"Cleopatra" (1963) is better that it's reputed to be. It's overlong, of course, but the production drips with opulence from nearly every frame, the acting is strong, the storytelling is good (despite the cuts), and there are some HUMONGOUS set pieces (Cleopatra's entrance into Rome probably surpasses anything similar that has been attempted before or since). Personally I think every movie buff needs to see this movie at least once, it can be an eye-filling experience and it can be an ordeal, but it's a rare example of cinematic ambition (over?)shooting for the moon. *** out of 4.

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.

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.

This truly has a cast of thousands. All before the age of CGI, there are hordes of costumed people all doing something all the way to the horizon. It is spectacular.Elizabeth Taylor is supposed to be playing a teenager. No amount of makeup can disguise the fact she is 30. I pegged her as 40 because of her double chin and rather plump back and thighs that she reveals in a massage scene.Cleopatra is a spoiled brat, and nobody plays spoiled brats better than Elizabeth Taylor.I thought it would be all costumes and spectacle, but it has an interesting and involved plot.The violence in the first part of the movie tends to occur off screenThe most jarring scenes were the dancing girls in either Day-Glo bikinis or pasties looking like they had just stepped out of a Texas stripper bar. The real Egyptians were not shy about breasts. Day-Glo colours abound. I am pretty sure they had not been invented yet.For pure spectacle, Cleopatra's entrance into Rome is indeed amazing. Each stage of it is replaced by something even more astounding.What makes this movie work are the crowd scenes. The whole screen is alive with action. There is so much going on, you cannot possibly take it all in. These crowd scenes are so much more impressive than anything you see in modern movies.One of the odd things, though many of the characters lead entire countries, they never spend any time at all in administration. They make no laws, consult with no committees etc. One scene I found jarring was when the library at Alexandria burned. Cleopatra expressed distress that a Jewish bible had been destroyed. I found that highly improbable. Compare that with the one-of-a-kind Greek and Roman documents lost.Cleopatra is such schemer. She is so Machiavellian. She is like Lady Macbeth with her snake-like ambition. You would think anyone on encountering her would run in the other direction. Yet we know from history both Caesar and Mark Anthony were ensnared. In the scenes where she tries to be seductive, I just felt creeped out. Perhaps in 1962 that sort of behaviour was considered sexy. Perhaps she was trying to project insincerity.There is a great scene where Octavian persuades the senate to go to war with Egypt for the silliest reason. The ensuing war is pointless and depressing. The wild excitement at the start of the war contrasts with the sombre actuality.I normally find battle scenes in movies exceedingly boring. However, here they were interesting, fascinating and original. They were full of terror, sadness and dread.The language, especially in some of the longer speeches was stilted. I had some trouble understanding it. It was almost Shakespearian. The musical score has nothing in it that evokes Rome or Egypt. It is like Mantovani soaring strings. It feels out of place.