Simply Perfect

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

For lessons on how not to write historical dialogue, this film is a must. Notice how the screenwriters tie themselves up in knots to introduce such phrases as Caesar's wife being "above suspicion". Needless to say, we also get "Friends, Romans, countrymen", "Beware of the ides of March", "And you too, Brutus?" and suchlike Shakespearian chestnuts.The acting is on a similarly amateurish level. Have a competition. Take some lines of dialogue (for example, from the scene in which Irving Pichel persuades Colbert to flee after Caesar's death) and note how much more convincingly you and your friends can handle them. It shouldn't be too hard to out-shine plodding old Irving Pichel and determined-to-be-coquettish-at-all-costs Claudette. Mind you, at least Claudette does try to give a performance, even though somewhat lacking in charisma, subtlety, and a sense of drama. By contrast, many of the other players are a just a plain embarrassment. They declaim away with all the emphatic resonance of amateurs biting into Shakespeare. And some of them don't even remotely look their parts (for example, Irving Pichel's Egyptian).Fortunately, a great deal of money has gone into the sets and this heavy expenditure is all up there to admire on the screen. Some of the sequences still have an impressive power, like the much- anthologized track back in Cleopatra's barge as the curtains are drawn on queen and Antony. There are also some mighty exciting battle montages (in which footage from De Mille's original Ten Commandments can easily be recognized) and some marvelously convincing miniatures. I like the music score too, and the titles — both very much in mid-1930's style.Alas! even on its own juvenile level, Cleopatra is often either unintentionally ridiculous or unwelcomely tedious. Nonetheless, a smart film editor could undoubtedly salvage a very persuasive condensation which would give the impression that the complete movie was a much more exciting and splendidly entertaining production than it actually is. If ever there was a case for a half-hour of highlights, Cleopatra is it! After all, that scene in which the curtains are drawn and the camera dollies back down the length of Cleopatra's barge, belongs on any critic's list of the Greatest Moments in the Cinema. What a pity the rest of the movie doesn't live up to that reputation!Other "Cleopatra" movies include a 1928 MGM Technicolor 2-reeler; Serpent of the Nile with Rhonda Fleming (1953); Una Regina per Cesare (1962); Toto e Cleopatra with Magali Noel (1963); and Antony and Cleopatra with Hildegard Neil opposite Charlton Heston's Antony (1972).

In 1963 when the Liz Taylor version of Cleopatra was in movie theaters and getting big hype local TV channels across the USA were airing this classic 1934 Claudette Colbert version. Many of us watched and enjoyed it and didn't bother going to see the remake in theaters. The free airing of this movie may have hurt Liz's newer version in the box office. We all could say "Yes, we saw Cleopatra" without saying which version. Jackie Gleason even joked about it in a sketch on his TV variety show. When Alice Ghostly as his girlfriend wanted to see Cleopatra his cheap guy character told her he'd seen it already. Then her dad said "She means the new one with Elizabeth Taylor, not Claudette Colbert!"

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.

A lavish spectacle (perhaps not as famous as the 1963 version) that I'm afraid was a bit of a disappointment when I finally got to see it. It's one of director-producer Cecil B. DeMille's many extravaganzas, which was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar (and 3 others).It does features Claudette Colbert, in the title role and a stunning wardrobe, as well as some incredible sets (though the inside of her "barge" looks a little too much like a studio set, from certain angles) and Academy Award winning Cinematography.But I'm afraid that Warren William's Caesar, and Henry Wilcoxon's Marc Antony leave much to be desired. William didn't seem to make up his mind about how to play Caesar; his performance begins rather woodenly and ends up almost campy. Though Wilcoxon's Antony is "dumb" enough to be manipulated by the Queen of Egypt, I didn't find their passion for one another (nor Caesar's for Cleopatra, for that matter) particularly credible.Ian Keith as Octavian, Joseph Schildkraut as King Herod and C. Aubrey Smith as Caesar's, then Antony's, loyal General provide adequate support. Arthur Hohl and Harry Beresford, who played Titus and Favius (respectively) in the much better DeMille film The Sign of the Cross (1932), play Brutus and the Soothsayer in this one.