Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Good movie but grossly overrated

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

A lavish spectacle (perhaps not as famous as the 1963 version) that I'm afraid was a bit of a disappointment when I finally got to see it. It's one of director-producer Cecil B. DeMille's many extravaganzas, which was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar (and 3 others).It does features Claudette Colbert, in the title role and a stunning wardrobe, as well as some incredible sets (though the inside of her "barge" looks a little too much like a studio set, from certain angles) and Academy Award winning Cinematography.But I'm afraid that Warren William's Caesar, and Henry Wilcoxon's Marc Antony leave much to be desired. William didn't seem to make up his mind about how to play Caesar; his performance begins rather woodenly and ends up almost campy. Though Wilcoxon's Antony is "dumb" enough to be manipulated by the Queen of Egypt, I didn't find their passion for one another (nor Caesar's for Cleopatra, for that matter) particularly credible.Ian Keith as Octavian, Joseph Schildkraut as King Herod and C. Aubrey Smith as Caesar's, then Antony's, loyal General provide adequate support. Arthur Hohl and Harry Beresford, who played Titus and Favius (respectively) in the much better DeMille film The Sign of the Cross (1932), play Brutus and the Soothsayer in this one.

Director Cecil B. DeMille pulled out all of the stops for this epic production of "Cleopatra". Following his success with "The Sign of the Cross" two years earlier, and the emergence of Claudette Colbert as a major star, and in spite of the poorly received "Four Frightened People", he went back to what he knew best: the Roman epic.The story in brief, centers around the relationships between the seductive Cleopatra (Colbert), Julius Caesar (Warren William) and Marc Antony (Henry Wilcoxen). First when Caesar moves to take over Egypt, she seduces him and convinces him to divorce his wife Calpurnia (Gertrude Michael) and to return triumphantly with her to Rome. Some members of the Roman Senate object to Caesar's plans and assassinate him on the fateful "ides of March".Cleopatra with the help of her faithful Egyptian aide Apollodorus (Irving Pichel), escapes to Egypt. Caesar's friend and ally Marc Antony vows revenge and sets out for Egypt to bring Cleopatra back in chains. Antony's rival Octavian (Ian Keith in a part similar to the one he played in "The Sign of the Cross") waits for Antony to make a mistake. Antony arrives in Egypt and is immediately taken under Cleopatra's spell. Apollodorus sees his opportunity and leads a movement in Rome to have Antony declared a traitor and wage war against Antony and Cleopatra. Antony's generals led by the steadfast Enobarbus (C. Aubrey Smith) desert him and..............................As the new Production Code was adopted in 1934, DeMille didn't have the leeway with nudity, sex and violence that he had two years earlier. Still and all he managed to sneak a few scenes past the censor. Colbert's costumes though less revealing still left the viewer with the impression that he had seen something. The scenes on Cleopatra's barge with the scantily clad dancers and the drawing of the drapes scene, left little to the imagination.As was the custom with DeMille epics, he spared no expense when it came to the lavish costumes and stunning sets. The battle scenes are excellent and realistically staged.Claudette Colbert was the perfect choice as Cleopatra. She was at the top of her game at this time and created what is widely believed to have been her greatest role although she never worked with DeMille again. Warren William makes an excellent Julius Caesar displaying poise and maturity as the Roman emperor and the weakness which ultimately proves to be his downfall. Henry Wilcoxen makes a viral and ambitious Antony who follows Caesar into Cleopatra's web of lust and deceit. Mention should also be made of Joseph Schildkraut as the deceitful King Herod who brings word from Rome. David Niven is listed on the cast list as a slave, but I couldn't spot him.Demille was able to tell the same story in 100 minutes that took the 1963 re-make with Elizabeth Taylor over four hours to tell. No body could better Demille's skill with epic film.

Unfortunately, the colossal failure of the 1963 Cleopatra has overshadowed the less opulent but superior 1934 version. In his obsession to throw money at the production to assure its success, Joseph Mankiewicz nearly bankrupted 20th Century Fox and, along the way, seemed to forget the fundamental elements of good movie-making. By contrast, in the Great Depression of the early 1930s, Paramount Studios were already near receivership, so Cecil DeMille was put in the unusual position of having to create an epic with great economy: this meant focusing on the story, demanding great acting and creating a high style within the budget that he had.To some degree he was abetted by the old-style Academy frame, which allowed DeMille to fill the screen with just a few beautifully designed sets (the throne room, the barge); in contrast, the Mankiewicz version seemed always to struggle with how the fill the Cinemascope screen, especially for the interior shots—there was always a vastness that diminished the actors and the acting (this is a common weakness of Cinemascope—great for landscapes, poor for intimacy).De Mille has been much criticized for the 1930s anachronistic dialog, but in truth, no version of Cleopatra on screen or on the stage has ever used contemporary 1st-Century BC Latin or even a rough translation of it! Even the revered Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra was written in Early Modern English. And who is to say that the vulgar Latin (the form of Latin used in every-day ancient speech rather than the formal Latin used in the Roman Senate) is any different from what DeMille used in his version? Some economies were obvious: in particular, the battle scenes were just montages taken from several of DeMille's earlier films, but interestingly, DeMille filmed the abduction sequence on location—this, during an era that always filmed these kinds of scenes in the studio with rear projection. But by putting his few dollars into the scene that focused on Cleopatra's vulnerability and loss of control, DeMille both heightened the drama early in the picture and magnified the viewer's interest in her later fate.Countering the economy were many riches. The barge scene is justifiably placed in many anthologies of great motion picture moments, but what makes it so special is that it is a rare case where silent movie sensibility has been transformed intact into the sound era. DeMille had directed in both eras and he, among the few of his time, was able to preserve the visual richness and choreographed motion of the silent era and make it work in a talking picture. Another example of that exotic visual sense is the breathtaking opening and closing credits: the picture begins with the symbolic opening of the walls of an Egyptian tomb and the picture ends with the tomb closing upon Cleopatra with that same symbolism. All of this is accompanied by Rudolph Kopp's wonderful score that is uniquely (and dramatically appropriately) languid and sorrowful, rather than triumphant and bombastic as would be the case in most other costume dramas.I won't repeat the comments made about the superb work that Claudette Colbert did here (and so different from that other masterpiece she made "It Happened One Night" in the same year!) Her work was so erotic and sensual, I wonder if some scenes were cut since the Production Code was passed during Cleopatra's production? Bottomline: See this film, appreciate its rare and now lost artistry, and recommend it to others.Ron Levine

Well, I never remember seeing this DeMille blockbuster, so I was happy to see a screening of a restored "George Eastman House" print the other day. Certainly most everyone reading here at IMDb is familiar with the DeMille brand, and most would probably agree that he seldom disappoints his audience. DeMille liked to think big, and it shows by his making some really fantastic entertainments that even today pack a wallop. And obviously, Adolph Zukor invested big bucks to make DeMille's vision come to reality here.No one would confuse DeMille's "Cleopatra" with a historical documentary. But he does lay out an interesting and nuanced storyline revolving around the Queen of the Nile and two of her lovers -- Julius Caesar and Marc Antony. The movie moves along very nicely, and the boredom sometimes associated with these kinds of historical epics is not apparent.Colbert is extraordinarily sexy, sporting some of the most revealing costumes and looking just absolutely gorgeous. Her sometimes ironic and sometimes earnest delivery of dialog makes her Cleopatra both slyly humorous and sympathetic. She's absolutely fantastic and utilizes her huge eyes to great effect, being perfectly cast as this legendary vixen she expertly shoulders the weight of the film.Amazing set pieces abound, and I won't discuss the specifics here, but needless to say, DeMille had the studio put in a gigantic effort to make the elaborate sets, costumes, battles, and every extra look genuine. Marc Antony's first visit to Cleopatra's barge becomes a marvel of choreography, with even Agnes DeMille involved! Yeah, the dialog might be somewhat hokey and dated, but always relevant and insightful into the characters. A slight downside was the obvious use of stock footage in the final battle scene, obviously taken from something filmed at least a decade before -- but that's a small complaint.The supporting cast is led by Warren William as Caesar and Henry Wilcoxon as Antony who both fill out their roles admirably, and in a way that's not stereotypical. Colbert needs strong men to play off of, and these two are up to the challenge. And Ian Keith supplies a few powerful moments as Cleo's smoldering nemesis Octavian. A special mention too goes to Joseph Schildkraut who has a memorable little cameo as King Herod.No one paying full admittance back in 1934 would have come away disappointed by DeMille's spectacular "Cleopatra." Wasn't that the core of his populist genius?***** out of *****