Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

jacobs-greenwood 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.

utgard14 Spectacular DeMille hokum that, like most of his work, is hard to dislike despite its flaws. Say what you will about Cecil B. DeMille but he knew how to put on a show. The sets, costumes, and pageantry are excellent. The actors are all very enjoyable even if they ham it up some. Claudette Colbert is sexy and a treat to watch. Warren William's Julius Caesar seems like he would be more at home shooting craps or hustling pool than ruling Rome. Henry Wilcoxon is quite good as Marc Antony. The rest of the cast is solid, as DeMille supporting casts usually were. I have no sympathy for history buffs who gripe about this movie's failure to adhere to historical accuracy. If you watched a movie, especially a C.B. DeMille movie, looking for a history lesson then the fault is on you and not him. It's a fun piece of escapism loosely based on real people and events. Lighten up and enjoy the movie.

takecarebeware Many seem convinced this is a pre-code film but it isn't, and it seems fairly obvious watching it. The DVD copy I watched shows that the film has passed the code. The movie was released in October, 1934 and Wikipedia says that the Hayes Code was enforced for every film released from July, 1934. Films had to have the approval of the office enforcing the code. Claudette Colbert's outfits are probably no more daring than what many women would have worn to nightclubs at the time. The mad scenes of dancing where Marc Antony is getting drunk are just dancing girls, as in any musical, just edited this way. Warren William's Caesar dies as if he is dying for the end of the pre-code era. The musty feel of the Code is in this movie. Not to say it isn't a good movie, but the standards are the familiar ones for the years of the code. Compare Claudette Colbert in the Sign of the Cross from 1932, in that film she is called a harlot and is never offended.

vincentlynch-moonoi Whether you like this film, or not, is probably going to depend on what you think a film ought to be.If you think mere spectacle makes a great film, then here you have that. If you think a degree (note I said just a degree) of realism makes a great film, then you're going to be very disappointed.I'm not impressed with this film, because as others have pointed it, it's kitsch...corny. There are DeMille films I like. "Union Pacific" had some realism and was a great production. "The Ten Commandments" may not have been totally realistic, but it had production values and told well what really was a rather simple story. Even "The Greatest Show On Earth" had realism in it. But, in my view, despite fine production values, this film is hokum. The only thing that makes it possibly better than the Elizabeth Taylor version is that the later production dragged on to the point of boredom.Let's see, we begin with a Cleopatra that is all giggles like some dumb high school drop out in a surfer film...even though she has just been rescued from sure death, tied to a monument in the desert. Her performance gets better, but to me, this role was an embarrassment. And what a shame, because I have always seen Claudette Colbert as one of the greatest American film actresses. And, oddly enough, a number of her fine performances took place right around the same time this film was made.Then you have Warren William, probably a fine actor, but here he uses some of the physical gestures we more often associate with silent films. Perhaps the best performance in the film is that of Henry Wilcoxon as Marc Anthony. It may take you a moment to recognize C. Aubrey Smith behind all the facial hair.The cinematography here is excellent...until that is ruined by the inclusion of footage from old silent films in the battle sequences...and the age of that footage made it poor. And, the battle scenes themselves seemed to have had no script. Almost a montage of war, but no progression.I was relieved to finally be at the scene where Cleopatra kills herself with the serpent. If only she had done it 99 minutes earlier! One of the lowest ratings I have ever given a film -- "5" -- and that only because of the historical importance of this film. It may be worth watching for that reason.