Cleopatra

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.

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.

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 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?

There will never be a movie quite like CLEOPATRA again when you consider when it was made. While James Cameron has given us TITANIC and AVATAR which surpassed CLEOPATRA in expense and certainly in box office and Peter Jackson has mined the works of J. R. R. Tolkein with great success, CLEOPATRA was the green light for that type of film and it's still shining brightly after 60 years. In fact the film looks better today than it did in 1963. Part of the reason for that is the fact that now we can see it in the version which is close to what writer-director Joseph L. Manciewicz (ALL ABOUT EVE) wanted us to see.

Two separate love stories contained in two 2 hour films. Part 1 - CAESAR & CLEOPATRA and Part 2 - ANTONY & CLEOPATRA. Manciewicz certainly didn't lack chutzpah for taking on George Bernard Shaw in the first film and Shakespeare in the second. With the help of a once in a lifetime cast of American and British actors, Elizabeth Taylor at her loveliest, Rex Harrison at his most regal, and Richard Burton at his most powerful, the film manages to both entertain and enthrall in equal measure.

After seeing this 50th Anniversary Edition, I was surprised at how compelling it was. Unbelievable grandeur, eye-popping costumes, magnificent widescreen photography, an effective music score, and at least a dozen memorable performances that bring the literate script to life. After CLEOPATRA's premiere at 248 minutes, Fox cut the film to 192 minutes to increase showings and a lot of important details were lost. Today a two or even three part release would have been pre-ordained (think LORD OF THE RINGS or THE HOBBIT).

This 50th Anniversary DVD (and Blu-Ray) restores the premiere version and shows Elizabeth Taylor at the top of her game. People always complain how she dragged Burton down but I think it was the other way around for she was rarely this good again and never as beautiful as she is here. If you've never seen CLEOPATRA uncut then you really need to. It comes from an age when Hollywood epics had something to say as well as something to show off. While the Blu-Ray is a knockout, this DVD is a close second and can be played on more devices. It's also usually available at a better price and loaded with special features as well...For more reviews visit The Capsule Critic.