Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

calvinnme Quite a remarkable production, a key film on the continuum of American film that set the bar higher. Considering King Tut's tomb wouldn't be found for another ten years, the sets and costumes were well done, funny chubby Egyptian figures painted on the walls. Thank goodness D.W. Griffith was compelled to innovate a few years later but restoration funds were well spent on this historical film.Cleopatra is a very stagey film. Nothing happens here that could not happen in a theatre. Genuine exteriors are almost non-existent, and even simple exteriors, requiring only a field and a tree or two, are duplicated with backdrops. This of course was in an era when the theatre still commanded a good deal more respect than did the cinema. Remember that one of the earliest film companies, a precursor to Paramount, was originally formed by Zukor as Famous Players in Famous Plays. Also note that the extras seem to have nothing really to do. They are all standing around seeming to look for direction. Most of the film is very long shots, once again, going back to theatre roots. The score is terrible and does not fit the film at all. I don't care for avant-garde stuff and the music definitely falls into that category. If someone were going to use that type of music I would think it would be better suited to something like a German expressionist style film, not a period piece "historical" type film. That noise Ms. Gardner (Cleopatra) was making at the beginning was just odd and distracting. Then the actual "singing" (if you can call it that because the words were pretty much unintelligible) was again distracting. I was trying to figure out what she was saying and ended up missing part of the movie. However,the sounds and the score is somebody in modern times trying to augment the film, so I can hardly blame Ms.Gardner for it one hundred years after the fact.I'm glad this film was restored, as it's an interesting piece of film history. Before the money men got involved there was a place for women behind the camera in writing and directing as well as owning their own studios as Helen Gardner did. It's also very interesting that she made many feature length films (80-90 minutes) as opposed to the one and two reelers of the time. Cleopatra is listed as being the first feature length film (6 reels) made in the U.S., although De Mille always incorrectly tried to claim that "The Squaw Man" - which he directed -was the first feature length film.Worthwhile for the novelty of it all.

edalweber Like other people, I found the sound track to be rather annoying.I think that the main problem with this and similar films is that it appears that the actors forgot that they were making a silent movie and that no one could hear what they were saying.You have much too long sequences where two people are talking to each other, generally with not even many gestures, and only occasional subtitles.Of course this was a very early film, and people were feeling their way, but lacking both sound and any interesting settings, this turns out to be pretty dull.The peculiar movement of the barge as it moves on and off scene does give it a surrealist appearance.

Phil (ROC-7) I was watching with interest the 1912 production and found it fascinating by the different acting styles strong and weak in the primarily static shots until I realized that each scene may have meant to be tableaux that come to life. Charles Sindelar was a strong looking Anthony and thought the actress playing Octavia was more accessible to modern audiences.The so-called score made probably by some spoiled New York Artists especially that hideous groaning woman was really dreadful,but as with most scores to silents just a flick of the mute button can help as great silents stand on their silence alone!

scott-946 This is a rare chance to see a very old picture that has been restored, and combined with a sound track that brings a rather classical approach to provide minimally invasive music that sets a tone for the tragedy together with a well measured modern song that adds color and personality to the character of Cleopatra. I'm sure that some viewers will be turned off by this, since the singer and the song sound rather out of place at first simply because they are unexpected and a surprise. Not everyone likes a surprise, especially when it's applied to something they think should be maintained in total integrity with the original presentation.My personal view is that these early silent films were meant to be supported by the best efforts of musicians available at the time to add their own personal interpretation to the film, and to support the film with appropriate artistic sound to help convey the viewer into a more complete sensory experience. I know there are some musicians who could provide an accompaniment that would sound more like a 1912 accompaniment, but I liked what the musicians did with this film. I added to my enjoyment and brought me more emotionally into the whole story.The film itself is an excellent example of how pure acting together with simple sets and costumes can by itself bring a good story to life for a viewer. It helps to have one of the greatest love stories of all time as the subject matter. And, the fact that almost everyone has some level of familiarity with the story as originally written for the stage by the greatest playwright, Wm. Shakespere, certainly provides a foundation that exceeds any minimum requirements.Scott Indy