Cleopatra: The Film That Changed Hollywood (2001)

[ginnyfan]

I rewatched Cleopatra this Easter, after last seeing it when Liz died which is a long time ago now. I have to say it was a thoroughly enjoyable night and the epic 4 hours did not feel like a drag. I tried to make the evening an event, using the Intermission to stock up on cake and sodas. Such a grand movie calls for it.

I agree the movie itself gets so much trashing because of the disastrous epic filming and all the drama behind the scenes. Even Liz was too harsh in her statements, saying she had to vomit during the premiere or something like that. Why? What exactly was so bad about the movie? It's not Ben Hur, but it sure is better than many other religious epics of the era.

Speaking of casting, I do have to say I don't find Burton very attractive in this. I even wonder what Taylor saw in him at this moment in time. I find Rex Harrison to be somehow sexier and his performance was the only one nominated for an Academy Award for a reason. But then again, Burton looks absolutely dashing in The VIPs, made in 1963. I can imagine Brando as Mark Antony once again strutting around in Roman outfits which would be a treat. He was at his peak, looks wise, in early 60s and would do a fine acting job I'm sure. I love him in both Mutiny on the Bounty and One-Eyed Jacks, from this period.




I would love to see the 6 hour version, with all the cut dialogue and scenes it would probably make the film even better. BUT, even if Cleopatra was a truly terrible movie, dialogue, story and acting wise, it would still be worth seeing because of the sheer effort it took to film such an epic, grand movie, with all the locations, sets, costumes, extras and all the lives, nerves and sanity that went into it. They truly don't make them like this anymore.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

agree the movie itself gets so much trashing because of the disastrous epic filming and all the drama behind the scenes. Even Liz was too harsh in her statements, saying she had to vomit during the premiere or something like that. Why? What exactly was so bad about the movie?

Taylor found the cuts excruciating, because much of the character-material was removed and only the soapy stuff was left in. She said most of what she was proud of was gone.

That said, she apparently sat down with her family in the '70s to watch it, and she proclaimed the movie to be not-so-bad after all.

I, too, have no trouble at all watching CLEOPATRA. It's campy funnishness, a little dry in its pacing perhaps, but it breezes by acceptably for me. And I think she's really good in it. It's why she was essentially the movie star of movie stars

Elizabeth, gone 15 years!

 

[Karin]

I rewatched Cleopatra this Easter, after last seeing it when Liz died which is a long time ago now. I have to say it was a thoroughly enjoyable night and the epic 4 hours did not feel like a drag. I tried to make the evening an event, using the Intermission to stock up on cake and sodas. Such a grand movie calls for it.

I agree the movie itself gets so much trashing because of the disastrous epic filming and all the drama behind the scenes. Even Liz was too harsh in her statements, saying she had to vomit during the premiere or something like that. Why? What exactly was so bad about the movie? It's not Ben Hur, but it sure is better than many other religious epics of the era.

Speaking of casting, I do have to say I don't find Burton very attractive in this. I even wonder what Taylor saw in him at this moment in time. I find Rex Harrison to be somehow sexier and his performance was the only one nominated for an Academy Award for a reason. But then again, Burton looks absolutely dashing in The VIPs, made in 1963. I can imagine Brando as Mark Antony once again strutting around in Roman outfits which would be a treat. He was at his peak, looks wise, in early 60s and would do a fine acting job I'm sure. I love him in both Mutiny on the Bounty and One-Eyed Jacks, from this period.




I would love to see the 6 hour version, with all the cut dialogue and scenes it would probably make the film even better. BUT, even if Cleopatra was a truly terrible movie, dialogue, story and acting wise, it would still be worth seeing because of the sheer effort it took to film such an epic, grand movie, with all the locations, sets, costumes, extras and all the lives, nerves and sanity that went into it. They truly don't make them like this anymore.

Are these screen cap from the Blu ray version?
The colors looks different somehow.

Cleopatra remains one of my most favorite movies. I would say second after "Gone with the wind". But I must admit I haven't watched it in a long time now. It must have been at least 5 years since I last saw it. I would also love to see the two three hour movies in the directors cut. Sadly I don't think those prints are still existing or they are misplaced in some film vault. Or else I see no reason why Fox wouldn't want to release them to make more money.

 

[Toni]

I also re-watched it recently (the 4-hour version, of course...) and did it as a 2-part miniseries. I agree with most of what you all said here. It did need some more exteriors though, and the sea battle looks poor-ish. Everybody in the cast is great, and it was a nice surprise to see so many stars in their youth: Martin Landau and Roddy McDowall, and others that I knew from TV series like Francesca Annis, Richard O´Sullivan (whose makeup à la Liz turned him into a drag!), Jean Marsh (who nails two of her scenes with Burton!), and others who are not even credited or have any dialogue, like John Alderton and Calvin Lockhart.

Octavia, the "downstairs" version of Liz​

Antony´s "Part 2" gets more and more poignant and gives the story the power it should have had since the beginning, which drags along a bit. Liz´s cleavage is the most prominent supporting actor here! Quite bold for that time, as are the scenes with her in the "jacuzzi" with her slaves, where she seems to want to show everything that censorship would let her...and a tit more. This was filmed partly in Almería, Spain, and I found rather pathetic that there is no Spanish actor involved.

Was she drinking something from the mini-bar?
​

I guess that it was a miracle that the whole thing ended up being such a historical movie (in many senses) and that it was successful worldwide though caused the debacle of Fox...

Almodóvar once filmed a scene like this...
and a different ending.​

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

she seems to want to show everything that censorship would let her...and a tit more

Two were quite enough.


[insert here Roddy McDowall's nude photo of a very young, preternaturally gorgeous Elizabeth Taylor -- I can't find it.]


I still wish they'd find the missing 2 hours, as the exteriors of Rome and Egypt were removed for time (as well as the development of Antony & Cleopatra's relationship, the edits turning their romance into a kissy-slappy soap). But back then, they didn't used to save such material, so it was likely destroyed, those millions of dollars wasted and lost forever.

One of Joe Mank's sons asked, 'who wants to see a boring 6-hour movie version of a boring 4-hour movie?'

But I do.

Someone should have told Daryl Zanuck to allow Mankiewicz to do an alternative full-length cut for TV, where they could make a huge bundle to offset the theatrical losses. But no one apparently thought of that... As it was, the sale to television set a record price anyway.