Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Kaydan Christian 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.

amexspam This movie does a better than average job of turning a Shakespeare play into a movie, but it doesn't succeed well as a movie. I thought the stage props, although minimalist, worked. The camera work was fine. With the exception of Heston, who seemed to be spend the first third of the movie smiling at some joke that rest of the cast weren't in on, I thought the acting was good. The characters were believable and their previous work on British TV served them well. The script was faithful to the play - actually too faithful - and this is why this was a so-so movie. Shakespeare was first and foremost an entertainer. He didn't write to please scholars, he wrote to amuse and tell a story to the masses. To do this he tried to use action sequences and clever plot devices, but most of all he tried to be a clever wordsmith. The problem with those that stay too faithful to the play is today's audiences don't speak as Elizabethans and the power of the words are lost. If Shakespeare was alive today he would update his script to reflect current English. This movie could easily have been edited down by 45 minutes and gained much by the editing. If Cleopatra makes hungry where she most satisfies, this film satisfies if we had been left hungry for more.

eschetic-2 An ego production is still an ego production even when the names are big and the intentions honorable.One has to respect Charlton Heston all the more, whatever his politics (which one need not respect at all) for wanting to prove himself as a real actor in the worst way even after all his success in overblown performances in various Hollywood epics. I hear you saying "that's exactly the way he did prove it," but no, as limited as this film proved with Heston using Shakespeare and other famous plays to get his own production company going in anticipation of the fast approaching days when real roles wouldn't be forthcoming, it isn't the disaster it might have been (how frustrating, though, that a genuinely great American Shakespearean like Orson Welles had to struggle for years to finance his Shakespeare while financiers lined up for "Moses" with relative alacrity). If one had not seen better versions of the story (even the 20th Century Fox fiscal fiasco with Rex Harrison and Richard Burton), it might have seemed more respectable. In this case don't blame Shakespeare, 'though it's not one of the best in his canon, but Heston's adaptation and the limited budget he had to work with.One could *almost* forgive the obvious miniatures for the sea battles and the toy pyramid (Cleopatra's tomb - whose doll house proportions are emphasized by an idiotic pull back shot from the air at the end!) for the generally solid performances of the no-name cast, SOME of whom went on to solid stage careers. Best of the lot, John Castle as Octavian Caesar, is very good indeed. Heston himself, adapter, director and star, is certainly no worse an Antony than Marlon Brando's miscast attempt in 1953's JULIUS CAESAR (or might not have been if he had had a decent director to reign him in), but we realize we're in Heston-ego-silliness before the credits are even over and the overblown score is all but trumpeting (french horning?) "WE'RE SERIOUS" as a herald's horse barges through market sellers' tables and immediately after when Heston does the first of several literal "bodice ripping" scenes chewing scenery and scattering the pearls he's wearing just because news has arrived from Rome. Scarcely 12 minutes in, our star is stripping down to a mini g-string to show his still adequate body on the pretext of changing clothes to go to work. Shakespeare didn't need the help.Still, Shakespeare IS there at the core, and even self centered direction and poverty row costumes can't ultimately undercut the excellent story. It plays out with all the political intrigue and personal passion the original author loaded it with. Even in an amateur (or at least underfunded) film, production values from people - cinematographers and editors - who have made big professional films can disguise many a self indulgent actor's flaws and give an overall production look larger than it is (the "Making of" documentary narration from Heston's son on the DVD - bending over backwards to honor his father - is both illustrative and amusing in this regard).When not overacting, Heston has skills which better directors had been able to make the most of and are occasionally allowed to glow here with a far more effective quiet fire. If Heston, the director, can't quite make sense of "The Battle of Actium" sequence, he comes closer than many directors and serious historians have before him. The Cleopatra Heston found he could afford, Hildegarde Neil, is more hampered by a passing resemblance halfway between Elizabeth Taylor and Sally Kellerman than any actual failings of her own or her director.If the viewer is willing to indulge the excesses of a star just starting to show serious age and unaware how silly the film mannerisms picked up in a career as "star" could look as he tried to segue into a seniority as a serious actor, this ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA can be worth its two and a half hours screen time. Heston only played on Broadway four times in his career - appearances ranging from 1947 to 1960 - but the only time the show he graced managed to run longer than a single week (a fate which must have wounded) was his first appearance, in a Katherine Cornell production of ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, in which Heston played the tiny role of Proculeius, one of Caesar's (Octavian's) soldiers who has two fine brief scenes with Cleopatra near the end of the play, for a very respectable 126 performances under Guthrie McClintic's direction. It was an experience which clearly stayed with him for the rest of his life (and he did well by the actor in his role in this film). It's his and our loss that McClintic wasn't around to direct the star for this film as well.Certainly worth having, but don't expect Olivier.

m-brown-8 I vividly remember going to see this film shortly after it was released. I was a rather serious student and thought Heston was not a serious actor, so didn't expect much. However, for me, in the film Heston WAS Anthony - Anthony was a media star with fatal flaws and Heston must have understood that type. He was totally authentic - there may have been the American accent, but again, Romans to Greeks must have been like Americans to the UK - so Heston's portrayal worked. And I remember Hildegarde Neil as a very convincing Cleopatra -not histrionic but someone ruled by emotion. I thought and still think that the Burton Taylor epic wasn't a patch on this. Must get the DVD!!

decoats This is a beautiful production. Very lavish. Charleton Heston is excellent as Mark Antony. Directing is superb. All the cast is excellent. Compare this to Orson Welles production of "Othello". Was Charleton Heston responsible for the difference? Obviously there were others involved in both productions, but I believe Welles was plagued by lack of funds. It seems like Heston didn't have that problem. I don't know why? There is a sunny delightful brightness to this play/film, that cannot be portrayed on the stage. I wish he could have done all 37 Shakespeare. Well worth the price of admission. Who can replace these types of artists (Heston, Welles)? No one as yet.