Here is my entryway into the 1963 "Cleopatra" fanbase, hopefully they still take human sacrifices.
Queen Cleopatra VII is a historical figure, famous for her rule over Egypt, her relationships with General Julius Caesar & later General Marc Antony, and more. The 1963 "Cleopatra" film Cleopatra's life from how she became queen to her death.
Cleopatra was also Greek, which doesn't have much to do with anything in the review, it's just neat to learn about while doing research for this review, me being half-Greek and all.
The movie was distributed by 20th Century Fox, which needs no introduction, and directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, who also wrote the screenplay. Mankiewicz is also known for his work on other movies, such as "All About Eve."
However, the first director was Rouben Mamoulian, who directed films like "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," but he was either fired or resigned during production. Basically, the production was troublesome for most, if not, everyone involved. Even Mankiewicz was fired at one point, according to IMDb.
This piqued my interest since it has romance and sand. I'm a huge fan of deserts visually, so those two things together seemed like they'd make a good movie. I watched this on the Disney+ streaming service, which has the four-hour version.
Now, why am I reviewing a movie when I've only ever reviewed video games and anime up to this point?
That Production Value Though
Before going into the story, I must compliment the production value without CGI, since it wasn't a thing back in the day. Every costume is fantastic, every set piece is stunning, the effects are incredible, and more. "Cleopatra" is a visual spectacle all the way through.
[Credit: Disney+]
The excellent execution is important, as it also convinces you that you're in the B.C. era. Granted, there are a few errors, like a plastic yellow sponge, with plastic sponges not being invented until the 1860s. being in the movie. However, the errors were never distracting. Except for the apples, those were purple in B.C. Egypt.
I also adore the painting transitions to and from large scenes. It's so cool and gives the feeling of seeing a bunch of paintings moving with each new scene. Although, why does this narrator have all these paintings? I can only guess the answer is disturbing.
The rooms that were repeatedly visited, such as Cleopatra's quarters, never grew repetitive since they always looked so fantastic. The same goes for the costumes, with Cleopatra having the most memorable costumes. They do a solid job of reminding you that she's a queen with each scene because her outfits stand out.
[Credit: Disney+]
Fortunately, the scale never feels overbearing apart from one or two scenes, such as Cleopatra's entrance to Rome. It does go on far longer than necessary.
The music is mesmerizingly memorable too, fitting the vibe of the film while being catchy.
The acting is nice too, but it isn't my area of expertise to criticize. The visual and audio aspects are an easy 10/10, which while not perfect, is high quality. It's just a shame the story doesn't match that quality.
Was Rome and Egypt Always this Melodramatic?
Pacing and Melodramatic Writing
I'm going to ask the first question I asked myself when I first saw the movie and after I finished it: WHY IS THIS MOVIE FOUR HOURS?!
Sure, I know why, it's the pacing. Scenes needlessly drag on, stuff is overexplained, and more. This makes the movie extremely slow, making it more of an endurance test than a movie sometimes.
The movie could've easily been three hours if the fluff was cut. The weird part is that some stuff is hard to follow, such as something that happens to Rufio, Marc Antony's right-hand man, near the end of the movie. I had to look up a plot summary to learn what happened.
The same also applies to other scenes where I misinterpreted a character's intentions with their actions entirely.
It doesn't help that the script is melodramatic. You thought the above was agonizing, how about pointless tangents or over-the-top reactions that fail at being dramatic?
[Credit: Disney+]
Now, I'm not an expert on history... However, is it EVER a fantastic idea to throw key evidence at the ground in dramatic fashion? To bring up the lifeless eyes of a statue in the middle of a meeting? Or to stab a bed when under extreme anger and sadness? Beds don't deserve that!
It gets to the point where it feels like I'm watching a soap opera trying too hard. Unfortunately, it's not even ironically enjoyable apart from, admittedly, Julius Caesar's death. I know that sounds messed up, but the way it's shot, done, acted, and the murder method itself creates some unintentional comedy gold.
The combination of both the slow pacing and melodramatic writing had me looking at the clock and runtime thinking, "how has it only been 20 minutes???" However, despite the problems, there are some genuinely great lines.
One example is a line Cleopatra says after Julius Caesar's army accidentally burns down the Egyptian library with unrecoverable books: "How DARE you and the rest of your barbarians set fire to my library! Play conqueror all you want, Mighty Caesar! ... But neither you nor any other barbarian has the right to destroy one human thought!"
The great lines are small, but when they're there, they're fantastic.
However, okay, so the movie is melodramatic and... Torture device length, but at least the characters are interesting and the romance is good?
Uninteresting Characters, Flat Romance
Why do I do this to myself? I want to preface that while these are all historical figures and are real people, I'll be looking at them as characters, mainly because I can't confidently say they're correctly portrayed with how they were in real life or not. To be fair, Google research is the same thing that tells me a cough could be fatal.
As characters, I think the cast isn't anything memorable, but nothing bad. There are a few interesting characters, such as the mute Flavius, the intelligent Julius Caesar, the persuasive Cleopatra, and more.
[Credit: Disney+]
However, I can't say I care about any of them, and that's on the writing. The melodramatic writing also makes characters like Cleopatra and Caesar melodramatic themselves. Granted, Caesar isn't too melodramatic, but Cleopatra is full of melodrama. I mean, she stabbed a bed, WHO DOES THAT?!
In all seriousness though, some things, especially with Cleopatra, feel exaggerated, and distractingly so. Some of their reactions just feel like they're trying too hard to make scenes emotional/sentimental.
I think that's a shame since Cleopatra has an intriguing dilemma going on where she's seen as a poisonous whore due to how persuasive she is. For example, she gives Caesar a God complex. That's genuinely interesting and it creates the most fascinating aspect of the film: seeing how others see Cleopatra versus getting to know her.
Unfortunately, this is held back by Cleopatra commonly acting like a spoiled brat, which may be part of her persuasive nature for all I know. For me, it just creates whiplash with her character when she's smart in one scene, and acts like a child in another.
Then there's the matter of the third main character of "Cleopatra:" Mark Antony.
Out of every character in "Cleopatra," I'm hoping Mark Antony's character was misrepresented, because if this was how the guy was like in real life... Wow... He's a poopy head.
Mark Antony is such an unlikeable character. He's rude, makes Rufio do stuff he should realistically do himself, acts like a spoiled brat more than Cleopatra, is overconfident, and some of his actions are just egregious.
[Credit: Disney+]
If he was a compelling character or an antagonist, I wouldn't mind, but he's supposed to be the character you root for. However, I saw no reason to root for him other than, "the antagonist is worse," but at least the antagonist is competent.
It's hard to be invested when you don't care about the characters. The same goes for the romance too, I couldn't get into it.
Cleopatra's romance with Caesar is interesting because of the God complex, if short-lived to unearth more nuance out of it. Her romance with Antony doesn't work for me unfortunately due to... Well, Mark Antony. The best way to put it is that Antony is horrible at communication.
Both romances writing-wise suffer from poor chemistry. When Cleopatra ended up with someone, it didn't feel earned. If I didn't read the plot synopsis, I would've thought the romance was out of nowhere.
Overall (D)
I think "Cleopatra" is worth a watch for the visual spectacle, since it's genuinely gorgeous. Unfortunately, that's about it excluding the music, the four-hour length drags down the film hard, making a meh film into a bleh movie. Combined with the uninteresting characters, melodramatic writing, slow pacing, and poor romance, it's a bit of a mess.
However, it may've come out like this because of the production hurdles. According to IMDb, the Director & Writer, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, planned for "Cleopatra" to be split into two movies, with both adding up to around six hours together. However, 20th Century Fox decided against it, so the movies were put together into one movie.
They also refused to let Mankiewicz have time off for more script rewrites/refinements due to the studio's debt. Joseph L. Mankiewicz had to do daily injections to stay awake, with different injections to fall asleep. He ruined his health for the movie.
Honestly, reading into the production of "Cleopatra" is more interesting than the film itself. It puts into perspective why "Cleopatra" ended up the way it was, and likely why I didn't end up enjoying it.
Happy April Fool's Day everyone.
Comments