Featured Audience Ratings

• Universal D

  
  Strange now as the film was eclipsed by the love affair it started, so that one now views: 1) the story of Antony and Cleopatra, a real life tragedy for the ages, 2) the Hollywood film to that effect, a tragedy all by itself, and then 3), the two souls playing the leads, Taylor and… More
  Strange now as the film was eclipsed by the love affair it started, so that one now views: 1) the story of Antony and Cleopatra, a real life tragedy for the ages, 2) the Hollywood film to that effect, a tragedy all by itself, and then 3), the two souls playing the leads, Taylor and Burton, who would go on to nearly live what first they merely played at doing, or tried to live it, or something. They recite lines to each other that they couldn't know was their future and yet we now know as true ... chilling. Opulent to the extreme, a pompous film, bullying, and finally ... perhaps more than merely memorable, a tragedy.

• Alexis N

  
  Oh wow, this movie was really, really long. About 4+ hours long. But the costumes were beautiful, Elizabeth was beautiful and the story was very romantic, in a let me gain power kind of way and a bit Romeo and Juliet. Rex Harrison is just too English, I love him, but he did not make… More
  Oh wow, this movie was really, really long. About 4+ hours long. But the costumes were beautiful, Elizabeth was beautiful and the story was very romantic, in a let me gain power kind of way and a bit Romeo and Juliet. Rex Harrison is just too English, I love him, but he did not make a good Caesar. Everyone should see this classic.. at least once.

• Keiko A

  
  Project 3 (epic films) Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and staring Starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Rex Harrison, Roddy McDowall and Martin Landau Impressive yes and some major looking sets as well as people, but this is a great and worst project and I didn't… More
  Project 3 (epic films) Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and staring Starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Rex Harrison, Roddy McDowall and Martin Landau Impressive yes and some major looking sets as well as people, but this is a great and worst project and I didn't really like the film. Sure it set some records being the film with the biggest budget at the time but the movie is just dull or maybe that's just me. The story of Queen Cleopatra VII of Egypt who wants to stabilize her power by using the tensions in the Roman Empire. Caesar visits Egypt, has an affair with her, and returns to Rome. She bears his child and visits Rome to claim her place at Caesar's side. He is murdered before this can happen. She returns to Egypt leaving Rome in turmoil. Mark Antony follows her to Egypt and they fall in love. However, Octavian defeats Anthony in battle. 50% for story: it's grand indeed but it's just to length and complex. 50% for acting: I find it funny that it got Oscars but to me the acting was just average and from our lead female it was terrible. 70% for characters: I like Cleopatra and she has a whole story on it and as for the others there good as well. 80% for special effects: I Admit everything is a on a grand scale but that's about the only thing I truly liked. 50% for everything else: Good costumes, Angles, Bad music, and scenery. I rather like the pornographic flick Caligula only because that film has some reason behind it were this just fails. Keiko's score 51-100

• Devon B

  
  In the tradition of great hollywood epics of the time, such as Spartacus and Ben Hur comes a film often quoted as the most expensive film ever made (according to imdb.com: "Its budget of $44 million is equivalent to 297 million 2007 dollars"). It might be one of the… More
  In the tradition of great hollywood epics of the time, such as Spartacus and Ben Hur comes a film often quoted as the most expensive film ever made (according to imdb.com: "Its budget of $44 million is equivalent to 297 million 2007 dollars"). It might be one of the grandest disasters ever filmed. Director Joseph Mankiewicz created an ode to hubris that has never been duplicated. Apart from Rex Harrison, who gives an admirable performance as Julius Caesar, the lead actors all display gross indulgences in over-acting; dramatic whispers suddenly upturned by great thunderous bellowing. Roddy McDowall ("Octavian") gives a particularly ham-fisted performance, and there's some unintended humor in his delivery. Granted, many of these performers were originally from the stage, but really, subtlety is nowhere to be found in this film. The dialogue is pseudo-shakespearean, only melodramatic rather than poetic. This film is the early 60s equivalent of a Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie period piece production, and hollywood actors take note: when put something out with the sole intention of making a great spectacle for great profit, it will probaby age just as poorly as Cleopatra.

• Veronique K

  
  the legend of cleopatra is literily the original utterance of "femme fatale" in western civilization, the primitive concept of femme fatale is the woman whose sex appeal is powerful enough to cast doom to men. but the progressive term for femme fatale would be more like… More
  the legend of cleopatra is literily the original utterance of "femme fatale" in western civilization, the primitive concept of femme fatale is the woman whose sex appeal is powerful enough to cast doom to men. but the progressive term for femme fatale would be more like woman who utilizes her sex appeal to infiltrate into the system of men then earn her position of power among the elites of men. so naturaly cleopatra is THE ORIGINAL FEMME FATALE. any actress prescribed with such role is surely complimentary to the ego. BUT i'm probably so far the only one who says elizabeth taylor doesn't fit the part despite she has the gears to look that part. neither is richard burton or rex harrison. generally the whole flick is a disaster, roughly made just to flaunt how much of cashes it has blown off. as my principle calls, whatever you'd like to demean something, give people reasons to do it justice. first of all, it doesn't appear right in the superficial level, clothings. no matter how much people praise over taylor's glamour in it, the costumes look odd as if taylor is showcasing a modern fashion season called "how cleopatra inspires fashion" instead of dressing as cleopatra. thay all appear like some fancy contemporary gowns rushly decorated with few very egytian-looking garments, then here there are. the designer renie is no travis banton who operated the 30s cleopatra with cecil b demile and claudett colbert. anachronism is the word for it. second of all, the script softens off every climax the story should have, such as the notable assassination of julius ceasar. where's the classic line "you, too?! brutus!" and it's backfired by its over-ambition on the political renderings of that time on lots of dreary scenes of roman congress and political feuds, or some silly scenes of ceasar teaching his son how to behave like a king, blah blah blah, and also why on earth the scriptors have to put the son of ceasar and cleopatra into the movie...besides, the historical fact would be cleopatra has one son with ceasar and a twins and son with marc anthony. i mention it not for the sake of historical accuracy since we all romanticize ancient tales. my point is why bother?...the attention is obvious: to moralize cleopatra, to maternalize her, to exert on presenting her more like the appendage to the granduer men instead of an empress as the phenomenal woman individual she is supposed to be. if you wanna produce a movie ON CLEOPATRA, why bother to take the major focus away on ceasar and anthony or octavian? third of all, and most of all, elizabeth taylor doesn't have a queenly gesture as cleopatra, the most important element of such woman egoist would be her pride, and why cleopatra hooks with ceasar and anthony is for the survival of egypt since roman is quite a menace. her main purpose is POLITICAL, amoral by any means, so it wouldn't trouble her to bed with any married man as long as her purpose is served. but taylor's elizabeth snares at anthony after he reaches her political aganda but married to octavian's sister, why she even bothers to get sour? additionally, would a confident queen like cleopatra be histerically shouting or begging over a man? there's nothing composed or icy cool about elizabeth taylor, and everything is sentimentalized and melodramticized. further, the scriptors make a even bigger mistake to turn burton's marc anthony into an envious wimp over ceasar. except his masculine looks, nothing courageous or virile about his character. the sequence of cleopatra swooning anthony into eloping to egypt with her is ridiculously blatant: the woman provokes the man's envy with unfriendly words and vaudeville mockeries, then he beds her, next day, they confide how they have a crush on each other like a bunch of loverstruck teenagers. frankly it reminds me of the love scenes in "butterfield 8", and the same formula of angering a man into your bed seems a bit too cliched and juvenile here. she presents herself more like a pouty bickering matron who likes to quarreal men into her favors meanwhile un-capable of standing on her own. the behind-camera stories tell all, if you read enough of classic hollywood biographies, no one involved in this project has a heart to finish it. taylor has spine issue during the shooting, and the director mankiewicz has to take severe dosage of pain-killers and tranquillizers (same as taylor) to get the nerve having it done. the abscence of the leads and director has deteriorated the schedule into enormous debt. but eventually it's redeemed by the publicity of the illicit affair of taylor-burton to arouse the audience's snooping curiosity to enter the theater. the sountrack is poorly composed, drab without background melodies at most of time except the few crucial sequences like cleopatra strutting over the roman squad or some burlesques to entertain marc anthony.....elizabeth taylor's glamour is always a big selling-point but she's only at her adequate best with helen rose' wardrobe("cat on a hot tin roof", "butterfield 8") or with edith head who sketches her gown in "a place in the sun". (ps) another note i would like to make is its brief usage of yellow-face stereotype. one scene features an oriental servent called LOTUS whose profession is to taste the queen's drink and food to prevent cleopatra from being poisoned, why on earth ancient egypt would have a chinese servent? i'm not protesting since the scene is so brief and inconsequential but i just feel extremely absurd over this. see how much thought this movie has put on?!

• Kylie B

  
  Magnificent, though I grew restless during the battle scenes. Not sure I would watch it again in one sitting though.

• Cassandra M

  
  That a film as good as CLEOPATRA is was created at all under the madness and panic of it's legendary production is indeed an amazing feat. That CLEOPATRA has been given such loving care in its restoration in this DVD of the "Road Show" print and the attendant bonus… More
  That a film as good as CLEOPATRA is was created at all under the madness and panic of it's legendary production is indeed an amazing feat. That CLEOPATRA has been given such loving care in its restoration in this DVD of the "Road Show" print and the attendant bonus materials is a wondrous gift to those who love this film. The documentary, "Cleopatra: The Film That Changed Hollywood" is in on it's own an engrossing and informative two hour movie. For anyone who knows little of the history of CLEOPATRA, or who was not around at the time, this documentary will give them the feeling of what those last days of old Hollywood was like. And therein one can find the reasons why this intimate epic is indeed the wonder that it is. Many thanks should go to the Mankiewicz family and the producers of the documentary. The print and the sound of CLEOPATRA seems now to surpass what I recall it to be in its first presentation nearly forty years ago. The depth of the colors and the richness of the shadows are indeed splendid. In this restoration, it is hard to believe this film is as old as it is. The commentary track is in and of itself like finding the lost treasures of the long dead monarch. For there are wonderful recollections by Martin Landau, Tom and Chris Mankiewicz, and even the one of the films publicists Jack Brodsky gets to read sections from his book "The Cleopatra Papers" which gave a blow by blow description of everyday events on the set. But I must give special mention to Landau's part. With his keen eye for the art direction of John DeCuir one sees things in the background and along the edges of the scene that one never noticed before. Such lovingly detailed sets and interiors will never be seen again. The costs today are just too prohibitive. Also his insights into what was cut from the film, particularly his and Richard Burton's contributions in the second act give one the idea of what Mankiewicz was intending. Poor Richard suffered the unkindest cut of all. The presentation of the DVD menus is so clever and exotic. The creators of this DVD are to be commended in their art direction. At last we now know what is behind the massive 20th Century Fox logo! The film itself remains what it has always been. It is a good film that might have been a great one if only Zanuck had trusted Joe Mankiewicz' original vision. It is said that they are still looking for the missing film; one can only hope that they succeed in this task. The performances range from good to excellent. Particular praise must go to Rex Harrison, Richard Burton, Martin Landau, Robert Stephens, Andrew Keir, and Roddy McDowall. Lastly in this department there remains Elizabeth Taylor's performance as Cleopatra. At the films release the brickbats were reserved for her and for reasons that had nothing to do with her performance. Many reviewed her behavior as seen through the narrow focus of the tabloids and emerging paparazzi. Even today it is sometimes hard to separate the history of the lady from her film roles. But here is the moment in time, in this film where she became the ELIZABETH TAYLOR she has remained in the mind of the world ever since. In this fact alone she is perfect in the role. But she is more than that. As Cleopatra she is at once regal and commanding, strong and tender, soft and hard. These are all the contradictions that have always been at the heart of Cleopatra herself. She and the Queen are masters of a public enigma wrapped within a mystery. In her performance as written by Mankiewicz Elizabeth Taylor is probably not too far off from the historical Cleopatra. Finally, ever since Judith Crist gave CLEOPATRA the needle in 1963 and in the act made her name, the public, for the most part, has viewed this film a failure. But today, stripped of the scandal, hype and hysteria of its release in June of 1963 it is now possible to view CLEOPARTA as the film it is. A near great film that is the signpost of when Hollywood passed from one age into another. Historically this is an important DVD and I recommend it highly. CLEOPATRA remains as seductive, beautiful, and intelligent as it was in Walter Wanger's original conception. "Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety." I'd very much vote for a full restoration. In terms of performances, Taylor is quite good (people forget how competent she can be, poetically crass goddess though she is), and Rex Harrison is great. Oddly, Richard Burton is the weak link here-- rambling thru his lines furiously. And, for my money, Roddy McDowall and Martin Landau should be playing each others' roles... Yes, it IS worth a look as a curio... maybe more if they could piece it back together. The production design eye-popping, and the script is clever and literate, but then Mankiewicz was always a much more inspired writer than a director, as many of the shots and scenes (or what's left of them) are bit static and stagey, the actors seeming to be mostly directing themselves. BTW: if you adjust for inflation (which one must, if these lists are to mean anything) the $44 million budget would translate to nearly half-a-billion dollars today... still the most expensive movie ever made, by far.

• jay n

  
  not as bad as its reputation but ponderous in many places

• Cameron J

  
  Yeah, Elizabeth Taylor was really pretty and all, but really, I'm not quite sure she could conquer empires with those looks, or at least not now, because by 1960s standards, she could have her own small country if she wanted to, so lord knows how much damage she could do back in… More
  Yeah, Elizabeth Taylor was really pretty and all, but really, I'm not quite sure she could conquer empires with those looks, or at least not now, because by 1960s standards, she could have her own small country if she wanted to, so lord knows how much damage she could do back in Caesar's day. I was thinking that it was probably a bit of a good thing that they've lost all but mere seconds of 1917's "Cleopatra", as Theda Bara would be too unbelievable as an empire-conquering bombshell by today's standards, but now that I think about it, the world would fall at her non-voluptuousness, because not even the artistic interpretations of the actual Cleopatra are all that flattering. Well, in all fairness, what they can't tell you in film is that she was topless quite a bit, and if you know how to use that in this man's world, that right there can earn you about a city or two, at least, though if she was prettier, she would pretty much rule the world. I guess Egyptians were never really all that good looking, so that's another strike against the casting decision to get the lovely Miss Taylor, yet it's still not enough to keep her from being too good of casting, because she was in more brief relationships with powerful men than Cleopatra was, and most of them were with Richard Burton. Maybe they just kept getting divorced and remarried simply because they had could, considering that they probably got quite the bit of moolah after this movie broke budget at the box office, which is unreal when you consider that this film was the most expensive ever at the time, and even now, adjusted for inflation, continues to go unparalleled in expense. Meanwhile, the most relatively expense film of all time is the third "Pirates of the Caribbean" film, and yet, it still didn't win Best Visual Effects, because everyone and their grandmother (That's one cool granny) are throwing away money on simple special effects, instead of actually digging into the core and substance of it all, like, I don't know, "Titanic" or something, because this messy little number number didn't sit terribly well with the critics at the time, though lucky for it, these dumb nostalgiacs think that most everything from the '60s and before were masterpieces, so of course this puppy has stood well against the test of time for a lot of people. I suppose I can kind of see why, and I don't know if it's because this film is actually good or if I too am blinded by my own critical mindset that anything over three hours, let alone four hours, better be good, but eitherway, I had a good time watching this mammoth mama, though I am not at all blind to what the critics of the '60s were complaining about. This film's being released during an era in which the many films of its type found themselves heavily padded out, and doing so with a runtime that exceeds four hours attached, it hardly needs to be said that this film finds itself outstaying its welcome in some parts, yet what needs to be discussed is how the film is padded out, as the problem isn't necessarily excess footage - as the film is relatively tight, for the most part, for such complex subject matter - as much as it simply is excess substance, in that the film's episodic segments run too long and go overly focused upon, to where you find yourself checking your watch once these segments officially outstay their welcome and find yourself thrown off a fair bit upon a shift in focus and story layer. I'll give it to the film that it is truly amazing how these drastic segment shifts aren't terribly jarring, with the barely bumpy transition into the second half after we've spent almost two hours with a now-removed (For obvious reasons) Julius Caesar almost more prominent than Cleopatra being a particularly impressive storytelling feat, yet there's no getting around a certain degree of throw-off in the drastic changes. Shockingly enough, the off-putting moments stem less from the excess over focus, and more from something you definately wouldn't expect from a film this mammoth in length, and that would be - sit back, because this is pretty ridiculous - "rushing", as the film, even with its sprawling four-hour-plus runtime, still has a shockingly considerable amount of points in which it finds itself rather hurried, glossing over not terribly significant points in exposition, yet pieces that could have made the film more fleshed-out and certainly more comfortable in its flow. This issue is most prominent during the Caesar segment of the film, during which Cleopatra pretty much summed up perfectly and hilariously when that she melodramatically proclaimed that she couldn't quite remember if her first meeting Caesar took place "a year ago or just last night", a line I just couldn't help but chuckle at, which isn't to say that it was the only laughable piece of dialogue. Okay, now, the dialogue isn't terribly poor, yet it is often rather stiff, with a deal of particularly notable lines that actually are weak, if not embarassing, particularly the melodramatic exchanges between Cleopatra and her lovers, which are particularly embarassing, yet at least it sparks a considerable resonant reaction, as opposed to many of the other rather bland lines. Running such a mammoth length and tripping a fair bit along the way, the film's full potential feels rather unrealized, and were it more comfortable in its storytelling, with a tighter flow, looser exposition and more oomph, it could have been one of those particularly remarkable classic epics, in terms of substance quality, rather than production value. Still, for every fault made by the film, there are a fair deal of good moves in its place, and although particularly sharp pick-ups come along here and there, when they do arrive, they deliver, while the keeps you engaged to that point with aspects that are consistently attractive. At $44 million, or, adjusted for inflation, as of 2012, an unparalleled $330-338 million, the film has been noted as quite possibly the most relatively financially draining film in cinematic history, and really, I'm not seeing it exactly, for although the production designs are undeniably remarkable, I'm not entirely certain that they are the equivalent to almost three hundred and forty million big boys remarkable. Still, make no bones about it, this is a top-notch production if there ever was one at the time, with wildly dynamic and elaborate uniqueness of such radically intense quality that it's difficult to discern production design from authentic material - particularly when phenomenal action sequences find themselves incorporated in that latter part of the film -, making it difficult to avoid falling into the clutches of the immersiveness within this world, made all the stronger by what storytelling moves main director Joseph L. Mankiewicz does deliver on. Makiewicz could only do so much to empower the too imperfect script, yet that's still enough to pump the film with consistent charm and, in a good couple of spots, even a degree of depth and resonance that made such scenes as the assassination sequence and, well, pretty much almost all of the latter part amdittedly pretty brilliant, and the film, as whole, consistently engrossing, and made more so by a few notable performances. True, there is the occasional performance that is not quite up to par, yet many of the talents within this massive cast play their parts with a typically attractive level of charisma, with our main men, Rex Harrison and Richard Burton, standing as particular show-stealers, with Harrison portraying the legendary Julius Caesar's presence of strength, cleverness and charm with engrossing believability and Burton especially owning the spotlight at times as he portrays the depth and layers, as well as both the strength and vulnerability of Mark Antony with a compelling presence and even powerful emotional range. Still, it all comes down to the lady of the night, the late, great and lovely Miss Elizabeth Taylor, who is delivering what might very well be one of the greatest bad acting performances in classic cinema. Seriously though, Taylor goes tainted by that classic piece of overbearing actress melodrama in her line delivery, overacting and exaggerating to the point of being embarassing in some spots, and it doesn't help that in just about every other acting regard, she's surprisingly razor sharp. I joke about this being a great bad acting performance, considering the faults in Taylor's line delivery, yet the fact of the matter is that what Taylor lacks in line delivery, she makes up for in presence, boasting the legendary manipulative grace, power and brilliance that defined the definitive female ruler of both a man's world and a man's mind, while incorportating a deep shroud of mystery upon that presence, leaving Cleopatra's intentions, actions and all around position between good and corrupt hardly predictable, yet Taylor at least conveys that Cleopatra is a human, vulnerable and spirited, and as Cleopatra faces accomplishment, as well as tragedy and pain, it's hard to not be enthralled by the atmosphere Liz Taylor emits as she delivers what is decidedly a spotty performance, yet still one to watch, as she helps greatly in carrying this mammoth and, at times, messy epic through advanced acting techniques that all but wash away the faulty, yet less effective traditional acting mistakes. To summarize, the film's potential of emerging among the excellent classic epics goes tainted by a bloated and, at times, hurried and rather uneven story, with more miss than hit, yet mostly rather stiff dialogue intensfying the lack oomph within the atmosphere, yet with stellar production designs making the film aesthetically enthralling and generally strong storytelling making the film often emotionally engaging, when not thoroughly charming, as well as massive cast of colorfuls, headed by an electrically charismatic Rex Harrison, an almost hauntingly emotional Richard Burton and a rivetingly atmospheric Elizabeth Taylor, "Cleopatra" towers as a thoroughly entertaining and generally engrossing mega-epic study on the legendary seductive power. 3/5 - Good

• Eduardo T

  
  This is proof that critics have short attention spans. If you read the critic reviews they basically say that the biggest flaw was the time length. Why can't they just sit and stay seated. This film has it's flaws but all films have some flaws. There have only been a few… More
  This is proof that critics have short attention spans. If you read the critic reviews they basically say that the biggest flaw was the time length. Why can't they just sit and stay seated. This film has it's flaws but all films have some flaws. There have only been a few films with no flaws. Critics tend to be bias. If they see a film they like but it has flaws they still give it a high review. If they see a film they don't like and it has flaws then they give it low reviews. If you have read many reviews then you would know what I'm talking about. Getting to the actual review. This was okay. I loved the acting especially by Elizabeth Taylor. I read somewhere that this was going to have a really low budget but once they casted Elizabeth Taylor it all changed. I wonder how much they paid her? I liked the emotions that the cast put on. That's what acting is all about, being able to show emotion. The story seemed a little to weak but it was entertaining. It was easy to identify the key points in the plot. So I don't know what critics are saying that this has a weak plot. Maybe there viewing compensation skills are weak. What I liked best about this film was Elizabeth Taylor. So if you love her like me then watch this.

• Bryce I

  
  Mainly an epic because of it's timeline, but it is still one of Hollywood's greatest achievements. Acted, and shot to perfection, filled with beautiful set work, and lots of classic moments in cinema. But the film is too long for it's own good. Most of the film is a… More
  Mainly an epic because of it's timeline, but it is still one of Hollywood's greatest achievements. Acted, and shot to perfection, filled with beautiful set work, and lots of classic moments in cinema. But the film is too long for it's own good. Most of the film is a drag, the dialogue is a mess, and the chemistry between between the two leads don't make a realistic, and believable classic romance.

• John B

  
  Oh yes the infamous film when Taylor meets Burton. Not a bad film although it could have been edited significantly without losing the main plot lines.

• Deb S

  
  After watching the 1999 remake of Cleopatra just last week, I decided to give this one a shot after I saw it showing on TV today. Elizabeth Taylor gave an excellent performance as Cleopatra, the legendary temptress, who seduced the two most powerful men of her day Julius Caesar… More
  After watching the 1999 remake of Cleopatra just last week, I decided to give this one a shot after I saw it showing on TV today. Elizabeth Taylor gave an excellent performance as Cleopatra, the legendary temptress, who seduced the two most powerful men of her day Julius Caesar (played by Rex Harrison) and Marc Antony (played by Richard Burton) two of Rome's greatest soldiers and much loved citizens. It shows her rise to power and how she becomes the Queen through her friendship with Caesar, his famous and shocking murder in the Senate then her passionate love affair with Caesar's close friend Marc Antony. Also starring the youthful Roddy McDowall as Octavian (later called Agustus Caesar)! There were a few differences between the two films but its uniqueness and sad undertones make for interesting viewing. The beautiful and realistic sets were simply magnificent and I particularly enjoyed Cleopatra's entrance to Rome which was breathtaking as we watch this classical tragedy unfolding in splendid surroundings. However I could not help comparing Elizabeth Taylor's plump little figure with the svelte, gorgeous Leonor Varela in the 1999 version and I much preferred the latter wardrobe and hair in comparison to Elizabeth Taylor. And what a turn off it was to see the macho Marc Antony driven to the brink by a woman hell bent on power but I have to say Rowdy McDowell was fantastic as Octavian. Oh well!

• Nicolas K

  
  An epic containing all the right ingredients.

• Noah N

  
  'Cleopatra' (1963) is at points tedious especially since its running time is over 4 hours and the performances are overplayed, but it doesn't deserve to be one of the most underrated classics. There was a lot of effort put into this movie and I can't ask it for… More
  'Cleopatra' (1963) is at points tedious especially since its running time is over 4 hours and the performances are overplayed, but it doesn't deserve to be one of the most underrated classics. There was a lot of effort put into this movie and I can't ask it for more.

• nefnie l

  
  Just revisited this movie, which was one of my favorites in my younger days. It still captivates me. Liz Taylor was mesmerizing, and she and Burton just sizzled.

• Sunil J

  
  Worth seeing for Elizabeth Taylor alone. She is stunning.

• Constanza B

  
  Magnificent production from the golden age of Hollywood, greats scenarios, excelent acting of Elizabeth Taylor , Richard Burton and Rex Harrison.

• Timothy O

  
  I bought this on DVD, expecting it to be the great film I saw in my youth. It does have moments, but it is bloated and lost a lot of what I remember of its greatness.

Read all 19 featured audience ratings