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.

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.

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!

I'm pleased to read all the positive reviews of this film, which I first saw when it was released and have seen perhaps five times since. In 1963 the movie was almost universally condemned by critics, and I was just about the only person who admitted that I loved it. Part of that, though, had to do with the Taylor/Burton affair and the scandal it created. Liz Taylor in 1963 was not only considered the most beautiful woman in America, she was also thought of as a serial home-breaker and a real threat to the morals of the American Republic.

Why? I don't agree with many positive comments about the acting. Taylor and Burton were not too bad, but they didn't handle the pompous dialogue as well as Rex Harrison, Hume Cromyn, Martin Landau and especially Roddy McDowell, who was perfection itself and, I believe, accurately portrayed as the very young, ambitious and unscrupulous, but brilliantly intelligent Octavian (later the emperor Augustus).

Sure, some of the dialogue stinks, and the movie seems too long (perhaps because so much of it was cut to fit into fours hours). Nevertheless, for sheer magnificence and recreation of a most critical time in the history of two vanished high civilizations it has never been, and probably never will be, surpassed.