User Reviews (282)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    Mankiewicz shaped the characterization to suit Liz Taylor's role... The movie follows her from the father-daughter romance with Caesar to the tempestuous man-woman contretemps with Marc Antony…

    As the cunning, nubile daughter to Caesar's wise father, Liz is quite pleasing... She's expected to do much more acting as the womanly, passion-driven Queen, but she's more in control of the character when she's playing Caesar's pupil rather than Marc Anthony's teacher... Her high comedy exchanges with Harrison have quiet authority; her doomed romance with Burton never ignites…

    The brilliant script by Mankiewicz covers the eighteen years leading up to the formation of the Roman Empire, starting with Cleopatra (Elizabeth Taylor) meeting Julius Caesar (Rex Harrison) in Egypt, when he arrives as conqueror, and ending with her suicide when defeated by Rome and when her Roman general and lover Mark Anthony (Richard Burton) also ends his life…

    The visual content of the film is stunning, especially Cleopatra's entry into Rome, carried on a vast throne-platform and bringing with her the son sired into Tarsus, and the vast battle of Actium…

    The sets and costumes are among the finest ever created for the screen, but it is the literacy of Mankiewicz's script and the strength of his direction that give Cleopatra distinctions of great importance
  • Fritz Lang's Metropolis is rightly regarded as a classic, but many reviews make note of the 'illogical' story and bad character plotting. Characters come and go without rhyme or reason, and the plot makes no sense, they say. Well, yes, but that's not Fritiz's fault, nor the movie's; Metropolis makes little sense because 55 minutes of the film was hacked out and destroyed, never to be seen again, by the US distributors. Of course it's gonna be a dog's dinner with an hour missing, ya clods!!

    The same is true of Cleopatra, and this is basically the only reason the film fell flat on its' 1963 release. It was originally intended to release Cleopatra as two three hour movies, the first dealing with Cleo's relationship with Caesar, the second her affairs with Marc Antony. Fox said no to this idea, and demanded a single four hour film instead. This decision is like taking Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Trilogy and removing an hour from each film wherever an hours' worth can be removed...a recipe for incoherence and total disaster.

    So, with two hours of footage gone, major characters are reduced to glorified walk-ons, vital plot points and motivations are lost, and the story loses what LOTR has...length with the proper pacing. People will sit and watch 4 hours of Return Of The King because it flows properly. People will not sit and watch 4 hours of stitched together rough cuts...that's what Cleopatra is, even in the DVD roadshow edition...because what we have is something that is too bitty and haphzard to sustain interest.

    But there is still glory in Cleo....Roddy McDowall, Martin Landau and Rex Harrison all act their socks off, the sea battle is kick ass, and Liz Taylor looks pretty scrummy in Egyptian softcore porn clothes. And only a Gen Xer like me could love that hideously pompous overblown dialogue.

    Great film! For what it is. It just should have been TWO films, that's all. Real eyepopping trippy spectacle, done in a 'damn the money, full speed ahead' way that just doesn't happen any more. Like Casino Royale, Cleo is a wonderful disaster.
  • First of please note this is a review of the recent restored DVD version of the film not the savagely cut older version of the film.

    Having watched the documentary on this film it seems amazing this film was ever completed how the director managed to get anything even vaguely coherent to the screen is a minor miracle in itself. Cleopatra is a luscious period epic and it's clear no expense was spared on either scenery or costumes, gorgeous to look at but somehow unsatisfying at the end. The movie seems to lose it's way half way through as Rex Harrison departs so for me does the quality of this movie.

    It's difficult to tell whether this is due to over the top performances from Taylor and Burton or the forced cuts to reduce the running time. Roddy McDowell is the highlight of the 2nd half of the film and i'm sure Joaquin Phoenix must have researched his role for Gladiator here, McDowell's Octavian is chilling in the extreme. But the rest of the 2nd half of the movie descends into melodrama, where the 1st gave us the excellent Harrison restrained and regal as Ceaser the 2nd gives us real life lovers Burton and Taylor locked in an over-acted doomed romance. But throughout the film there are supporting actors giving first class performances that without the cuts would be interesting to see Martin Landau, Andrew Keir, Hume Cronyn and George Cole all have their moments it's just a shame there aren't more of them.

    If I could split my vote over the two halves of the movie the first half would get 9/10 the 2nd 6/10 as I can't I'm going with a 7/10 overall.
  • Cleopatra is a film of myths.

    A massively troubled production combined with the extraordinary love affair between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton made for plenty of hype.

    But what really matters nearly 40 years on is the film itself.

    At this distance it is possible to see the film for what it is. A grand example of the final flowering of Hollywood.

    In 1963 it seemed old fashioned compared to the excitement of European cinema and what the critics perceived as new (many of their favourite films of that era now just seem dated and pretentious).

    But Cleopatra grows in stature with time.

    It is far from flawless. And certainly the second half is somehow not right. Whether the missing two hours will reclaim this part of the film is yet to be seen.

    But compared with Gladiator or similar modern epics, Cleopatra is a brilliant film with an intelligent script, stunning design, masterly and beautiful cinematography in 70mm (which sure beats 35mm and does justice to the intricate sets and design), an evocative and effective musical score and superb costumes and makeup.

    The big three, Taylor, Burton and Harrison are extremely good and in the case of Harrison, who has many of the best lines, brilliant.

    The supporting cast and especially Roddy McDowall are equally excellent.

    Cleopatra may not be a masterpiece but it is a superbly crafted and beautiful film.

    If it fails, it fails because of our expectations.

    Sit back, put your feet up and luxuriate in a quality of film-making that you simply don't see today! .... but I have always wondered what Miss Taylor thinks of this extraordinary film?
  • It is extremely difficult to evaluate this film. On the one hand, the presentation is first class: the sets, props, costumes, location photography, and music are all of the caliber befitting the grandiose ambition of the production. I personally found the acting by the truly all-star cast to be uniformly excellent throughout with McDowall's Octavian and Harrison's Caesar deserving special mention. Taylor deserved the million dollars she got for the title role and Burton's occasional scenery chewing didn't detract significantly from his interpretation of Mark Antony. But the question remains over what might have been. I believe any true film buff would want to pass final judgment on this production only after having viewed the 6 hour plus version in order to determine whether the extensive cuts (even in the new 2 DVD four hour version) were justified. I should add that the third disc of extras contributes greatly to the appreciation (especially where the director controversy and Burton-Taylor relationship is concerned) of what was attempted.
  • I wasn't familiar with the fates of the famous figures Julius Caesar, Cleopatra and Mark-Antony so watching this served as an entertaining history lesson!

    I chose to watch it as I enjoy the massive productions of the 50's/60's Hollywood Epics so am going through them all, and in that regard it didn't disappoint: Cleopatra's entrance into Rome a particular highlight.

    Aside from the impressive production Rex Harrison & Liz Taylor were both a highly-watchable delight during the first two hours of this movie: charming, intelligent, commanding, and with a bite of agreeable humour. Their alliance, and the wider politics, were easy to follow. We got a dramatic ending to that first-half...I then waited a night before embarking on the last two hours...

    ...unfortunately the film then loses some steam: the heavy focus on Mark-Antony is a burden as his character doesn't make sense: he doesn't have the presence of Caesar so it's difficult for the viewer to be sold on his apparent grand reputation, and near every decision he makes is the wrong one. There's no sense this character is particularly special, only that we're told he is. Richard Burton himself seems confused as to how to play him. There's also too much focus on soap-opera love between him & Cleopatra, which badly affects pacing and dilutes the impressive character Cleopatra had in the first-half. Liz Taylor has less to work with, as now she's just playing a forlorn damsel rather than the quick-witted and clear-headed leader of the first-half.

    The intention of the script may be to show Mark-Antony as a poor Caesar substitute, but this it turns out is to the detriment of the character the movie is named after.

    Another issue the film's latter-half has is an unclear narrative: in one scene Cleopatra & Mark-Antony will be in bed together whispering sweet nothings, in the next it's years later, they're a thousand miles apart and Mark-Antony has married someone else. The rise & motives of Octavian are also not presented with clarity yet he is instrumental to the fates of the main characters.

    The ending had potential to be powerful but felt underwhelming: Richard Burton dialled the ham up to 11, and for Cleopatra one scene was too ambiguous (regarding Cleopatra's son, a blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene of him in a cart, and a glimpse of a certain ring) for the viewer to then readily accept her fate. An additional, or clearer, scene or dialogue would've polished that up and improved the impact of the ending.

    I'd score the first-half with Caesar & Cleopatra a good 7/10: both interesting characters who make sense, and this half has the entrance into Rome: the movie's strongest scene. The second-half is a 5/10: a bit of a slog with a diluted Cleopatra, an unimpressive Mark-Antony, and inconsistent pacing. But still fairly watchable with a few strong scenes involving boats!

    Overall 6/10: recommended only for those interested in the Epic productions of the 50's/60's, or for Roman/Cleopatra history nerds. There's not much in the way of egyptology here, and for general movie fans looking for an entertaining historical 'Romp 'n Romance' this movie may be too sluggish and illogical to enjoy.
  • Well, the REAL reason is that it cost about $270 million of today's dollars, an amount almost impossible to recoup. "Four Weddings and a Funeral" was a popular success, but it, too, would have been considered a disaster if it had cost as much as "Cleopatra" had. But "Cleopatra" didn't merely lose money. It became unloved and unmourned. Here's why.

    The successful -- or at least, the popular -- ancient world epics all combine two things: perilous situations where the fate of nations hangs in the balance, and a central story involving at least one common man. Cleopatra combines the fate of nation hanging in the balance with a story about RULERS. Thee's not a common man in sight, unless you count Marc Antony, who doesn't appear until just before the intermission, and he isn't a common man, in any case. I don't think this is necessarly a flaw. But I think it IS why "Cleopatra" is so unloved.

    The other reason, and this IS a flaw, is that Cleopatra the woman is so completely unlovable. Julius Caesar is at worst a charismatic tyrant, much easier to sympathise with than Cleopatra, who shouts constantly, is enigmatic to the point of not having any personality at all, and changes her mind not only from scene to scene, but from sentence to sentence. The scene to scene changes are the worst. I got the uncomfortable feeling that successive scenes were written by different people, who never bothered to compare notes.

    And Cleopatra's costumes! Really! I had more than one reason to be glad when Elizabeth Taylor removed her clothes. The men's and and the women's costumes were credited to different people; I would have creidted them to different galaxies, the women's costumes belonging on "Star Trek". Some of the outfits on the dancing girls were at least racy.

    Oh, yes: before I forget to state the obvious, Cleopatra was never really the main character, and the story didn't go anywhere.

    HOWEVER, you couldn't spend the equivalent of $270 million in 1963 without getting something in return. No doubt you could today, but the technology didn't exist then. The spectacle IS spectacle, and the boats, and indeed all waterside scenes, are jaw-droppingly good. Why do people object to 20th Century Fox spending so much money to give us such sights? The money doesn't come out of OUR purse. The dialogue ain't so bad, the musical score is Alex North's best (inappropriate in places, but speaking as someone who doesn't really like North's music, it was still lovely), and even the anachronistic and trashy sets are better to look at than many things from the 1960s.

    Two names leapt out at me from the opening credits. The fist was "Jacqui Chan", which I found amusing, in a small way. The second was "Richard O'Sullivan". That's right: Ptolemy is played by the lead actor from "Man About the House" and other British sitcoms which I suspect that nobody a day younger than me can remember. They were big in their day, though.
  • Lets face it; this film, starring Elizabeth Taylor, has become as much of a legend as Cleopatra herself! My recommendation is that you buy the 3 disc remastered collectors set--then you can see it in all of its intended glory. Spactacular acting, costumes, scenery, make-up and effects make this a must see movie for everyone. And also, it was not a 'flop' as some people have mentioned; its one of the highest grossing movies of all time, but its just that its huge budget eclipsed this. And who can fail not to be enthralled by the real life love story that was taking place at the time with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton? It has to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, love story of the 20th century! And you can see it all take place right here in this movie. Watch this movie, as you will love it.
  • PennyLANE7720 June 2003
    Cleopatra has gotten a solid rep for being an overlong drab of a historical epic. True, its long, maybe too long. But that's weighed up by suberb acting performances, especially by Rex Harrison and Roddy McDowell. Also GCI wasn't even a weird figment in a scientist's head when this was made. With that in mind, it's hard not to be impressed by the visuals. They're better than the ones in Gladiator, which looked like Rome hit with a bucket of Blade Runner. After all, the visual splendor was one of the attractions of the genre in the 1950's and 60's. And here, it works!
  • Caledonia Twin #15 September 2000
    This film is worth watching for the excellent cast of talented actors alone, but Richard Burton truly shines as Mark Antony. Richard Burton was in 1963 what Anthony Hopkins is to the cinema today, a remarkably talented actor with a resonant voice and a larger than life presence, strong enough to entirely captivate an audience. Antony's struggle to break free of the shadow of almighty Caesar and his struggle against the beguiling wiles of Cleopatra are fascinating to watch. The always brilliant Rex Harrison seems, however, a bit peevish for Caesar. Nevertheless, this movie is a masterpiece of cinematography and the chemistry between Burton and Taylor is riveting. Roddy McDowell is well-cast as the bookish Octavian. The spectacle of Cleopatra is only matched by such films as the recent Ridley Scott's Gladiator, Ben-hur, and Kubrick's Spartacus. It's well worth viewing this piece of cinematic history.
  • Cleopatra was going to be a six hour epic. Then the idea of two movies. The story of Cleopatra and Caesar (with Richard Burton only seen for seven minutes. And the story of Cleopatra and Anthony. It had to be cut by demand. It was cut down to under four hours. Then another demand to cut it further to 3 hours and 14 minutes. These lost scenes are franticly trying to be found and some have for future restoration to bring it back to it's full six hour length. Please watch the AMC--American Movie Classics Behind the Scenes documentary on Cleopatra.
  • Regarded as the biggest flop (at least until "Ishtar") in motion picture history, "Cleopatra" has been given the short end of the stick since it first premiered in 1963 but it still is a great film. True, it did plague 20th Century Fox to the point of near bankruptcy (until "The Sound of Music" saved it in 1965) and Elizabeth Taylor's health overshadowed the film schedule but there are more good things about the film than there are bad, the backlashing of the film has just blown itself all out of proportion. Richard Burton and Elizabeth's much-publicized offscreen love affair grew to such a feverishly fiery degree that it made their onscreen relationship as Antony and Cleopatra all the more genuine. Rex Harrison as Caesar is first-rate as well and yet he was the only one out of the entire cast that received an Oscar nomination (Richard Burton was one who should have been in the running as well... his performance is equal to his earlier work in "The Robe" and later in "Becket" and "Anne of the Thousand Days"). Miss Taylor is very commanding in the role of her career and as a result few remember Claudette Colbert's earlier turn as Egypt's most memorable ruler in Cecil B. De Mille's 1934 version. The one point I want to make is that the film should have gotten more praise than it did... like "The Wizard of Oz", "Fantasia" and "It's a Wonderful Life" it seems to get more appreciation by it's second generation than it did it's first.
  • gus8124 January 2005
    Probably not one of the great epics, but still big and awe-inspiring. The performances are great, the sets are beautiful and the cinematography is sweeping. As epic eye candy Cleopatra is great to watch, but there is definitely something missing in the film.

    The film has an enormous Shakespearian lilt to it; lots of over acting and scenery chewing which allows Taylor, Burton and Harrison to really get into their roles. But this element in the film also makes the film fairly sterile and at times downright wooden. The often stagy directing does not help the matter either.

    The film also uses very limited settings. The whole four hours, apart from the scenes at Phillippi, Actium, and the senate in Rome, are all shot inside some palace or another - mainly Cleopatra's. This further infects the film with that stagy wooden quality. The audience does not get taken on a fantasy ride into the ancient world, but merely into the melodramatic lives of three 'kings' with whom the audience does not have a lot in common.

    The film eschews any opportunity to fully revel in the mood of the times. Unlike Kubrick in Spartacus, who included Roman political intrigue as a subplot which provided a rich contrast to the adventure of the slaves, Manikewicz only provides us with a quick glance at the political scene in Rome - a few seconds of the anti-dictator Cicero bad-mouthing the triumvirate. Neither did the film show the Romans' full and true reaction to Cleopatra's stay in Rome, which was one of distrust and scepticism as well as awe; it was content just to show her spectacular arrival and the mob's awe at it. This reluctance to focus on anything but the monarch's own melodramatic ambitions and arrogance robs Cleopatra of depth, and renders the film very wooden, staid and stagy. This disqualifies it from being one of the great ancient-world epics.

    But still, there are many scenes which are absorbing and great fun to watch. The sets are amazing, the costumes brilliant, and it is great to see all the late-great names on screen doing a magnificent job. Cleopatra is not a bad movie, it is a well crafted and sublime extravaganza, but it does not have a universal appeal. You need to have an interest in either ancient history or old film-making otherwise Cleopatra will seem like it has gone over budget and become a flop. A 7/10 for great acting, great visuals, and what is undoubtedly a well crafted film.
  • If it hadn't been the tabloid headlines screaming about the love affair between ELIZABETH TAYLOR and RICHARD BURTON on the set of CLEOPATRA in Rome, it's unlikely Fox would have released this epic without trimming even more than they did. It still doesn't work. The trims were not enough and the film is a boring mess by the time it reaches the end of its first forty-five minutes.

    Let's face it, Elizabeth Taylor sounds like a shrill fish wife whenever her emotions show any temperament--in other words, her vocal abilities are not good enough to carry the role of a woman who commanded all of Egypt with her willpower and determination and cunning. She's much better in other contemporary roles, but ill suited to play the Queen of Egypt. REX HARRISON gives the only full-bodied performance in the film and unfortunately he's killed midway and is missing from the rest of this gargantuan bore.

    Technical brilliance in costumes and sets cannot atone for a bad script and some lifeless performances from a large cast. Only RODDY McDOWALL emerges triumphant as Octavius (probably one of his best adult roles), but RICHARD BURTON is another casualty as a supposedly impassioned Marc Antony.

    Cleopatra's eye-filling entrance makes a stunning cinematic treat, but Taylor in later years confessed that she was sick upon seeing the film at a premiere and has since confided that she hates it. I can understand why, even if legions of her fans still think it's one of the best things she ever did. Sorry, I just can't see it that way, much as I love Liz in her best work.
  • Once again I have watched the complete Cleopatra (or at least the complete Cleopatra available). In addition, because I watched the DVD version of the movie, I also was able to view the outstanding documentary "Cleopatra: The Film that Changed Hollywood". And, once again, I am all but overwhelmed by the movie. Elizabeth Taylor may very well be one of the most under-rated actresses of the last fifty years; her public private life has always overshadowed her acting ability. But it is not her notoriety that puts her in the same league with other two time Oscar winners like Jane Fonda, Sally Field, Tom Hanks, etc. In Cleopatra, as in George Stevens' Giant, she runs the gamut from adolescent to matriarch, from calculating queen to devastated lover, and rings every bell in between. But her performance alone does not make the movie. Not only is she supported by Burton, in one of his best screen performances, and Rex Harrison, in one of his best, Taylor's old friend Roddy McDowall gives the performace of his lifetime (how sad that a clerical error cost him his Oscar); we see a young Martin Landau, a young Carroll O'Connor, a young Jean Marsh, give performances worthy of anything they've ever put on screen since. The documentary points out that the original Mankiewicz cut of the film was 6 1/2 hours long and that Fox is currently trying to reassemble the film as originally cut. If they ever succeed in doing so, I would stand in line to see it in theatres and buy it on DVD the first chance I got. As a history freak, it more than satisfies; as a fan of brilliant acting, it wows! Everyone should see it at least once!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If 'lavish' is the singular term to bestow upon the historical epics of the Fifties and Sixties, Cleopatra exceeds the term in every way, making it clear from the get-go of its four-hour running time this, adjusted for inflation, is definitely one of the most excessive and expensive movies of them all. 20th Century-Fox sure wasn't thrilled by that fact at the time, as it nearly pushed the studio into bankruptcy. Nevertheless, it persisted in the project (since cancellation would have been its death sentence for sure) and today it remains a testament to just how staggeringly detailed and rich a movie can be made to look if enough money is thrown at it. In many ways, Cleopatra is not one, but two movies: director Joseph L. Mankiewicz always intended for it to be released in two parts (a decision the home cinema release has honoured by splitting the movie in half, spread over two discs). The first would have been called Caesar and Cleopatra, its sequel Antony and Cleopatra, as the movie conveniently cuts from one male protagonist to the other around the middle of the film, with the Queen of Egypt the constant that unites them both in a tale of passion, decadence, lust and glory.

    Grand diva Elizabeth Taylor plays her most iconic role of all as the young queen that finds herself in the middle of the plots and intrigue at the Egyptian court of her brother who means to dispose of her, only to be saved by the older Roman general Caesar (a thoughtful and intelligent, but undeniably ruthless and pragmatic character portrayed by Rex Harrison) who, compelled by her wit and charm, instead forms an alliance with her and gets rid of her treacherous sibling. Said union spawns a son, Caesarion, which gives her an incentive to make a claim on the rule of Rome when his father is murdered in the Senate. Enter his boorish, no-nonsense second-in-command Mark Antony (the notorious Richard Burton) who has his own notions on the matter, but swiftly is suckered into Cleopatra's web of passion too, an affair destined to end in tragedy. Ironically, Taylor and Burton couldn't keep their hands off each other in reality as well, leading to one of the most scandalous and infamous love affairs in Hollywood history that made Brangelina look second rate. Keeping the affair in line as well as could be managed – basically, not at all, thanks to Burton's loudmouth persona – to avoid overly devastating public scrutiny, coupled with the ever rising production problems and outrageous costs (driving a movie originally budgeted at 2 million dollars to a whopping 44 million dollars), drove many a Fox executive close to madness, but over the years Cleopatra made a decent recuperation for the studio and even turned a bit of a profit.

    Audiences sure got what they payed for: an opulent epic-to-end-all-epics with a scale and scope still unsurpassed, using some of the biggest sets ever created, populated by thousands of extras and a diverse range of wild beasts, all just as background material. And unlike the digitally saturated present day, it was all there in the flesh, making the sets look as spectacularly opulent in real life as they appear on film. Of course the fabulously rich environments where secondary only to Taylor's magnificent performance as the young monarch, at first relying on her sensual beauty and ever underestimated intelligence for her own basic survival, but soon applying both to make her country and herself a top player in Mediterranean politics by going head to head with the might of Rome in a love affair with one of its most powerful men that is bound to destroy an empire, and ultimately herself as tragedy ensues. Taylor definitely dominates each scene and won't allow the bombastic sights to take center stage. She is aided by a grand cast which includes the likes of Roddy McDowall and Martin Landau, only tools for her to play off against as they can't compare with her majesty. Nevertheless, because of the endless show of grandiose sets, sexual plotting and Roman violence it cannot be denied Cleoptra feels like it's dragging on too long, which convinces the audience cutting it into two separate pieces would probably have been for the best. Even so, Cleopatra remains one of the most sensational movies ever produced, its history as wild and epic as the history that inspired it.
  • Costumes... Sumptuous, Scenery... Sumptuous, Makeup... Sumptuous, yet all three were far from authentic to the time period, according to historians. Actually, this film is certainly fun to watch (if you feel you have plenty of time to devote to it, considering its overblown hours long running time). For someone of my age (76) watching it again does bring back memories of seeing it on the big screen and being blown away by the pageantry of the whole thing. Of course, realism wasn't quite as important to someone younger then. Obviously, they weren't looking for too much accuracy in the simple fact that they left out the multiple children that Cleopatra had with Antony, which was certainly another strong bond between them. As long as you can leave true history at the door, go ahead and enjoy this film.
  • Joseph Mankiewicz's gigantic historical epic Cleopatra has plenty to rave about; its sets are realistic and colossal, and its cinematography, its visuals are phenomenal, and it has a grand, moving, and sweeping score, but it sags heavily. It's length, which is 251 minutes (4 hours and 11 minutes), makes boredom very possible. I am not saying that all movies that are long are boring, (for example, I found Lawrence of Arabia fantastic) but this one dragged on way too long. The 4-hour version (yes, there are two versions) could have easily been cut down to 3 hours, but plenty of scenes and dialogue seem like filler to produce a movie of gargantuan size. Cleopatra should have been divided into two three-hour parts, like the studio originally planned, but that was canceled. Now, if the pacing was very good in this movie, I believe it would have been much, much more riveting. Often, there are extremely long scenes of either monologues or conversation. Now, I do not mind talkiness in movies, but what really affects it is the poor pacing. For example, an hour is just conversation, then there is a fifteen minute battle scene, then the next half hour is talk, then there is a twenty minute battle scene, etc. There seemed to be no organized structure, instead, scattered-about scenes.

    The script seems very off for a movie though. I love Shakespearean dialogue for a play, but that was for 16th and 17th century English. But because this is a movie, it feels off, especially since it is a biography on the life of Cleopatra, not a play. The script I found overall good, but it has a few extremely overblown moments. For example: A man announces to Octavian that Mark Antony is dead in a cool manner, but here is Octavian's rather over-the-top response:

    "Is that how one says it? As simply as that. 'Mark Antony is dead. Lord Antony is dead.' 'The soup is hot; the soup is cold." "Antony is living; Antony is dead." Shake with terror when such words pass your lips, for fear they be untrue and Antony'd cut out your tongue for the lie! And if true, for your lifetime boast that you were honored to speak his name even in death. The dying of such a man, must be shouted, screamed! It must echo back from the corners of the universe. 'Antony is dead! Mark Antony of Rome lives no more!'"

    Um... to be honest, it feels really, really theatrical. And because there are several lines like this in the movie, it makes the movie feel somewhat campy. However, this was the only truly cringe-inducing part midst the numerous spots of pretentious monologues. Another problem is the acting. Elizabeth Taylor's performance as Cleopatra feels rather overdone, but not excessively so. The same (sometimes) goes to Richard Burton's performance as Mark Antony. Sometimes, the acting feels more like an intentionally theatrical live Shakespeare performance. I'm not saying that Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton's acting is bad, but it sometimes feels a bit overwrought. However, Rex Harrison's acting as Julius Caesar does redeem some of the cheesy dialogue that he uses. Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton lack chemistry and do not seem to be in a state of passionate romance, however, there is wonderful chemistry between Elizabeth Taylor and Rex Harrison. Why? I think the acting is a large part of it. It is hard to put one's finger on it, but the romance is lacking greatly in passion between Cleopatra and Mark Antony. It is also a disappointment that Rex Harrison's character (Julius Caesar) dies between the first third and first half, and for the rest of the time, it shows mainly Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Rex Harrison's character could have died later on, because so much of the second half seems like filler. I truly believe that Rex Harrison's portrayal is very interesting, and so I was disappointed that he died within the first half of the film.

    A very notable feature of the film is the music. Alex North's score greatly enhances the emotion of the film, with a striking Egyptian flavor, mixed in with traditional-style film score. If I were to compare it to another soundtrack, it would probably be Lawrence of Arabia. It may not be as great as Lawrence of Arabia's, but it still is wonderfully striking. Even though it does sound like I am saying the music is the best part of the film, I do think that the visuals are the most notable. I know that I have listed many negative parts about it, but, it truth, I do think that this is a good movie. I believe it's a truly moving, powerful epic. But it is required that you are a patient viewer to enjoy this movie. If you cannot stand talky historical movies like this, you will think of it no more than four painfully boring hours of sappy melodrama, conversation, and monologues. I am a patient viewer, so I was able to appreciate the movie. If you are a history movie buff, then this is for you. But if you are a normal movie viewer, this could very well be a snooze fest. To summarize this movie in a sentence: "Despite its kitsch, and many, many other flaws, this movie is a grand, sweeping, and emotional epic that still is enjoyable." God bless all who read this and bye!
  • JWinPS2 November 2002
    Breathtaking photography, fabulous costumes, wonderful lead and supporting role performances, a dual love story that is timeless - the romance with Caesar for power and the romance with Marc Antony for love, unmatched music by Alex North, that's what's in Cleopatra. From the time that it came out, I have remained a person who has not been afraid to say that I have loved it.

    Elizabeth Taylor's legendary beauty is very evident here. My favorite scenes of hers are Cleopatra's anguish upon finding out about Marc Antony's [Richard Burton] marriage and the closing scene with her reunited with the dying Marc Antony. Similarly, Caesar's [Rex Harrison] opening war scene, Marc Antony's gut-wrenching soliloquy as a broken man after the defeat at Actium , Octavian's [Roddy McDowall] harsh scolding of an officer that let him know of Marc Antony's death, Sosigenes' [Hume Cronyn] death scene, Apollodorus' [Cesare Danova] support for Cleopatra, and Rufio's [Martin Landau] support for Marc Antony are all permanently etched in my memory.

    The shear lushness of the production has to be seen to truly believed. Remember, this was released in 1963 far before the gimmickry of computer enhanced effects. The crowds in these scenes are real, the buildings are real, this is not a movie that was put together with the smoke and mirrors of computers. I truly do hope that restorers are able to eventually find the footage that was deleted, primarily due to Zanuck's influence and not Mankiewicz's desire, so that we may see more of what Mankiewicz had in mind.

    I also strongly recommend that one view the DVD release. The included documentary about putting the film together helps one get a good perspective about the real headaches involved in getting this film made.
  • A fine account of the making of "Cleopatra" has been compiled; and the movie has been seen and appreciated by millions worldwide. Everyone knows by now how an interesting historical dramatic project gradually grew into the most expensive and lengthy production in film history... incidentally, "Cleopatra" finally earned a profit. There are seven credited writers and four directors; but the production will always be attributed chiefly to Jospeh L. Mankiewicz. The cinematography Leon Shamroy and music by Alex Northh are also well- remembered in this film, and the costumes, sets, second-unit and stunt challenges clearly must have been immense. What is forgotten about the film is that Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor did not have to play the parts they did; and their shortcoming along with a few poorly-written lines here and there are the only negatives most persons take away from this interesting and frequently- beautiful dramatized era of Roman history. I saw this film when it premiered at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood; I did not like the vast barge used to parade Cleopatra into Rome; but it was spectacular; and the decision to stage the important battle of Pharsalia and then use none of the footage save for the aftermath deprived us of some fascinating scenes. But I appreciate this film, even more so today, especially the recreation of Alexandria and the scenes set in Rome and within the Egyptian palace. So I will confine myself here to a look here at the actors involved. The immense cast was headed by Liz Taylor, who cannot do a classical accent and Burton who was a few years from his best work, but who here was objectionable because he was on the edge of verbal bombast and because of lack of vocal variety. On the other hand, many critics praised the fine work turned in by many others, beginning with Rex Harrison as Julius Caesar, Roddy Macdowall as Octavius, Martin Landau, John Doucette, Hume Cronyn, Robert Stephens, Pamela Brown, Cesare Danova, and others in supporting roles. Thhis expensive mounting of history sinpred many later producers. The climactic sea battle is beautifully staged, the lighting, sound, sets and other elements are everywhere sumptuous and also often intelligently-used. This epic film is a fine achievement in many ways; and that it holds together as well as it does is a tribute to expert writer and director Maniewiwcz above all.
  • I have always thought it was one of the most underrated Hollywood epics.First of all,it's only partially an epic:most of the scenes are intimate,generally two characters who are constantly tearing each other apart.Joseph L. Mankiewicz,one of the most intelligent director of his time,rewrote the dialogue during the shooting,night after night ,and the results are stunning,considering the difficulties he encountered with his budget and his stars.Cleopatra's dream is perfectly recreated,much better than in De Mille 's version -a good one,though-:It's Alexandre the great 's plan ,this Alexandre from whom she's descended,to make a huge empire,uniting the Orient and the Occident.One of the major scenes takes place near the great conqueror's grave .The second part has Shakespeareans accents:Cleopatra becomes some kind of Lady Macbeth,and Marc Anthony is left alone against the whole Roman army (the Shakespearian trees).The last lines (repeated twice) are some of the finest you can find in an epic movie.And look how Fellini has been influenced by Mankiewicz for the final of his "Satyricon":the photograph turning into a fresco. As for the epic scenes,they are here,of course but they are little over 20% of the movie.And to Cleo's awesome Rome entrance ,you can prefer Ceasar's epilepsy fit.The actors are not as uneven as it's often said.Elizabeth Taylor had already worked with Mankiewicz (the extraordinary "suddenly last Summer") and she learned a lot with him;she's now ready for the great roles of the sixties:"Virginia Woolf","Secret ceremony" "taming of the shrew".Richard Burton had been "Alexander the great" (coincidence!) in a rather academic movie,and here he portrays a clumsy,almost Don Quixotesque Marc Anthony with art.However,Rex Harrison steals the show in the first half.Supporting actors ,including Roddy MCDowall ,a puny but shrewd Octavious,and Richard O'Sullivan ,an effeminate Ptolemy. This visual poem,a feast for the eye and for the mind must be restored to favor.
  • "Cleopatra" is one of the most notorious films in history, for often discussed reasons, not the least of which is bankrupting 20th Century Fox with its $44 million price tag.

    In the end, was it worth it? Hard to say, but you can't beat "Cleopatra" for sheer spectacle, opulence, majesty, and costumes! And for those of us who grew up in the '60s, let us not forgot that Cleopatra makeup we all walked around with.

    There are also some wonderful performances in this film, notably Rex Harrison as Caesar, Richard Burton as Marc Antony, Roddy McDowell as Octavian -- and let's not forget the perfectly cast Elizabeth Taylor, gorgeous and resplendent and certainly believable as both queen and seductress.

    The film sticks to the true history, with the exception of the children Cleopatra had with Marc Antony -- four in all, including twins. The only child shown in the film, Caesarian, didn't outlive his mother by much, as Octavian had him killed after Caesarian won support as Pharaoh of Egypt.

    Since the film took so long to make, one does notice differences in Taylor's appearance, particularly her weight. In the scenes filmed after her illness, she is quite tiny and in the scenes beforehand, she is a little bigger. Since the scenes seem to have been filmed out of order, it can be disconcerting. Let's face it, it's hard to stay at the same weight for five years, particularly after you've nearly died. None of it is enough to detract from her great beauty.

    Cleopatra eventually made more than $44 million, but that doesn't mean it actually turned a profit. In order to show a profit, usually a film needs to make three times its cost. I don't believe to this day that Cleopatra has ever done that. No matter - it was the start of a huge love affair and was yet another coffin nail in the big studio system. And with all of that, it's a well-made film that doesn't scrimp on opulence. Somehow, even with all that went on, it never lost its way.
  • That a film as good as CLEOPATRA is was created at all under the madness and panic of it's legendary production is indeed an amazing feat. That CLEOPATRA has been given such loving care in its restoration in this DVD of the "Road Show" print and the attendant bonus materials is a wondrous gift to those who love this film. The documentary, "Cleopatra: The Film That Changed Hollywood" is in on it's own an engrossing and informative two hour movie. For anyone who knows little of the history of CLEOPATRA, or who was not around at the time, this documentary will give them the feeling of what those last days of old Hollywood was like. And therein one can find the reasons why this intimate epic is indeed the wonder that it is. Many thanks should go to the Mankiewicz family and the producers of the documentary. The print and the sound of CLEOPATRA seems now to surpass what I recall it to be in its first presentation nearly forty years ago. The depth of the colors and the richness of the shadows are indeed splendid. In this restoration, it is hard to believe this film is as old as it is. The commentary track is in and of itself like finding the lost treasures of the long dead monarch. For there are wonderful recollections by Martin Landau, Tom and Chris Mankiewicz, and even the one of the films publicists Jack Brodsky gets to read sections from his book "The Cleopatra Papers" which gave a blow by blow description of everyday events on the set. But I must give special mention to Landau's part. With his keen eye for the art direction of John DeCuir one sees things in the background and along the edges of the scene that one never noticed before. Such lovingly detailed sets and interiors will never be seen again. The costs today are just too prohibitive. Also his insights into what was cut from the film, particularly his and Richard Burton's contributions in the second act give one the idea of what Mankiewicz was intending. Poor Richard suffered the unkindest cut of all. The presentation of the DVD menus is so clever and exotic. The creators of this DVD are to be commended in their art direction. At last we now know what is behind the massive 20th Century Fox logo!

    The film itself remains what it has always been. It is a good film that might have been a great one if only Zanuck had trusted Joe Mankiewicz' original vision. It is said that they are still looking for the missing film; one can only hope that they succeed in this task. The performances range from good to excellent. Particular praise must go to Rex Harrison, Richard Burton, Martin Landau, Robert Stephens, Andrew Keir, and Roddy McDowall. Lastly in this department there remains Elizabeth Taylor's performance as Cleopatra. At the films release the brickbats were reserved for her and for reasons that had nothing to do with her performance. Many reviewed her behavior as seen through the narrow focus of the tabloids and emerging paparazzi. Even today it is sometimes hard to separate the history of the lady from her film roles. But here is the moment in time, in this film where she became the ELIZABETH TAYLOR she has remained in the mind of the world ever since. In this fact alone she is perfect in the role. But she is more than that. As Cleopatra she is at once regal and commanding, strong and tender, soft and hard. These are all the contradictions that have always been at the heart of Cleopatra herself. She and the Queen are masters of a public enigma wrapped within a mystery. In her performance as written by Mankiewicz Elizabeth Taylor is probably not too far off from the historical Cleopatra. Finally, ever since Judith Crist gave CLEOPATRA the needle in 1963 and in the act made her name, the public, for the most part, has viewed this film a failure. But today, stripped of the scandal, hype and hysteria of its release in June of 1963 it is now possible to view CLEOPARTA as the film it is. A near great film that is the signpost of when Hollywood passed from one age into another. Historically this is an important DVD and I recommend it highly. CLEOPATRA remains as seductive, beautiful, and intelligent as it was in Walter Wanger's original conception. "Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety."
  • Sixty years on from its initial release with the attendant media hysteria and brouhaha, one can hopefully ignore the reputation that precedes it and view it objectively.

    Joseph L. Mankiewicz was the obvious choice as director having previously delivered an excellent 'Julius Caesar' but this is certainly not Shakespeare nor is it G. B. Shaw although the impeccable Rex Harrison's performance as Caesar is distinctly Shavian.

    The film boasts some first class scenes and the splendid production values reflect its $44,000,000 budget, whilst Leon Shamroy's cinematography is magnificent and Alex North's score certainly one of his best. This is long before the age of CGI and puts one in mind of Louis Delluc's comment about Italian epics of the 1920's:" When you don't see three, you see an hundred thousand." The problem is that the film can neither sustain nor justify its protracted length.

    Elizabeth Taylor is here following in the footsteps of Helen Gardner, Theda Bara, Claudette Colbert and Vivien Leigh. As befits one who made her first film at the age of ten, she is a consummate professional who knows the camera and feels instinctively when to hold back and when to pull out all the stops. Contemporaries described Cleopatra as 'bewitching' with a voice 'like an instrument of many strings.' Miss Taylor certainly has bewitchment in spades but her voice is alas far from being musical and if anything is rather whiney, especially in her dramatic moments. As Mark Antony, surely one of the most tragically silly and misguided characters in history, Richard Burton is very effective in his quieter moments but when he emotes it is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. Having said that his performance certainly mirrors Plutarch's description of Antony as a man of 'vaunting temper and empty flourishes.' As Caesar, Rex Harrison, who had a very good working relationship with this director, is wonderfully imperious, has all the best lines and effortlessly steals his scenes. In what is essentially a film of two halves his absence from part two leaves a void which is partly filled by Roddy McDowall's chilling portrayal of Octavian.

    Although by all accounts it practically killed him off, Mankiewicz has done his best to give us that contradiction in terms, an 'intelligent' epic. It is not without the occasional Hollywood-esque howler of course and the greatest must surely be Tony's description of the Busby Berkeley production number that accompanies Cleo's entry into the Eternal City: "Rome has seen nothing like it since Romulus and Remus"!

    In a purely historical sense one cannot feel any sympathy for the fate of the three main protagonists. An occupational hazard for those who seek to rule the world.
  • If there was anything at all to sum up what I thought of Cleopatra(1963) it would be a very mixed bag, it's not as bad as has been cited to be but it is easy to see why it bombed. There are definitely things to like about Cleopatra, for one thing with the vivid colours, the amount of authenticity in the costumes and sets and the lavish cinematography it really is a feast for the eyes, one of the better-looking films of the 60s. Alex North's score is a very hypnotic and memorable one, adding hugely to what's happening, with parts where it really rouses the spirit and others where it is appropriately melancholic. There are some good performances in the cast too, though it is a case of the supporting actors being better than the leads. Particularly good is Rex Harrison, if anything it's actually a brilliant performance, he has rarely been more restrained than here as Caesar and it is very moving. Caesar was the film's most sympathetic and relatable character and you do feel genuinely sad at his demise. Roddy MacDowell is a close runner up, he is very chilling and looks as though he is really enjoying himself. And the film is not without effective scenes, because Cleopatra's entrance is suitably sultry and the ending is somewhat emotional, in fact the film does start off quite well and the supporting performances have a lot to do with it.

    However, the two leads don't fare so well. Richard Burton does have his moments, he is enigmatic and at least seems to understand and connect with what was given to him, but he can be wooden too and chews the scenery too much(the overly melodramatic second half doesn't help though). Even more problematic is Elizabeth Taylor, she has done a lot of great stuff but this really is not one of her finest hours. She's beautiful and sexy but her performance does come across as shrill and like a spoilt rich girl. Burton and Taylor's chemistry has mixed results, in the first half it has moments where it resonates but like the drama it is often cold. The story is a huge problem too, as a matter of fact if there was a component that could be seen as the biggest flaw it would be the story. Much of it is dragged out and overstuffed, and while the story of Antony and Cleopatra is an epic one it doesn't feel like that here. That it has a much-too-overlong length that due to the very pedestrian pacing feels like it is a big part as to why. Cleopatra is directed in a very stagy and emotionally cold way (hard to believe that it was the same director who directed All About Eve, one of the best films ever made in my opinion), and although the cast is a large one a lot of roles are far too come-and-go and blink-and-you-miss-them walk-ons quality. And there is no better news about the script, which has far too much talk, can sound very awkward and is very skim-the-surface feeling. It takes a very melodramatic turn in the second half and it is incredibly ham-fisted. Summing up, a difficult film to rate, has some obvious good things but is hugely problematic too, at least to me. 5/10 Bethany Cox
An error has occured. Please try again.