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
call me crazy but i thought it was pretty good. it's a helluva lot better than any piece of sh!t "epic" created today (Avatar or The Dark Knight, for example. hated both of em)
yeah, it's hard to sit through 4 hours, and Liz Taylor has a shrill voice & Richard Burton yells way too much, but Liz was gorgeous & Rich himself was pretty handsome. and it had beautiful sets & costumes, it's pretty on the outside. Roddy McDowall & Rex Harrison were pretty good too. so was Martin Landau.
though sometimes the whole thing could get wooden & annoying, all in all i found it grand, epic & wonderful, but of course, they coulda done a whole lot better.
btw, not many people 'rever' this movie, as you can see it's been heavily criticized & downtrodden on. and people in 1963 didn't sit through this, they walked out & gave it bad reviews, thus becoming one of the biggest box office stinkers of all time.
but seriously, it isn't all that bad & i did end up feeling sympathy for the characters at the end. it's probably one of the greatest epics ever made, standing next to Ben Hur, Spartacus, The Ten Commandments & Lawrence of Arabia.
"Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't get the reverence attached to this film. It's a plodding, unsightly mess, pompously over-acted and stiffly staged.
I think people have been conditioned to believe that film is a disaster because of its reputation/cost.
Yes, it does plod a bit and seems to lack a strong narrative arc but it's worth seeing for the visuals alone and I though the acting was solid all around.
It's is a long movie but I was never bored.
The reaction to the film reminds me of the Brando's Mutiny On the Bounty, another film with an unfair reputation due to the production drama.
They will never make a film like this again, today everything would look like a cartoon (cgi).
Forgot to mention Taylor's spectacular chest!
shareThis movie is one of a handful of epics that to me just don't play well on television. Having had the luxury of seeing this on a huge screen in stereo I can tell you that it was damn impressive. I agree it's not a perfect film but if you have the chance to catch a theatrical revival do it. Fox has a 70mm print they struck a few years ago of the original roadshow version that has played teice on the west coast.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
It had it's charm, but was far from being a great film. The score was horrible, I hated it.
---
Paddle faster, I hear banjos!
thanks for this thread, i was considering watching it on netflx instant but you saved me 3 hours the trailer on here looks boring aswell, seems like theyve just put some modern music in to make it look more epic than it is.
shareTo the POV of some, you were indeed saved. But to the POV of others, you have missed out.
shareTo be fair I don't think it's the worst movie on the planet, I just think it suffers from a bad reputation due to it's history. Overall it's an ok movie, not best picture material but definitely worth a watch. I found the first half more interesting and enjoyable with Rex Harrison as Caesar than the second half with Richard Burton as Mark Antony which is kinda funny since Taylor and Burton were having a huge affair. And I found Taylor's performance a little unemotional, even if she looked goregous. But I will say it's a gorgeous movie to watch, studios definitely don't movies like this anymore so I think that's a treat within itself. I think the film would have been better if it was broken into two films that was orignially planned.
shareIt's unfair to judge a film from 1963 on modern day films quality. That's like comparing a car from 1963 to one of today's top models... ridiculous.
For it's time, it's not a bad film. Times have changed. The film does hold up for the most part.
[deleted]
Just because something does not hold up sixty years later does not make a film awful.
Good grief.
It's not a bad film. yes, it could be better by today's standards, but that does not make it awful.
[deleted]
Uh no. I am NOT wrong, you didn't read my post :
For it's time, it's not a bad film. Times have changed. The film does hold up for the most part.
Nothing in there says it does not have to hold up. I just said for it's time it's not a bad film. And that it does hold up for the most part.
READ what is WRITTEN.
It's not unfair. Film and art in general needs to stand the test of time and this film does.
shareIt's amazing what people would sit through in 1963.
It's great comedy Caesar talking with a strong British accent. Cleopatra's maid tasting her drink, the poison worked very fast and the way she carefully fell not to get hurt. I see a young Arthur Daly (minder)in it. Just because it was filmed in 1963 doesn't mean the people back then would favour it.
shareWhat is it with you teeny bopper air-heads, no class at all. This wasn't Bill &
Ted's Ignorant Adventure you know. Whine, whine whine........