Softwing
Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??
Brendon Jones
It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.
Billy Ollie
Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
bellino-angelo2014
But I can't believe the overall rating of 7,0. Although beautifully filmed and with a great soundtrack, I found it very boring, dull, and dreadful. It was like seeing ''Doctor Zhivago'' after 10 hours of stock fottage of the Russian revolution was added. The opening credits lasted 10 minutes while they could have lasted only 5 minutes. Yet many films are very long but still entertaining and engaging to watch (like ''The Longest Day'', ''The Greatest Story Ever Told'', ''The Young Lions''), but this should have lasted at least two hours. I felt asleep the first time I watched it, and the second time I left it after 2 hours! And when I leave a movie even after the second viewing it's a bad sign. Many scenes (like the parade scene) seemed to last an eternity, and the acting was very wooden.Now don't assume I don't like old American movies. I liked and loved many of them, just not this one.
gridoon2018
"Cleopatra" (1963) is better that it's reputed to be. It's overlong, of course, but the production drips with opulence from nearly every frame, the acting is strong, the storytelling is good (despite the cuts), and there are some HUMONGOUS set pieces (Cleopatra's entrance into Rome probably surpasses anything similar that has been attempted before or since). Personally I think every movie buff needs to see this movie at least once, it can be an eye-filling experience and it can be an ordeal, but it's a rare example of cinematic ambition (over?)shooting for the moon. *** out of 4.
secondtake
Cleopatra (1963)There is a lot to like in this movie, most of all the sets and costumes. And the rich color filming of those sets and costumes.. It is a movie of pageantry and beauty. And stately exposition, where these backdrops and colors unfold.I repeat—this visual effect is extraordinary. The plot, however, as a mishmash of historical events from around this time. It is often stiff, the admittedly dramatic events being told with a same reverence for beauty over drama. And there was so much drama to be mined. It's a shame that somehow the pronouncements couldn't have been less staged and more naturally fluid. Director Joseph Mankiewitz is one of my favorites from the 1950s, giving tightly scripted soap opera drama to beautifully filmed events (as in "All About Eve"), but the larger scenes overwhelm any subtle intent. Maybe it is partly that he came into the filming party way through (in a famously troubled production).Of course, there is Cleoptra herself, played by Elizabeth Taylor with a modern (very 1963) verve. She's terrific. And when Richard Burton finally speaks (over an hour into the film) he brings his known strength to his scenes. Caesar is played with beautifully formal disdain and cleverness by Rex Harrison (Rex meaning king, appropriately). This basic threesome makes the movie.Above and beyond is the sets and costumes, which is really what the public seemed to eat up in the 1960s. The vivid sharpness of 70mm film, and the saturation of true Technicolor, were far beyond the best color television of the time (or ours, technically speaking). My blu-ray copy on a decent monitor made for mouthwatering visuals. I watched even if I was a bit impatient for things to unfold more meaningfully. The very long pageantry 2/3 the way through—I mean a full half hour of large crowds and ceremonial whatnot—is a sign of why the movie falters beyond the mise-en-scene.And why it was so expensive to make. I looked up the history of the time, and found that it was truly amazing stuff, which of course Shakespeare and others knew, too. Cleopatra is a stunning leader, a woman in an age of male leaders. (She was Greek, in Egypt, at the end of centuries of Greek power there.) Antony and Ceaser are of course important, too, in this pivotal time (40 or so years BC), but it is the title character, through Liz Taylor, who rises out of the crowded masses.See it expecting something a bit dry and dull, even if extremely well made.
HotToastyRag
Cleopatra is famous for many reasons, but it's not generally well-liked. Obviously, casting Elizabeth Taylor to play one of the world's most beautiful women, and cladding her in unspeakably beautiful costumes, is one reason this movie has been remembered. Liz was married at the time to Eddie Fisher, a union that cost her her reputation, but that couldn't stop the sparks from flying between her and her married costar, Richard Burton. Once again, Liz became a homewrecker, and her love affair and marriage to Burton is one of the most famous of all Hollywood couples.Also, Cleopatra was the most expensive film ever made at the time. It cost $44 million, and almost bankrupted the studio. Can you imagine a world without 20th Century Fox? Audiences at the time felt it was too long and too wordy, but modern audiences won't feel that way. We're used to long epics, like Gladiator and Alexander, so the four-hour running time won't be a hindrance. And watching Liz and Dick fall in love on camera is magical; "boring" just isn't an applicable adjective.I wouldn't call Cleopatra a must-see, unless you're particularly attached to that Hollywood couple, but it is a spectacle. If you like epics, or if you like your films to have glorious splendor, you're not going to want to miss this one.
