Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

dweilermg-1 In 1963 when the Liz Taylor version of Cleopatra was in movie theaters and getting big hype local TV channels across the USA were airing this classic 1934 Claudette Colbert version. Many of us watched and enjoyed it and didn't bother going to see the remake in theaters. The free airing of this movie may have hurt Liz's newer version in the box office. We all could say "Yes, we saw Cleopatra" without saying which version. Jackie Gleason even joked about it in a sketch on his TV variety show. When Alice Ghostly as his girlfriend wanted to see Cleopatra his cheap guy character told her he'd seen it already. Then her dad said "She means the new one with Elizabeth Taylor, not Claudette Colbert!"

jacobs-greenwood 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.

takecarebeware Many seem convinced this is a pre-code film but it isn't, and it seems fairly obvious watching it. The DVD copy I watched shows that the film has passed the code. The movie was released in October, 1934 and Wikipedia says that the Hayes Code was enforced for every film released from July, 1934. Films had to have the approval of the office enforcing the code. Claudette Colbert's outfits are probably no more daring than what many women would have worn to nightclubs at the time. The mad scenes of dancing where Marc Antony is getting drunk are just dancing girls, as in any musical, just edited this way. Warren William's Caesar dies as if he is dying for the end of the pre-code era. The musty feel of the Code is in this movie. Not to say it isn't a good movie, but the standards are the familiar ones for the years of the code. Compare Claudette Colbert in the Sign of the Cross from 1932, in that film she is called a harlot and is never offended.

Cyke 113: Cleopatra (1934) - released 10/5/1934, viewed 9/2/08.Russia and Afghanistan join the League of Nations. BIRTHS: Brian Epstein, Sophia Loren, Leonard Cohen, Brigitte Bardot.KEVIN: Cecil B. DeMille is at it again with this lavish sword-and-sandal quickie centering on the romantic life of the legendary Egyptian empress, this time played by Claudette Colbert. It should come as no surprise that this film is very poor history by any measure. Historical events that span decades are compressed into weeks or even days. Seemingly important benchmarks, such as the children that Cleopatra bore with Caesar and Antony, are dropped completely. I guess I was a little surprised at how shallow the movie came out to be. All of the actors are playing caricatures, and all their dialogue is spoken in overblown poetic prose. As this is the second DeMille movie we've seen, some comparing and contrasting is in order. 'Sign of the Cross' was more about the large setpieces than about the actual story. This film, no less lavish or expensive-looking, lets the background stay in the background more than hijacking the story. This time, all the big battles and sexytime bears the Production Code seal of approval. This film has far superior (and Oscar-winning) cinematography from Lubitsch-veteran Victor Milner. While 'Cleopatra' is paced and structured far better than 'Sign of the Cross,' I found the former movie, despite its many flaws and similarly two-dimensional performances, to be much more moving than this one. At no point during this film did I feel anything significant for the characters, except maybe for the first flirting scenes between Antony and Cleopatra, which were the best acted and best staged in the film. And Ian Keith is way too old for Octavian at any point in the story.DOUG: Cecil B. DeMille's take on Cleopatra, once probably the biggest and most definitive version of the story, now looks downright routine by comparison. I have not yet seen the 1964 version with Liz Taylor (I'm kind of waiting until they find all that missing footage). *Contract Player Alert*: Claudette Colbert (eventual Oscar winner for It Happened One Night), for all her awesomeness, never really disappears into the character; she just looks like Claudette Colbert in Cleopatra drag. Maybe it's just that she's the only face I recognized. Still, she looks very good in those costumes, and Cleo comes off (rather intentionally) as the most interesting character, with Caesar, Antony, and Octavian all come off as greedy one-dimensional fools. Also worth noting: the movie opens with a seal of approval from the Production Code of America, the first time we've seen it on the Odyssey so far. It's interesting to compare DeMille's Pre-Code spectacle Sign of the Cross with this one. It's especially noticeable in a montage sequence in the third act which shows the Roman army rampaging through Egypt. Demille's indulgent stretches of violence from Cross are gone, replaced with short, indecipherable clips with occasional stabbing and spearchucking. I hate to say it, but think I liked this one better than Cross. Unable to resort to racy scenes of violence and nudity, DeMille now has to focus on the story, what little of it there is. Recommended? Sure.Last film: The Count of Monte Cristo (1934). Next film: The Merry Widow (1934).