Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Nicarachie 4 hours and 11 mean minutes. It looks good, the palette is very soft and pleasant to the eye even though Roman garb and decor is gaudy it's not obnoxiously taking over unlike every other Roman movie. The score is nice but a little tiresome and distracting from the dialogue. Preformed very well by a cast full of legends, Richard Burton hits all the notes, Taylor comes off a little hammy to me in this but is fine. She's ridiculously good in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf and that's the first thing she's in that I watched. Direction is very meticulous. That being what it all is at times (I understand it was released '63) it needed to move. There's a reason it was cut to 3hr12min for theatrical release. This anniversary edition run time is trying.

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.

elvircorhodzic CLEOPATRA is an epic historical drama as a kind of group of non-complementary film segments, which are building an attractive epic story. The plot follows the eighteen tumultuous years that led to the founding of the Roman Empire. Cleopatra seduces Julius Caesar in order to forge an alliance with Rome so that she may hold on to her Egyptian empire. However, her plans crumble when Caesar is stabbed to death in the Roman Senate. Cleopatra is left without an ally, and Egypt is up for grabs. However, she seduces the Roman general Mark Antony in order to make him over into her new protector, but, a powerful general becomes dissolute drunk under her influence. He is defeated in a decisive battle, then the fate of Egypt, Cleopatra and his life come into danger...Film runs a few minutes more than four hours, excluding the intermission. It is difficult to follow, especially if there is no cohesion between the constant conflicts, political intrigue and erotic romance. Of course, some will say that this is an adventurous tragedy of historical dimensions. I think, this film constantly loses its point, realism, motives and passions and becomes a vulgar soap opera of epic proportions.The costumes are superbly designed. The scenery is very poor. Soundtrack is impermanent, despite epic overtones. Characters are not developed to the end, despite the duration of this film. Mr. Mankiewicz is focused on a visual excitement to the detriment of the direction and melodrama. Well, Cleopatra's entrance into Rome is truly spectacular, but an epilogue is too theatrical.Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra is one of the most erotic phenomena in the history of cinema. However, I think that it was not the ultimate goal. She is a strong and capable woman, who is poisoned by her own ambition to rule the world or maybe just a few powerful men. The arrogance and pride in her character are truly impressive. However, her performance is nothing special.Rex Harrison as Julius Caesar is a wise and generous ruler, who fell in love with a clever woman. He is torn between his duty, ambitions and desires. When the ruler loses his head .... we all know what's coming .... Mr. Harrison has offered a good performance.Richard Burton as Mark Antony is an exciting, emotional and arrogant general or lover. His character, in addition to a lack of self-confidence, corresponds to the character of Cleopatra. However, he can not follow her ambitions.This is a sumptuous, attractive and, unfortunately, boring experience.

Hitchcoc The unevenness has been explained many times. This was supposed to be two movies. We will never know because the producers grabbed their pocketbooks and wouldn't let go. This is a good story, but it doesn't work because about a third is missing. That said, take each of the characters and ask yourself if they did a good job presenting themselves. Taylor is beautiful and very interesting, Rex Harrison is his usual intriguing personage, and Roddy McDowell, who I remember most as a child actor may be the best of all. I mostly remember the drama among the actors and all the news coming out of Hollywood, concerning "Cleopatra." Taylor and Burton, Taylor and Harrison, on and on. I think there are times when the hype supersedes the product and we were treated to daily reports from the press on this "disaster." Still, if you can look past the unevenness, there's a lot of fun here. Especiallly the epic battle scenes and all the other spectacle. At the time, perhaps the most expensive film ever made.