GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Benedito Dias Rodrigues The cinema told many times Cleopatra's story,all them tried to be magnificent but just a one got it,this version has a great visual treatment,lavish sets,a large numbers of sexy choreograph,Cleapatra's costumes are fantastically design,but this movie suffer when to compare with 1963 version maybe black and white can explain...another thing Colbert vs Taylor have a great distance,the facts isn't accurate,a lack of hieroglyphics in the sets,anyway the movie is good but wasn't convincing in many ways....maybe too short to tell such complex story and events,sounds that it made be rushed,...however a good epic and dated of course.

Jonathon Dabell Time is not always kind to movies, and Cecil B DeMille's 1934 version of Cleopatra is certainly a case in point. Although interesting for its risqué imagery and impressive set pieces, the film holds up less well in terms of performance and plot. It's easy enough to get hold of a really crisp print of the film on DVD, but this can't disguise the fact that it offers little to entice modern viewers beyond an element of curiosity value.Julius Caesar (Warren William) arrives in Egypt intent on adding it to his long list of conquered kingdoms. He is quickly beguiled by the Egyptian queen Cleopatra (Claudette Colbert), who promises him the riches of her great nation, plus India too, if he agrees to spare Egypt from the wrath of Rome. Later, Cleopatra foils an assassination attempt on herself and Caesar, further gaining the admiration of the Roman leader in doing so. Back in Rome, the senators are concerned that Caesar plans to abolish their Republic and install himself and Cleopatra as emperor and empress. Unhappy at this idea, they assassinate him on the Senate steps, leaving two of his most trusted subordinates, Octavian (Ian Keith) and Marc Anthony (Henry Wilcoxon), to take joint control of the Roman Republic. Marc Anthony vows to capture Cleopatra and bring her back to Rome in chains, after which he intends to lead a total invasion of Egypt. However, once he meets the alluring and beautiful Egyptian queen, he quickly falls in love with her. This in turn invites the full fury of Rome upon him, and gives Octavian all the excuse he needs to curse him and declare war against him. Abandoned by his old allies, and doomed to destruction for the sake of his love for one woman, Marc Anthony has no choice but to face his tragic fate alongside Cleopatra.DeMille's film has moments of interest for movie buffs and film historians, but the wooden performances and several tediously unspooled scenes restrict its wider appeal. Colbert utterly owns the movie as the title character, floating elegantly across the sumptuous art deco sets in an array of revealing outfits. Alas, she is not helped much by the supporting players, many of whom chew the scenery most unconvincingly. Wilcoxon as Marc Anthony is especially guilty of this, giving a performance that's slightly more wooden than Cleopatra's barge. The dialogue is generally pretty terrible, a mismatched muddle of jarringly modern talk delivered in English and American accents. It hardly fits the 'feel' the film seems to be going for, and by the end becomes something of an annoyance. That's not to say there aren't occasional highlights along the way. The film's most famous sequence, which involves Cleopatra's seduction of Marc Anthony aboard her barge, lives up to its reputation, while the sequence detailing the assassination of Caesar is handled effectively in a nicely underplayed way. All in all, the 1934 Cleopatra is unlikely to be picking up a whole generation of new admirers any time soon - it's not just that the movie is old-fashioned, it's positively archaic. Having said that, it has sufficient points of interest to make it worthwhile for anyone interested in early sound cinema, or the vulgarly overblown film-making style of Cecil B. DeMille.

vincentlynch-moonoi Whether you like this film, or not, is probably going to depend on what you think a film ought to be.If you think mere spectacle makes a great film, then here you have that. If you think a degree (note I said just a degree) of realism makes a great film, then you're going to be very disappointed.I'm not impressed with this film, because as others have pointed it, it's kitsch...corny. There are DeMille films I like. "Union Pacific" had some realism and was a great production. "The Ten Commandments" may not have been totally realistic, but it had production values and told well what really was a rather simple story. Even "The Greatest Show On Earth" had realism in it. But, in my view, despite fine production values, this film is hokum. The only thing that makes it possibly better than the Elizabeth Taylor version is that the later production dragged on to the point of boredom.Let's see, we begin with a Cleopatra that is all giggles like some dumb high school drop out in a surfer film...even though she has just been rescued from sure death, tied to a monument in the desert. Her performance gets better, but to me, this role was an embarrassment. And what a shame, because I have always seen Claudette Colbert as one of the greatest American film actresses. And, oddly enough, a number of her fine performances took place right around the same time this film was made.Then you have Warren William, probably a fine actor, but here he uses some of the physical gestures we more often associate with silent films. Perhaps the best performance in the film is that of Henry Wilcoxon as Marc Anthony. It may take you a moment to recognize C. Aubrey Smith behind all the facial hair.The cinematography here is excellent...until that is ruined by the inclusion of footage from old silent films in the battle sequences...and the age of that footage made it poor. And, the battle scenes themselves seemed to have had no script. Almost a montage of war, but no progression.I was relieved to finally be at the scene where Cleopatra kills herself with the serpent. If only she had done it 99 minutes earlier! One of the lowest ratings I have ever given a film -- "5" -- and that only because of the historical importance of this film. It may be worth watching for that reason.

Jay Raskin Demille tells this story the same way he told "The Ten Commandments," and "Samson and Delilah." He took a few well known incidents, then threw out everything else and wrote his own sensational story to connect them. The historical absurdity could be forgiven if he had put in more a more interesting story-line. Here, unlike his biblical epics, the plot elements are confused and confusing. Why was Cleopatra trying to poison Anthony? Was she trying to poison him or not? While the sets were some times spectacular, perhaps the best thing in the movie, they were more 1930's "art deco" than ancient Egyptian. I don't think there was any hieroglyphics at all in the movie. I felt much more that I was attending a lavish costume party given by Demille at his Hollywood mansion than anywhere in Egypt.According to an opening title, this film was number 80 done under the Hayes Production Code. If we assume Hollywood produced 300-400 films back then, this means it was one of the first to be restricted by the absurd and unnatural rules that only a Catholic priest could consider normal. The most erotic element in Cleopatra's "entertainments" (designed to arouse and seduce the straight laced Anthony) was a man whipping half a dozen women dressed in cat costumes. Its more silly than exciting. One has to wonder how much more interesting this film would have been if not for the Hayes' Straitjacket.Claudette Colbert does provide a number of good moments as Cleopatra. She brings a good deal of warmth and humor to her character which makes up for the DeMille's inability to excite or charm.Individual scenes, like Mark Anthony standing above Octavian and his troops and taunting them, are interesting, but there is little coherence or reason behind them.For Hollywood history buffs and Claudette Colbert fans, the movie contains some fun, but others might find it dated and tiresome.