MovieChat Forums > Cleopatra (1963) Discussion > God this thing is awful

God this thing is awful


I don't get the reverence attached to this film. It's a plodding, unsightly mess, pompously over-acted and stiffly staged. Elizabeth Taylor looks bloated, and Richard Burton chews the scenery unmercifully. I forced myself to watch the whole thing last night and it was not easy to keep from laughing in places. It's amazing what people would sit through in 1963.

Anything played wrong twice in a row is the beginning of an arrangement. FZ

reply

I agree, Boats. Some years ago I had the (dis)pleasure of watching the last 30 minutes of this wretched film on TV, and believe me, it seemed more like 30 hours!
Liz's performance was so wooden that, in the final scene, she seemed no different dead than alive.
No wonder it tanked at the box office!

reply

I agree with the above views of the film, although I think the screenplay dialog may be more at fault than the acting. However it is a misconception that it tanked at the box office. Although it cost $44 million, I believe it actually recouped that in box office if not in its first release, shortly thereafter in rereleases.

reply

Twasn't so bad. Loaded with stars and Roddy McDowall almost got an Oscar. Alex North's music is at times hypnotic. Remember too that hours of film footage was lost as two 3 hour movies were trimmed down to one 3 1/2 hour movie. However from a revenue perspective, it’s a case study on how not make a film. Even so, I still like the movie and wish they could locate the missing 1 1/2 hours of un-recovered footage.

reply

Loaded with stars and Roddy McDowall almost got an Oscar.

Almost won an Oscar? He wasn't even nominated.

.

reply

No no no. The cost over-runs on this and Hello Dolly nearly bankrupted 20th c. Fox. Not profitable

reply

I like to watch this movie, simply because its pretty.

*****Rock Out With Your ___ Out*****-Britney Spears

reply

NSurone = "not very knowledgeable" since it didn't tank at the box office.

reply

Yes...yes it did tank at the box office. The fact that it was the highest grossing film for 1963 makes no difference. The thing cost $44 million to make, it grossed $26 million. That is a financial disaster by every stretch of the imagination. It would be a disaster even by todays standards, and the thing was made in 1963.

reply

Wrong:

"Widely regarded as one of the biggest flops of all time, reality is quite different: the film made its money back despite the horrendous costs, but not all at once - it took several years. It was one of the highest grossing films of the 1960s."

"In 1966, ABC-TV paid 20th Century-Fox a record $5 million for two showings of the film, a deal that finally put the picture into the black."

"When the film finally broke even ( due to the $5 million sale to TV ), 20th Century-Fox "closed the books" on "Cleopatra", therefore keeping secret all future profits from the film, to avoid paying those who might have been promised a percentage of the net profits."



reply

The $44,000,000 that 20th Century Fox spent making this (in 1962) would be worth about $300,000,000 today.

It nearly bankrupted Fox Studio until the box-office revenues started to come in.

To stay solvent they had to sell off some of their backlot — which eventually became Century City.

It finally hit the "break-even" point in 1966 when the ABC TV network paid $5,000,000 (yet another record) for permission to show the movie twice. (At that point Fox "closed the books" on it because they'd agreed to pay La Liz a percentage of the gross. By 1966 they'd already paid her $7,000,000.)

Do you remember when Cleopatra went to the Temple of Ra to lead a few cheers?

reply

I was around in 1963 and I can attest that audiences were NOT willing to sit through anything. Cleopatra drew large audiences initially because the Liz & Dick scandal was so enormous, people were naturally curious to see if any of their heat was apparent on screen. Mostly, unfortunately, it wasn't.

reply

I'm trying not to be offensive, really... but that's gotta be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read. The "fact that it was the highest grossing film for 1963 makes no difference" part makes no sense at all. To tank at the box office has nothing to do with the studio recovering its investment but with how well it actually does at the box office. If it was the HIGHEST GROSSING FILM of its year, then it's painfully obvious that it didn't tank. The problem is that DESPITE being a box office hit the studio was still losing money because it cost so much. Being a box office hit and being a profitable movie doesn't always go hand in hand and this film proves it.

reply

I liked it, it's not a bad film as such but it's clunky as hell and could've been written and produced so much better. I thought it was strange in that it told this amazingly epic story yet it seemed like it was going nowhere for half the movie.

reply

Best way to look at it is, instead of a great Hollywood classic drama, as a summer blockbuster that performs its visual stunts realistically instead of with CGI.

reply

I wouldn't toss the word "hit" around casually. In fact, I wouldn't call anything a "hit" unless it makes back its costs. (I've backed too many lost causes myself.) If businesses are going to continue employing people and paying dividends to their stockholders, they have to operate in the black. There's no sense in a studio turning out so-called "hits" that do not turn a profit. There are jokes going around in Hollywood about producers who "spent their grosses before even knowing whether they have a net." Unfortunately, there was more than a little truth to these "jokes." Gross figures are practically meaningless. A high gross only means that a movie received wide distribution and was able to attract an audience. It's ALL in the net. ********
I used to own some shares in MGM. They would send me statements every now and then and gloss over the fact that they were releasing a lot of money-losing projects. They would say things like, "Picture X grossed six million dollars and performed very well at the domestic box office." How nothing. I knew that "Picture X" cost twelve million dollars to make and was a financial failure. I was not amused, and to this day the initials "MGM" leave a bad taste in my mouth.

reply

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/BoxOfficeBomb/CThroughD

Cleopatra (1963) — Budget, $44 million. Box office, $57,777,778. This was the highest grossing film of 1963. However, 20th Century Fox only got roughly half the film's box office take (the rest went to the theaters), and since $44 million was an exorbitant price tag in 1963's dollars (equivalent to $325.6 million today), they nearly went bankrupt and had to sell off parts of its huge backlot (which turned the remnants of the sold parts to what became known as Century City). Fox was only saved when Julie Andrews's The Sound of Music became a success. Cleopatra’s Troubled Production (which included production being delayed for months when star Elizabeth Taylor got critically sick) and ultimate failure were among the decisive moments in the Fall of the Studio System, and the film was considered the example of failure for decades afterwards, only turning a profit for the studio in the '90s thanks to VHS and DVD sales. It only took 30 years! Cleopatra would be the last time director and co-writer Joseph Mankiewicz would be associated with Fox, and he only wrote one more film 4 years later, though Mankiewicz would continue to direct until 1972, when he retired (he considered Cleopatra an Old Shame and had tried to get his name off the credits). This is also the last film to involve producer Walter Wanger, who died 5 years later, and killed the Sword & Sandal genre's A-level until DreamWorks and Ridley Scott's Gladiator in 2000.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TroubledProduction/Film0ToL

The film finally staggered into cinemas in June 1963, with a final production cost of $44 million (over $300 million adjusted for inflation) - money Fox knew it had little chance of recovering. Despite lukewarm reviews from critics and audiences, the film had the highest box office take of 1963 and was nominated for nine Oscars (including Best Picture), winning four,note but it would not break even until ABC paid $5 million for two television screenings in 1966 (at the time, a record fee for film broadcasting rights). The already financially troubled 20th Century Fox almost went bankrupt, selling parts of its studio lot and needing the successes of such films as The Longest Day and The Sound of Music to offset their losses. Cleopatra also killed interest in the sword and sandal epic genre for nearly a generation, and was a key factor in the disintegration of the old "studio system", as studios passed responsibility for production costs to independent production companies instead of handling said costs themselves.

reply

[deleted]

I couldn't even watch 10 minutes into it without wanting to turn it off. I've ended up watching it in bits and I have it playing right now as I'm on the computer. It had so much potential but was poorly executed.

reply

But compare it to the films of the late 1950s and early 1960s. This is a classic example of a post-World War II, pre-Godfather costume drama. The acting is overdone because it is essentially trying to be a play on film.

Compare it to Ben Hur or The Ten Commandments. These films all feature sets that are bigger than life, and completely unrealistic.

I will add that I think the first half with Rex Harrison as Caesar is much better. Shame they didn't make a movie with Harrison as Caesar instead and skipped the rest of it!

reply

When your depicting the setting of Ancinet Greece and Rome and Egypt I assure they where by modern Standards Larger then Life.

http://www.InfoWars.com/
There's a War on for you Mind!!!!!!!

reply

omg! Stay in school!

you're
ancient
assume
were
What's with the caps? How old are you??

suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply

nothing could be further from the truth, this was never intended as a play on film and the Godfather isn't the be all and end all of filmmaking.

reply

Think it was also let down because although it runs for 4hrs, apparenly there is nearly another 1 and a half hours of missing footage.
I watched it today (11th Jan), and at times some scenes didn't make sence, badly edited and due to that missing footage is one reason some parts didn't make sence etc.
Buton's acting is good (I like him), Taylor is also acts well
Good cast.

But watching the 4 hr version it seems to go on a bit, especially after the battle of Actium, seems to go on and on.

But still to this day one of the most expensive films EVER made, took 3 bloody years to film it due to Taylor taking ill. (if you were to ajust figures to todays prices).

reply

It was intended to be 2 movies:

1) Cleo and Caesar
2) Cleo and Marc Antony

Financial and a host other problems forced 6 hours to become 1 quickly edited, 3 1/2 hour movie.
The world may never see the real Cleopatra movies in their entirety. All things considered, it is still quite an impressive work!

reply

People would sit through anything in 1963? As opposed to today where we have genius like Alexander and Troy? At least it was brilliantly photographed and Rex Harrison is terrific.

reply

Oh nonsense! Elizabeth Taylor is spectacularly beautiful and an incredibly good actress. She had a woman's figure and not a stick-thin body. Rex Harrison and Richard Burton's acting was superb and I recommend watching the DVD in its entirety, in one sitting, to get the whole picture.

reply

I agree that Liz really filled out those costumes in a way that Audrey Hepburn never could

reply

Tell it.

reply

Rex Harrison was embarrassing to be honest.

reply

[deleted]

Going on to long was not the problem if anyhting my main problem is all the important stuff they left out, even out of the origonal intended 6 hour version.

http://www.InfoWars.com/
There's a War on for you Mind!!!!!!!

reply

Where did you see the original six-hour version? What important stuff was left out of the four-hour version that also didn't make the six-hour version? Do you have access to the six-hour footage?

reply

certain entire characters who where never cast and thus we can assume where not going to part of any version, even thou they played important roles in these events.

Arisone and Herod The Great among others.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

reply

Important things like what?? It's a movie, not a documentary. What was left out that was important?? Keep in mind the film is called Cleopatra, not "Caesar, Antony and Octavian" like Mankiewicz clearly thought.

reply

This movie was never intended to be 6 hours long, the studio always wanted one film: Cleopatra. It was Mankiewicz in his speed drugged state that never stop shooting material and wanted two movies. Nobody else wanted that or commissioned that.

reply

I love the scene when Ceasar and Cleo visit the grave of Alexander. However it is unrealistic, how coud they dream to rule the world when they struggled to maintain their own provinces? Greed I suppose.

Anyway the love scenes between Taylor and Harrison were the downfall as far as i watched. I dont think I ever saw two people so unattracted to each other trying to make a film!

reply

[deleted]

Come come now, you're being a little unfair. Elizabeth Taylor is, curvacious, in the film, and stayed that way until the early '70s, when she did indeed become bloated. The fact that they (Burton & Taylor) had an affair going on at the time and that she had 'stolen' someone's husband, made it a contraversial movie in the '60s. But it's still an epic, though a tad too long.

BTW, audiences didn't sit through it in 1963. That's why it flopped so badly.

reply

I'll just say that this movie is a lot better to watch whilst high.

Watch it for its budget. The film just has certain scenes that are far more epic than any other film just because how much money they threw at it.

reply

Again, I tried watching it but had to stop before Rex Harrison was even disposed of. Perfectly awful film. Gorgeous photography wasted on a dull, dull script full of exposition without any sense of movement or pace. Taylor seems completely miscast and recites all her lines with little energy. God awful!

reply

This movie is not awful. Those who say this are wrong. I am a rather harsh movie critic, and I love this film.
Elizabeth Taylor's performance could have been better, but she still did well. For example, I think she could have acted a bit more charming, to make her character more historically accurate. And she did look a bit overweight in certain scenes, but she was still beautiful. At least she didn't look anorexic like many stars. Rex Harrison was superb and Richard Burton was very good.
The movie was indeed long, but there was a great amount of detail to cover and they covered it well with few exceptions. The battle of Actium was put together a bit poorly, I will admit. Those battle scenes were confusing to me. I give the movie's ending five stars. It really moved me. I felt so sorry for Antony and Cleopatra in their tragic end.
The sets and costumes were spectacular. Cleopatra's entrance was particularly amazing. I just wish that scene had been longer!
The soundtrack was not the best, but the music was still beautiful and fitting.
Overall, I think this film should be rated at least eight stars on imdb.

reply