Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

mikhail080 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 *****

Jay Raskin Demille tells this story the same way he told "The Ten Commandments," and "Samson and Delilah." He took a few well known incidents, then threw out everything else and wrote his own sensational story to connect them. The historical absurdity could be forgiven if he had put in more a more interesting story-line. Here, unlike his biblical epics, the plot elements are confused and confusing. Why was Cleopatra trying to poison Anthony? Was she trying to poison him or not? While the sets were some times spectacular, perhaps the best thing in the movie, they were more 1930's "art deco" than ancient Egyptian. I don't think there was any hieroglyphics at all in the movie. I felt much more that I was attending a lavish costume party given by Demille at his Hollywood mansion than anywhere in Egypt.According to an opening title, this film was number 80 done under the Hayes Production Code. If we assume Hollywood produced 300-400 films back then, this means it was one of the first to be restricted by the absurd and unnatural rules that only a Catholic priest could consider normal. The most erotic element in Cleopatra's "entertainments" (designed to arouse and seduce the straight laced Anthony) was a man whipping half a dozen women dressed in cat costumes. Its more silly than exciting. One has to wonder how much more interesting this film would have been if not for the Hayes' Straitjacket.Claudette Colbert does provide a number of good moments as Cleopatra. She brings a good deal of warmth and humor to her character which makes up for the DeMille's inability to excite or charm.Individual scenes, like Mark Anthony standing above Octavian and his troops and taunting them, are interesting, but there is little coherence or reason behind them.For Hollywood history buffs and Claudette Colbert fans, the movie contains some fun, but others might find it dated and tiresome.

Neil Doyle Despite its many flaws, this CLEOPATRA is a lot more watchable (and fun to watch) than the overly produced version in the '60s starring Elizabeth Taylor, Rex Harrison and Richard Burton.Claudette Colbert has fun with the role of the siren who flirted mightily with her enemies, all the while conspiring against any power that might want to seize her beloved Egypt. Henry Wilcoxon cuts a fine figure of a man but his role is played almost expressionlessly, except for an occasional attempt at wild laughter. Warren William plays himself and rather well, but none of the three principals is entirely convincing given the lame dialog and situations they are forced into.Not that this matters much, because the spotlight is not on the performers but on the spectacle, and here DeMille does not let anyone down. His opulent sets and costumes are on full display. Even with the obvious use of miniatures for the barge scenes and some quick cross-cutting for the action moments, his camera is forever catching the eye-filling spectacle with expert craftsmanship.A more smoothly told tale than the later attempt with Elizabeth Taylor, it manages to hold the interest although there are definitely moments that drag. All told, worth watching for the spectacle.

Jay Harris Cecil B.DeMille was not the best director in Hollywood history, He was a story teller,He also was not known for being very factual when he made these historical dramas, He changed facts, characters & even history to please both himself & the motion picture public at he time.Most of the movie goers back then wanted to be only entertained, they did not want much history or even truth, They wanted excitement & to laugh or even cry.Messages were for Western Union.Mr. De Mille knew this & made his films that way. He did make very entertaining movies for HIS time. The one film of his that won the Oscar for best film was more of a Hollywood salute to him & his way of making lasting films. That circus film of his was fun to watch & thats about all. This is about my general opinion of all his films.Now CLEOPATRA is a well acted & very well made movie, using many of his usual excellent montage sequence & crowd scenes,Claudette Colbert was a very good Cleopatra, Both Warren William & Henry Wilcoxsin as Ceasar & Mark Antony were good as always, They were part of CB's stock company. I did catch one obvious casting error, Ian Keith was way to old to play Octavius was under 21 yrs old & not middle aged.When watching films from the 30's we must realize how different things were & how people did not act like they do today.Ratings: *** (out of 4) 89 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)