Cleopatra

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: June 12, 1963

6.9	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 36 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

FilipeNetoFeb 23, 2018

This film tells the story of the last Egyptian queen, Cleopatra, and how she used the romance and seduction to meet state reasons and seek to maintain the independence of her country. Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, which also provides theThis film tells the story of the last Egyptian queen, Cleopatra, and how she used the romance and seduction to meet state reasons and seek to maintain the independence of her country. Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, which also provides the script with Ranald MacDougall and Sidney Buchman, has Elizabeth Taylor in the role of Queen of the Nile, Richard Burton as Mark Antony, Rex Harrison as Caesar and Roddy McDowall as Octavian Augustus.

This film was severely cut because it would have originally twice the length of the movie has today. It was a film thought to a time when going to the movies was something that lasted an entire afternoon, with long breaks to go to the coffee, socializing, and sometimes more than a movie showing. It's a pity that this film has been so severely amputated, because it lost much of the quality that initially had, and that justified the millions of dollars it cost. In fact, it was the most expensive film in history until very few years ago, and we need to consider that there wasn't computerized resources, everything was done the old fashioned way. Nevertheless, the script is good and kept some consistency, the dialogues and rather theatrical poses looks good in an epic production of this kind and most of the actors fulfill their role well, highlighting Taylor, with a well-aimed and seductive performance, and the most exquisite and detailed costumes that cinema has ever seen so far. Burton did well too, reaching perhaps the biggest movie of his career. The scenes depicting the battle of Actium were excellent and show all the "technology" that the film industry had at the time. The soundtrack of Alex North, while fulfilling it's role, disappointed me because of atonality chosen by the composer.

This film is considered one of the most notable of Taylor and Burton's career's, marking this pair, who falls in love during filming, beginning a troubled marriage that cinema gossip still remember today. Apart from the excessive cuts made by the company, which withdrew the public the opportunity to appreciate this work in all it's splendor, it's a film that always worth viewing, and became still a landmark of the epic cinema.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

jamesfhallJan 19, 2022

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 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.

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!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews