Stream it now

Cleopatra 1963

Historical epic. The triumphs and tragedy of the Egyptian queen, Cleopatra...

Your rating: 0

Solar rating: 9.5

1

Imdb rating: 7

17,193
 
 
Voting
Quality
Age
 
Voting
Quality
Age

Сomments

Watch this video. I will rate it as not-Rotten.

Cleopatra is SOOOOOOOOOO LONG. They just showed it about 20 times on AMC. I'd never seen it before. I really do like Rex Harrison. For some reason I didn't enjoy "My Fair Lady" as much, I think I really am not a fan of Audrey Hepburn . I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's because I saw the remake of "Sabrina" before the original, and thought she was totally wrong for the role. ironically.

At any rate. Pretty good movie, that cleopatra. Although I have vague recollections of the 1997 remake w/ Billy Zane, and... that was surely not good. And that was even during my Billy Zane fetish years! But Rex Harrison and Roddy McDowell really make this movie for me. Particularly the latter--I never knew Cornelius the ape could be so damned snarky. :p

Burton really reminds me of some contemporary actor ... I can't put my finger on it. Anyone? And no, it's not bloody Russel Crowe.
The worst thing about the film is that it shoots for greatness, but really isn't. The scenes in Cleopara are long, and drawn out, almost impossible to know exactly what is going on, or to even care. It is so over dramatic, that I know things didn't really happen like that. If you like history based in these times, I strongly disagree with you watching it, unless you just want to tell everybody how stupid it is, that's fine.
Great performances..great story..amazing real life story.
Magnificently overproduced. It cost a lot of money to make it, but at least it shows. Terribly overlong, extremely overblown. Some scenes are truly spectacular, like Cleopatra's grand arrival in Rome. It is breathtaking to say the least. There is an unquestionable chemistry between Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. It is indeed entertaining.
This film is often panned, and bashed. However, I find it to be an outstanding technical achievement.

Rex Harrison's performance is highly enjoyable, but the film suffers from being to long and too boring in places. It picks up now and then, but often drops it.

But, if you just sit back and marvel at the sets, you will enjoy the film.
Ok film.

:up: :) ;) :rolleyes: :up:
Full of pomp and circumstance and telling a story that goes on and on, this Cleopatra is Hollywood's most epic of the epics. Costing something like $500 million in today's dollars, it didn't break even for years.

With full scale sets beyond compare and a highly paid cast, you can see where at least some the $$$ went. But does anyone care about the tale of the last of the Egyptian/Greek rulers by the end of the movie?



Caesar is dead. Antony takes his turn.


Taylor was a knockout at the time and they dressed her like a goddess. It worked for me. Cleopatra 1963 is required viewing for any Swords and Sandals fan.

The DVDs are excellent, with a 3rd DVD full of trivia and production info on this monster of a movie. Sound was remastered to a 5.1 mix which actually worked most of the time. The DVDs get a 9/10.
Queen's Birthday public holiday Monday 4 June - long weekend

Cleopatra (1963) starring Elizabeth Taylor, Rex Harrison and Richard Burton
Seen on 2 disc DVD. OK so this epic is loooong and extremely melodramatic but it's worth it to see the gorgeous Liz Taylor and her mega costume changes.

Becoming Jane (2007) starring Anne Hathaway (Princess Diaries, The Devil Wears Prada) and James McAvoy (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Last King of Scotland)
The costumes were great. Good to see Anne Hathaway in a more mature, serious role. The one thing that bugs me is the text at the end of the film - I think it should have made it clear that the film is only loosely based on fact - for instance it's not proven that Jane and Tom ever had anything more than an innocent crush - the writers took license in portraying their engagement and plans for elopement and should have stated this. At the end of the film Tom introduces his daughter (Jane) to Jane (Austen) whom he hasnt seen for years and she's surprised that Tom has named his daughter Jane (the fact that he named his daughter Jane is apparently true). However, in the closing text the producers feel they have to state this fact again in writing? Seems weird to me that they felt the need to overstate, like "Oh well Tom named his daughter Jane so there must have been something really serious between them." Jane was a pretty common name - he could easily have got the name from anyone in his or his wife's side of the family, it could just be coincidence that they had the same name. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking artistic license and basing a story on real people but I think it should be mentioned that the story is partially fictional in the closing credits.
:fresh: Cleopatra is a heavy film that lenghts a little more than 4 hours but these hours of entertainment are full of sublime costumes and stages. The characters were, I think well chosen and although certainly it is not the best Liz Taylor's performance I think she did it decently, she was a thousand times more beautiful than the original Cleopatra and that is something that the Queen of the Nile should be thankful with.

The film has just one big trouble: it is clear that was very expensive and has some scenes that seems obvious were bad edited because some situations are not clear or the screenplay also seems incomplete. Anyway it is hard to find nowadays a film with the same spectacle and luxury; I liked it and recommend it for a very special DVD.
Classic overblown Hollywood. The film just feels like a mess and choppy. THere are some truely amazing scenes but they come rarely.