory Dark and it stars WWE superstar Kane as remorseless psychopath.The supporting cast is terrible and there are no surprises to be found here,but there is enough extreme violence and gore for slasher fans to enjoy.Overall,I liked this film and you should too,if you are into mindless slasher flicks.Sure,it's cliché,but who cares.7 out of 10.


Well, I'm a few days late but what the hell....! Anyways, the word that best describes my reaction to "See No Evil" was....SURPRISE. The film is actually pretty good. There is definitely an ample amount of blood, gore & action in the film with a modest amount of suspense. It hearkens back to the good ole' slasher days of the late 70's & early 80s. Think "Madman" meets Leatherface with a dash of Norman Bates and you'll get a good feel for this flick. While SNE is thin on plot (most horror films are), it kind of makes up for it in the violence/methods of killing, the gore, suspense & the fact that Kane does a great job of playing the highly disturbed Jacob Goodnight. The title of the film comes from the fact that Jacob plucks out the eyes of his victims using just his fingers & stores them in big jars. Why?? You'll just have to watch it & see (pun intended). There are certain cinematic elements lifted from other horror films most notably Psycho, TCM, & Madman but they're not blatant. Finally, SNE really doesn't go into territory we long timers haven't seen before & granted, SNE is no "Pyscho" or "TCM 74" but it certainly merits a look imo.

BloodStone's Recommendation: Take in a matinée showing of "See No Evil" Bloodstone's Rating: 7.5/10


See No Evil is the first film from WWE films. Yes WWE, Word Wrestling Entertainment, pro wrestling. Of course being that it's a WWE film a wrestler has to star in it, the wrestler being Glenn Jacobs aka Kane. Which is not really important as if you didn't know Kane or what WWE stood for you would never know it had anything to do with the wild word of wrestling, as the movie has nothing to do with wrestling. See No Evil is gross out horror film, it has some moments were the some people may jump but for the most part it's just saying, hey look how gross we can get! Not that there is anything wrong with that. Jacob Goodnight (played by Kane) is sort of a Jason type character, his mother tortured him as a kid with strict (understatement) Christian beliefs and has warped his mind. Now he's a big scary chopping killing machine. 90% of the movie takes place in an abandon hotel where Jacob stalks six teenagers (surprised?) and a handful of adults. I could explain why they are in a creepy old hotel but eh, who cares? Despite it's lack of originality See No Evil is well made, for what it's supposed to be. Kane plays an awesome killer and needs little make up to be scary. One flaw in the movie is the most annoying possibility people survive, I really looking forward to having them being horribly killed, but alas, does not happen. I wish the film didn't have the stigma of wrestling attached to it, although like I said the film has nothing to with wrestling, people are still closed minded enough not to want to see it because, given of course if they are a wrestling hater. Then again the movie may also make money because Wrestling fans will want to see it. Either way, See No Evil has top notch effects and little CGI, and like I said, it's quite brutal so like I say it's good stuff....if you like that sort of thing.


This Horror movie is definitely one of the best ones I have seen in my life and there are many reasons why. The storyline is really good it has lots of action and great horror sequences in it The actors are not very good but there are not that bad but Kane is definitely the best actor in this but he was always a good actor also The cast is very good such as Kane as Jacob Goodnight, Christina Vidal as Christine, Michael j. Pagan as Tye, Samantha Noble as Kira etc. Also I just have to warn you that the killing scenes are very disturbing but They are very creative but that just makes it better and you can't have a horror movie without blood and gore Also they look very realistic. So I am sure that you will not be disappointed with see no evil because it is a really good movie. So make sure that you rent or buy see no evil because it is just so great.

Overall score: ********** out of **********

***** out of *****


Finally a true horror movie. This is the first time in years that I had to cover my eyes. I am a horror buff and I recommend this movie but it is quite gory. I am not a big wrestling fan but Kane really pulled the whole monster thing off. I have to admit that I didn't want to see this movie, my 17 year old dragged me to it, but am very glad I did. During and after the movie I was looking over my shoulder. I have to agree with others about the whole remake horror movies enough is enough. I think that is why this movie is getting some good reviews. It is a refreshing change and takes you back to The Texas Chainsaw ( first one), Michael Myers, and Jason. And no CGI crap.


There's a brand new killer on the loose, and he's doing God's work. Yeah right! This killer makes Jason Voorhes look like a chump, and Freddy Krueger look like a rag doll against this dude. He is Jacob Goodnight(WWE's Glen "KANE" Jacobs), a 7' monster who wields a Axe, and a hook and chain. Those weapons are nothing to him his real finisher is ripping out eyeballs from the victims sockets. That is totally methodical! When the encounter happened 4 years earlier, Jacob killed a rookie cop and maimed the veteran after putting a bullet in his head. How on Earth did Goodnight survive after 4 years? Now he's in the condemned hotel called Blackwell. And this hotel got a lot of stories to tell. I thought this movie was haunting as well as interesting. I liked the part where Goodnight checked out one of the girl's tattoo on her back. And Goodnight himself is really deranged thanks to his maniacal mother. If you think Friday the 13th was something, you better think again. This movie will leave you on the edge of you seat. And I think the eyeball rip was bone-chilling. This movie proves it point,and it wasn't a waste of my time. I enjoyed it. The title don't lie! Rating 2.5 out of 5 stars!


Kane is a killer named Jacob Goodnight, he lives in this burned down old hotel, where eight teen convicts go to do some cleaning. Most of them die except for 3 of them. In my case it wasn't the best writing or the best ever. I still thought that the killing scenes were really well done. Like when the one girl go eaten by the hungry dogs. The best had to be when he shoved the cell phone down the Blonde Girl's mouth. Kane was a seriously great horror movie actor, he had this serious look the entire movie and it would never change. That was his only look the entire movie. Great action and killing scenes, I don't think I could give it a full 10 out of 10, but 6 seems good.


See No Evil With Kane. The Movie Has a great storyline But it just wasn't a Hide my eye's, Scream Out Loud Horror Flick I thought it was going to be from watching the WWE Superstars on Monday Night Raw When The Movie First Came To Theaters. I Did ENJOY The Movie Though I Loved The Story It Played Out.

GREAT MOVIE EXCELLENT WOULD LIKE TO SEE A PART 2

It Doesn't Matter If Kane Gets Killed At The End

Or Not They Have Killed Off Other Horror Stars In Every Movie

They Have Out And They Still Comeback For More So a part 2 would

Be Very Interesting.


This is one of the best horror movies i've seen in a while. An eerie abandon house, interesting characters, gore and a twisted plot. Who could ask for anything more in a horror movie? It is pretty predictable for the most part but then again most horrors you can figure out within the first 10 minutes so I won't hold that against it. The music, camera angles and so forth are excellent. The sets are well make and very convincing. There was pretty much no subplots however, it being a horror movie too many alternate plots only take away from what were wanting from a horror anyhow... To be scared... This one keeps it pretty simple and does just that. If I were to compare it to any other movie I would say it reminded me of the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Definitely a horror movie lover must see.


I liked this a lot.

The camera angles are cool, it's not all jumpy like a Blair Witch. And I thought they did a great job with the Sound when we see things from Kane's point of view. Lots of fun. Plenty of people were shouting at the screen!

Kane did a great job with his various psycho emotions. He's a lot less one-dimensional than most horror heroes.

Kane is a lot less scary and more believable than most movie psychos. It was not clear to me how he would react to various situations. There are not many twists here, but it is clever and original in it's own way. Good, creepy, B-movie slasher fare.


This movie was so cool! I saw it on a Friday night with a couple of my friends. While the first credits were rolling, we saw that Lionsgate Films had made this movie. They are the ones that made that stupid movie Wolf Creek, which was totally gay! When we saw this, we groaned. We thought it was going to be like Wolf Creek, but we were so wrong! The movie was not only better than Wolf Creek (which really isn't that hard) it is one of the best horror movies I have seen in a long time! They really redeemed themselves with this movie. It was gory, smart, and scary, which are the combinations to an awesome horror movie. Kane is awesome as Jacob Goodnight, and Christina Vidal, Samantha Noble, and Luke Pegler did pretty good jobs as part of a group of delinquents cleaning an old motel. It had some gross scenes, and you actually kinda feel sad for some of the people who die. All in all, a great horror movie to watch on a Friday or Saturday night with the lights off and with friends. Just don't watch it in a hotel.