Good concept, poorly executed.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

About the only thing that makes this boring trollop of a play bearable at all is the beautiful visage of Vivien Leigh. If this is representative of Bernard Shaw's other works, then I'm thankful for my ignorance of them.

Even the presence of two great performers cannot save CAESAR AND CLEOPATRA from sheer boredom. The fault, of course, lies in the George Bernard Shaw play on which the film is based. The early scenes involving LEO GENN and the scene showing CLAUDE RAINS' first encounter with Cleopatra are so badly staged, written and directed that a viewer like myself cannot even get involved in caring about the characters.VIVIEN LEIGH prances around like an airhead girl without any sense of decorum or wisdom, making her an unlikely candidate to become Queen of the Nile. Furthermore, her illness shows in every close-up and the eye make-up and white skin is hardly how one visualizes the woman who would later seduce Mark Antony.CLAUDE RAINS is an impressive Caesar, but his fawning over the childish woman he first encounters (on a sound stage in a fake desert) becomes intolerable after awhile. Vivien seems like a spoiled brat undeserving the sort of attention reaped on her.But the biggest distraction is that it is obvious all of the outdoor scenes are taking place on studio sets, given that the film was made when Britain was still being bombarded with air attacks during WWII. The color print shown on TCM is a bit garish but does indicate that a lot of expense went into costumes and settings. Too bad all this money couldn't have been lavished on a better script. As Shaw, who penned the script, has Liza say in "My Fair Lady,": "I get words, words, words!"FLORA ROBSON is a bit hard to take in an offbeat role and most of the supporting names in the large cast are wasted, with the exception of STEWART GRANGER.Summing up: Not cinematic. Never overcomes its stage origins.

It's easy to write a whole review praising Claude Rains and Vivian Leigh because they're both so fabulous in the title roles. But the other actors are all extremely good as well, most especially Flora Robson, who plays Cleopatra's terrifying nurse/assassin-slave. Raw, lanky, and athletic; commanding, loyal to death and absolutely ruthless, she really gives the impression that she could take on four Roman soldiers simultaneously with her bare hands and kill all of them in a few seconds.Other excellent character actors include Cecil Parker representing Britain and British national character; outstanding child-actor Anthony Harvey, hilariously earnest as Prince Ptolemy; and Francis L. Sullivan, one of the finest masters of the big-and-fat actor's craft.If there's a flaw, it's the fault of George Bernard Shaw, whose play is very difficult to follow by today's standards. Focus on the characters and don't try to keep track of the plot, and you will find this one of the most absorbing historical-epic movies.

Impressive acting is the highlight of 1945's "Caesar and Cleopatra," a British production starring Vivien Leigh, Claude Rains, Stewart Granger, Flora Robson and Francis L. Sullivan. In smaller roles, you can spot Michael Rennie, Kay Kendall and Jean Simmons.This production was not without its problems - made during World War II, bombings often delayed the filming; there was a five-week break while Vivien Leigh recovered from a miscarriage; and there was a shortage of materials to build the sets. Nevertheless, for a British film, this is a real spectacle and made in color, which was also unusual back then.Shaw's Cleopatra (Leigh) is a childlike girl/woman who has hitting matches with her younger brother, runs, giggles, talks fast and becomes nervous at the thought of meeting the great Caesar (Rains). In the beginning, she meets him without realizing it. The two have a flirtation while he teaches her how to be a queen. Shaw's Caesar is an old man, a great warrior and a benevolent ruler who rules with a velvet glove rather than a sword.Rains and Leigh are wonderful in their roles. Rains, as someone stated, with his Caesar haircut, weary face and beautiful profile looks as if he stepped out of that time period. His mastery of Shaw's language is magnificent, and he really holds the film together.The stunningly beautiful Leigh, white-faced with glorious cheekbones and dazzling eyes, is a whimsical Cleopatra at first. She matures and becomes calmer and more regal as she learns how to be a queen, but she falls back into her childish ways in the presence of Caesar, particularly when he promises to send her Marc Anthony. They say the camera adds 10 pounds - frankly, I'm surprised any of the actors could see Leigh, she is so tiny. She gives a sprightly, energetic performance. Shaw's Cleopatra is 16 (though in reality she is 20 or 21) - Leigh was 32 at the time of filming and comes off like the teenager Shaw wrote.Stewart Granger as Apollodorus shows off his very hunky physique - no wonder he came to the attention of Hollywood. As two aides of Caesar's, Basil Sydney as Ruffio and Cecil Parker as Britanus give fine performances. Finally, Flora Robson as the protective, tough nursemaid of Cleopatra's, Ftatateeta, sinks her teeth into the role and is a force to contend with.This movie flopped, probably because audiences thought it was going to be some huge spectacle - it's big for England, but it's not DeMille. Still, it's a real treat to see one of the classics done by two great actors who were well-trained and well-equipped to perform George Bernard Shaw.