Watch Cleopatra For Free

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

After seeing the longest movie in my entire life, I ended up watching this because once again, I heard it's a version of Shakespeare's "Antony And Cleopatra". The battle scenes are easily the best parts of the movie. It does kind of drag on with the conversations. Well, who am I say that after watching a four half version? As always, there's no reason to put up spoilers because we already know what's going to happen. Now only is it a story hundreds of years old, but it happened in real life! I knew little about Claudette Colbert.The dialogue is still quite nice. They actually ask at one point if Cleopatra is black. That actually is a realistic representation of her physical appearance because there's no reason to think she was. She was still ugly, though. It does make me wonder if these films could also qualify as versions of Shakespeare's "Julius Caeser" as they also show his assassination. Well, they don't really show the fate of Brutus, so its not quite the same story. ***

I caught this on Turner Classic a couple of weeks ago, and went into it not really knowing much at all about the story of Cleopatra. I know I had to read Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in high school, but I never really got into the more romantic side of the story of Cleopatra, Julius Caesar and Mark Antony. I've also never seen the Elizabeth Taylor version of the film that comes thirty years or so after this movie, so I went into it quite blind.I found the 1934 version of "Cleopatra" to be a real treat. The film tells a dramatic tale that is quite encompassing. The acting was good and the story quite developed. One of the best parts of the movie is the detailed and grandiose sets throughout the movie--all of which are quite ornate and extraordinary even by today's standards, let alone by 1934's. At the end of it all I found myself enlightened to a bit of world history that I did not know before the movie, and entertained throughout. The only reason I didn't rate the film higher is that despite it's being so well done, I can't really say that it stands out as a favorite or something I'd want to watch over and over again. Still, it's quite good for what it is, and certainly worthy of seven stars.

Cecil B. DeMille was known as a legendary director and producer, one whose films were the very essence of what is now considered "blockbuster". Big stars, big script, and a cast of thousands were the order of the day for DeMille, and woe be to anyone who stood in the way of his vision. Such films as The Ten Commandments, The Squaw Man, Unconquered, The King of Kings (silent version), Samson and Delilah, and The Greatest Show on Earth are DeMille classics that stand the passage of time. However, to truly enjoy the artistry that *is* DeMille, one only has to look as far as his 1934 epic, Cleopatra, starring Claudette Colbert, Henry Wilcoxon, and Warren William. For anyone who thinks that the Taylor-Burton version is the definitive stamp on the costume drama - well, you'd better view DeMille's masterpiece first! Considerably shorter than the aforementioned Mankiewicz version (263 minutes, director's cut), and coming in at just 100 minutes, DeMille's Cleopatra tightly focuses on her two steamy relationships with Caesar and Marc Antony, an unforgettable seduction scene, and a lively battle sequence. Cinematographer Victor Milner, who worked on It's A Wonderful Life brings his magic touch to all the key scenes. The casting of Claudette Colbert seems out-of-place, until the seduction scene with Henry Wilcoxon's Marc Antony. She handles some decidedly modern lines, which is perhaps the film's weakest link. The dialog reflects the typical 1930s snappy cynicism that was fashionable for the period, but seems oddly out of place in this historical piece. Cleopatra: "Together we could conquer the world." Julius Caesar: "Nice of you to include me." Colbert's costumes by Travis Banton - wondrous in black and white - makes one wish for Ted Turner's colorization process, so we're including these beauty makeovers.

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).