Cléopâtre

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.

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.

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 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?

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.