Simply A Masterpiece

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

This film is now the longest movie I have ever seen in my entire life! In fact, the previous record holder was the 1996 "Hamlet" movie and this beat that record by exactly one minute! How awesome! I watched this movie for Shakespeare Month because I heard it was based on "Antony And Cleopatra". The weird thing is that it's kind of hard to really say that because it's based on a true story. It seems more like historical drama than a Shakespeare adaptation. I still think it counts and I'm glad to have checked this out. Hey, I've now seen every movie at the moment that I want to see for 1963! Well, both history and Shakespeare buffs should know the story already. It seems like it's been a long time since I saw an accurate representation of the historical Cleopatra. The funny thing about her is that she became famous for being able to seduce men. Despite being portrayed by the beautiful Elizabeth Taylor here, the actual Cleopatra was actually kind of ugly with a hooked nose. Well, it's been said she at least had a nice voice. The best parts were of course the war and action sequences.I admit it probably is too long and could have been cut in half. Still, we get a lot of really talented actors here and they really are putting a lot of effort into their roles. This is one of the most expensive movies ever made, even adjusted for inflation and actually hit the studio even though it made a good amount of money. My general thought is that it's a good movie, but not a great movie. When you have a film over four hours long, you really have to made it enjoyable. This was a nice big epic film. ***

Cleopatra is one of my favourite movies. The reasons for this are various.THe most superficial aspect about the movie is that of a lavish production. I enormously enjoythe rich, detailed and realistic sets and props, although they feature quite a few anachronisms, especially regarding Cleo's palace.Beyond that, the movie features some very good performances, with Harrison and MacDowall topping the cast, of which only one earned an Academy Award nomination and another lost one for supporting role due to a minor technical formality. Historical realism, including appearances and characters, is not the point of this movie. Otherwise Taylor would not have played the title role. A screenplay composed by historical accounts, those of Plutarch among them, but also a book which I have not read but I deem probably a pseudo-historical novel, the story is supposed to emphasise the struggle of Cleopatra for independence and dignity through any possible means. Her love for Anthony and Ceasar is portrayed as genuine infatuation, which is not known as a historical certainty, but her egotism and Egypt's interests rest also on the top of her priority list. A proof of this is her departure from Actium after learning without verification that Mark Antony is dead, to head to Egypt for regroupment and defense. In general events and guidelines the film is accurate enough to satisfy the reasonable amateur-historian viewers. Several minor or supporting historical figures are omitted probably to create a trio of great role- characters.As for the turbulent history of edits and releases I lament this the most for it is generally believed to have damaged the film and fracturing its continuity and meaning. Though the 250 min version which I have watched recently on Bluray proceeds logically through the plot, small abrupt cuts and connections occur and certain plot details and interconnections are cut. I have only seen photo stills from any cut scenes, among them a scene of the civil war between the Ptolemaic rulers which shows Cleopatra in her battlefield tent. I think that this opulent and well-crafted production deserves to present the viewers with all its magnificence of colours, sets and costumes and performances, for which so much ink, blood and gold has been wasted and nearly made 20th C-Fox sink financially. So, I will always yearn for a director's cut restored, remastered, reedited and re-scored in 1080p perhaps. I would personally sign a contract to buy a set of a 360 CLeopatra BLuray collection even if it cost 100 dollars, because I think that, after all, both the audience and the cast and crew deserve to have their toils fully compensated for having provided an epic which will be, when restored, the best crafted and also nearing the top in performances epic of the pre-CGI film era.So for all the above I give a 9/10, awarded specifically for the director's cut which J.L.M. certainly exchanged his career for.

Really two films in one, the first being vastly superior to the second, more famous half. Before the intermission, the initial two hours of this historical drama focuses on Julius Caesar (Rex Harrison) and his relationship with the titled Queen of Egypt (Elizabeth Taylor). The tempestuous (love affair and) relationship between Cleopatra and Mark Antony (Richard Burton), though it may have been fascinating to audiences of the time given the off-screen affair between these stars, is much less compelling, even boring, making the overall film only slightly above average despite its limitless budget which helped it earn four Oscars: Color Art Direction-Set Decoration, Cinematography, Costume Design, and Special Effects.Only Harrison's acting was Oscar nominated, and rightfully so, as his is easily the best performance in the film, which was also nominated for Best Picture, Editing, Sound, and substantially original Musical Score. Harrison was to win the Best Actor Oscar playing Henry Higgins (in his next film, My Fair Lady (1964)), a character whose attitude towards women was not unlike Caesar's.Another noteworthy performance was given by Roddy McDowall, as Caesar's heir Octavian, in the film's second half, the best scene of which is his dressing down by Cleopatra near its end.Directed and co-written by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, this 4+ hour version also boasts a cast which includes Hume Cronyn and Martin Landau, among others. If not for the director's (or editor's?) proclivity for showing every lead character's prolonged entrance and exit (to showcase the expensive sets?), the film could easily run nearer to 3 hours, as one released version does.

For some strange reason, I have watched Joseph L. Mankiewicz' Cleopatra (1963) twice. That's 8 hours out of, at present time, about 450k.If you're picking up an unimpressed vibe, well . . . This elephantine mess of a historical epic cum romance is impressive only if the viewer simply marvels at the eye-popping scope of the story of the pairings of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra and Marcuus Antonius and said same Egyptian queen. Mankiewicz creates the Eastern Mediterranean and Imperial Rome, 2,000 years ago, and the viewer has to marvel at the skill of the art directors before CGI. But, with the 1962 amount of about a bajillion dollars spent (100 bajillion now?), you'd hope for something more than a shrill and tedious star vehicle wherein Richard Burton, Roddy McDowall, and, of course, the coarse Elizabeth Taylor chew up the scenery as fast as the set builders can replace it.Burton looks desperate for some real alcohol in one of those Jacuzzi-sized chalices you see in costume dramas, McDowall simpers and swishes as a very femmie/bitchy Octavian, and Rex Harrison, the only reason to watch, even though he dies before the two-hour mark, makes Caesar something the others aren't, a real man. Real, as in, believable.It's Taylor who makes you stop the Netflix playback to see just how much time is left on this awful thing. Under ginormous eyelashes and head dresses, almost baring a butt cheek here and a breast there, and shrieking and clawing with her voice alone, Liz makes you think of what Peggy Noonan says Hillary Clinton sounds like--your landlady yelling down the stairs to remind you to clean up after your dog.Taylor, the "most beautiful woman in the world," is a thoroughly unsympathetic character. What kills Cleopatra isn't a broken heart, a loss of her throne, or a snake in her fruit cup, it's that we simply don't care about her, or for that matter, anyone, besides good ol' Rex.And with that said, I'll bring this back to the lost 8 hours in 2 viewings--once in the 80s and once this last week. When I first saw Cleopatra, I rented it in VHS form from my local video rental shop. It was full screen. If you don't understand the difference between full screen and wide screen, just think of it this way. Full screen on an old TV has a visual ratio of 1.33 to 1, the view from side to side is 1/3 greater than the height of the picture. Wide screen-- or letterbox--mimics human sight, including peripheral vision. It's about 2.35 to 1. Get it? Wide screen?When you watch a wide screen movie in full screen, you lose about 40% of the picture the movie maker wanted you to see. It's a major irritant to annoying purists like me. I want to see the whole thing.Because Cleopatra is in some sort of super-d-duper wide screen, I felt ripped off watching the squished version, even with good scan and pan (the editor who transfers the film to a full screen format scans the image for important action and dialogue, then pans over to capture it).Another purist toothache.I wanted to see all of Burton's blustering and pounding his shield, McDowall swishing and shirking, and Taylor flapping those eyelashes and almost having a soapy boob pop out of the bathwater.I wanted to see the whole tit and kaboodle.Unfortunately, the wide screen version didn't add anything. I just sat there wondering why I didn't see a custodian pushing a Swiffer around some polished Egyptian floor waaaay off on the left.I should have known better. I should have stuck with the VHS version.I should have settled for 60% of the kaboodle.