Avis des utilisateurs

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.

As luck would have it Julius Caesar pays a visit, helps remove your irksome brother from his remit, opening the chance to reign, then goes off on a campaign, you have a husband and an ally who has grit. A trip to Rome lets you display all of your treasures, it's fair to say you give a lot of people pleasure, not long after during Ides, there's a changing of the tides, as you find yourself with time, spent at your leisure. To fill the void that's left, enter Mark Antony, who is able to provide some hospitality, although paymasters get annoyed, you find that you're both unemployed, as you then become a couple of, fatalities.

Not as good as I'd hoped for the investment.

.

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.

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.

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.

Cleopatra is an epic in every sense of the word-lavish sets, extravagant costumes, and a runtime that truly immerses you in the political and romantic turmoil of Ancient Egypt and Rome. The film is undeniably a visual masterpiece, with its breathtaking cinematography and grand production values standing the test of time.

Elizabeth Taylor embodies Cleopatra with a magnetic presence, portraying her as both a fierce ruler and a woman caught in the power struggles of her time. Richard Burton and Rex Harrison add depth to the historical drama, making the love affairs and political betrayals feel engaging despite the film's lengthy runtime.

While the movie's ambition sometimes outweighs its pacing, leading to moments that drag, its historical grandeur and commanding performances make it a classic worth watching.

A visually stunning epic that, despite its flaws, remains an iconic portrayal of one of history's most legendary figures.

This is one of the most spectacular movies in history. Everything in it was great, costumes, sets, acting - in one word SUPERB. I like Elizabeth Taylor,and it is fact that she was most beautiful woman in the world back 1950/60. So who else could play Cleopatra at the time? No one but her. Liz is just perfect as Cleo. Although critic's didn't gave much credit to her acting, for me she was very good. Harrison and Burton are just great as Caesar and Antony,so is Roddy McDowall as Octavian. Cleopatra was nominated for the Best Picture in 1963, but lost to Tom Jones (1963),and won four Oscars for Costumes, Set/Art Decorations, Visual Effects and Cinematography. Cleopatra is still most expensive movie in history. I hope one day six hours version will be found, and that Cleopatra will take her place as one of the best epics in film history.

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.

This is not a perfect movie. No one has ever suggested it is. That said, it is much better than you may have been led to believe. Technically, it is superb, with sets, costumes, cinematography, music, etc., apparently unattainable by today's filmmakers. If you doubt this, watch "Gladiator" immediately after watching "Cleopatra". The technological weaknesses of the former are stark and unavoidable when compared to this film. The first act, especially, is without equal. Rex Harrison, as Caesar, dominates the screen and gives the performance of his life (Henry Higgins not withstanding). He earned his "Best Actor" Oscar nomination, and then some. The second act suffers, more likely than not due to the merciless re-editing by the studio that saw two hours of film hit the cutting room floor, and major roles like those of Cronyn and McDowall reduced to little more than bit parts (Mankiewicz originally envisioned this as two films, not one), from an occasional lack of cohesion I tend to think was not in Mankiewicz' screenplay. While La Taylor is ravishing throughout, she sometimes appears to be in a bit over her head. Again, this is more apparent in the problemmatic second act. There has been an active search for years by the Mankiewicz estate, and others, to find the missing elements from his original cut and restore "Cleopatra" to what he envisioned. This may yet happen. I hope it does. In the meantime, this newly restored roadshow version is most welcome.

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.

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.

I had the crazy idea of watching both of these at the same time - a few scenes of one followed by the "same" scenes of the other to compare the two. So which is best? It's a surprisingly close call but mainly because it's a bit more fun, the Cecil B de Mille one wins by a whisker.

Both these films have two of the most sexually charged performances ever seen on screen. Colbert's and Taylor's queens both derive their power from their ability to engender lust in any man they care to focus on. In reality it was politics which drove the relationship between Rome and Egypt but in these films, it's not politics, it's not trade, it's solely the sex appeal of Cleapatra this drives story. It's the story of how lust literally changed the entire history of the world. The dreamlike and uncontrollable drowning in eroticism is conveyed to us in both films by the same method. Mankiewicz and deMille use their stars' natural sensuality and indeed natural curves, enhanced with some very daring outfits to create quite the breast-fest!

Both Claudette Colbert and Elizabeth Taylor were born to play the ultimate seductress. Both succeed in convincing you, whilst you're watching, that they're the most alluring objects of sexual desire imaginable. Miss Colbert was unquestionably one of the most beautiful actress of the 1930s and under the direction of C B deMille she virtually melts the screen with her sexuality. Elizabeth Taylor was unquestionably one of the most beautiful actress of the 1960s and under the direction of Joe Mankiewicz she virtually melts the screen with her sexuality. I can't decide whom I'm more besotted with - probably Claudette - it's that naughty twinkle in her eye!

What's most noticeably different is their style. The 1963 version is much more austere and somber whereas the 1934 picture doesn't take itself completely seriously. In the early thirties, deMille still had quite a sense of humour and he gently sprinkled that in his productions (apart from the abysmal SIGN OF THE CROSS) This is also reflected in the script: Mankiewicz seemed to consider himself another Shakespeare - that's not a bad thing at all - it's actually really beautifully written but four hours of worthy seriousness can be a bit of a slog. Waldemar Young on the other hand (although he wrote the truly abysmal SIGN OF THE CROSS) lighted the mood here going for entertainment rather than historical accuracy. That subtle and quirky humour along with Claudette Colbert's naughty little winks makes her version, not quite fun but more accessible.

The mega-bucks production of the 63 version is incredibly impressive as is Roddy McDowall but the old version's got Warren-Mr Pre-Code-William as Caesar - he's actually brilliant in that role. You feel more upset when he gets murdered than when Rex Harrison gets his Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me moment. Can't say I'm too familiar with Henry Wilcoxon but he's also a great Mark Anthony, a bit more human and curiously more modern than Richard Burton who's a little bit too Shakespearian at times.

Both are good films but for sheer entertainment I think I'd go with CARRY ON CLEO..... which famously used the same set.

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.

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!

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.

Cleopatra is surprisingly good. I don't know where its bad reputation came from.

It looks gorgeous. They spent a mint making this flick, and they put every nickel on the screen. Great sets, truly spectacular costumes for Cleo. Let's face it: when she comes up the stairs on the barge in that white dress with that gold thing in her hair, she's the most beautiful woman on earth. Throughout the film, never has cleavage been so well packaged. Spectacle has never been done better: her entrance into Rome is unsurpassed. Consider that the sphinx is probably life-sized. And there will never be another naval battle like the one in this film.

Several scenes are very effective because of the acting and dialog: Cleo and Caesar's first scene; when they're in bed together; Cleo and Antony's scene when she demands 1/3 of the Roman Empire (Taylor is particularly good in this one); Cleo and Octavian in her tomb (Roddy McDowall shines here).

There are moments of clunky dialog: Cleo talking about "the people" after learning Caesar has been made dictator for life; in Alexander's tomb, Cleo talking about one world living in peace; Octavian's speech upon learning of Antony's death; Caesarion yelling "the enemy" over and over while playing on his toy horse.

The cinematography is excellent (a well-deserved Oscar). My favorite shot is the pan of Alexandria just before King Ptolemy appears.

There's lots of good acting: Rex Harrison, Roddy McDowall, Cesare Danova; Martin Landau; and others.

I also want to put in the plug for Alex North's music. It's almost always very good. The opening and closing credit music is excellent. There's an odd moment as Cleo leaves the room after Caesar learns of the attack on the moon gate, and the music sounds too loud and just inappropriate.

Yes, there are slow spots, but during them just sit back and enjoy the costumes and the sets.

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.

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