User Reviews

In Fraser Heston's forward to his father's Anthony And Cleopatra that is on the DVD that I just bought he mentions that his father was ever mindful of the mammoth Elizabeth Taylor film that only came out nine years earlier. He wanted to do something different and in that I felt that Charlton Heston failed.

Not that this is not a good production, it most certainly is, but it did not break any new ground in that regard in the way that Laurence Olivier's Shakespeare films had done. Heston is a stalwart and resolute Mark Antony who for the first time in his pantheon of classical heroes on the screen is really quite the fool, but a fool for love as history has brought Antony down to us.

He terribly underestimates Octavian played by John Castle who is best known as Prince Geoffrey of Anjou in The Lion In Winter. Heston marries Carmen Sevilla as Octavia and Castle thinks him and his following tied to the Caesar family. But Heston has a yen for Hildegarde Neil who is every bit as beguiling and seductive as Elizabeth Taylor or Claudette Colbert ever were as Cleopatra.

The sea battle of Actium is always mentioned by historians as one of the twenty or so decisive battles in world history. What is shown here is that it need not be fought, but Heston spoiling for a fight and eager to dust off this young punk Octavian commits to a sea battle with inexperienced Egyptian sailors. That was his downfall or the beginning thereof.

Speaking of which Actium is a nicely staged sequence and done for less money than you would think. Fraser Heston's narrative tells us how.

Antony And Cleopatra is a fine production, not the best Shakespeare adaption, but still quite good. Look for John Castle as Octavian, he really has the character down perfectly.

I personally enjoy this version of Shakespeare's play in film form. It's beautifully filmed, directed, edited, acted out, written and the costuming and the sets are lavish. I feel as if I am taken back to ancient Rome and Egypt, I am also taken back to my childhood.

I'm not sure why some have a disdain for it. Some seem to dislike Charlton Heston in this one. To me, he's just as good in this film as any of his other films. But each of us are entitled to have our on opinions about Heston and this film adaptation.

I personally feel this film is a worthy entry in to the epic historical drama realm. It's almost up there with Ben-hur and The Ten Commandments.

7.5/10

This epic period drama produced in the early-'70s was Charlton Heston's third cinematic performance as Mark Antony a propos of versions of 'Julius Caesar' produced earlier in his career in 1950 and 1970 - the latter starred that great English classical actor Sir John Gielgud as Caesar. Financed by Folio Films, the Rank Organisation, Zurich-based Transac and the Spanish backer Izaro Films and filmed at Madrid's Moro Studios, Alcazaba and Aranjuez plus the deserts of Tabernas in Almeria between June and August 1971 and released in that greyest of hippy years -1972 - this is a very credible, economic production and is full of classical things. I was most impressed by the visual relationships - a vigorous gladiatorial combat scene, the alien pyramids and temples, lavish costumes, interesting props that include a huge marble head of Apollo and statues of Venus, glittery bronze door panels, an ebony throne, high-stepping feather-plumed plumed Roman horses etc plus a lush romantic light classical score composed by John Scott. The abundant Spanish sun is astonishing and the camera records the zeitgeist and passage of time in the summer and autumn of 1971 so well. Heston's grandiloquent performance in some scenes can be compared to the flair of those other American stars - Marlon Brando in Burn! (1968-1970) and Kirk Douglas in the adventure film The Light at the Edge of the World (1971). In the aftermath of the Battle of Actium, Heston with his hawk-like profile seems strangely self-willed - sporting an auburn caesar cut and black cape he bestrides the Mediterranean surf like a Colossus - he shows an astonishing sense of projection. Antony's death scene - when he is stabbed by his servant features a strange Spanish night-time setting - the subdued light is very evocative while the funeral scene features a monumental square grey-blue slab and other interesting classical world props. The English actors - the young blond John Castle as Octavian and thin, greyhaired and dark-eyed Eric Porter as Enobarbus are very good. Charlton Heston's 16-year-old son Fraser was involved on the set and in an interview from 2009 featured on the retail DVD he remarks that his father was inspired by the 'mystique' of Spain. Hildegard Neil who plays Cleopatra is married in real life to Yorkshireman Brian Blessed who played Augustus in the B. B. C. Period drama series I Claudius (1976). For me, this is Chuck's second most interesting performance after his epic role in Peckinpah's Major Dundee ('64-65).

When I first saw this film I liked it very much except for Hildegard Neils performance as Cleopatra. I guess the Liz Taylor version is hard to forget. But this is Shakespeare and Ms. Neil handles the part very well.

After repeated viewings, I have come around. Mr. Heston was correct in his casting. Neils Cleopatra is convincing. You can't have Antony interested in a wimpy love sick girl. This Cleopatra "acts" and gets angry, sullen and has a range of emotions. You could see why Antony would be attracted to her over the sedate but beautiful Octavia.

This is a terrific film and grossly under rated. It was restored by Fraser Heston's company in 2005 but I have yet to see it's release on DVD.

What happened?

After Julius Caesar to be killed by Bruto and Casio , in Roman empire happens the second triumvirate : Marc Anthony (Charlton Heston) commands Egypt , Lepido (Fernando Rey) rules Africa and Octavio Augustus (John Castle) governs over Rome and Hispania . After the death of Julius , Cleopatra (Hildegard Neil , though Irene Papas was runner-up for the role and Heston wanted to cast Diana Rigg, who had co-starred with him in Julius Caesar) queen of Egypt , becomes infatuated with Marcus Antonius . However , Marc Anthony is married to Octavia (Carmen Sevilla) , Augustus's sister . Cleopatra who seduced the conqueror Julius to gain a kingdom , now she pins her hopes on rash Mark Anthony and then he is wedded to Cleopatra , but things don't turn out so well and they are defeated by Octavio Augustus in Actium .

Co-production England/Switzerland/Spain by Rank Organisation and Izaro Films . This is a peculiar symbiosis between theatrical colossal and Peplum . The dialog , cinematography , and direction combine to cast a potent and enjoyable movie . Imposing sets , lavish costumes , good stars , massive scope , opulent interiors , including great spectacle of crowd scenes well staged by Joe Canutt who was Heston's stunt stand-in for Ben-Hur, most notably during the famous chariot race . Runtime is overlong , it's a little bit boring but the history aficionados will appeal too much . This is a special version of the Egyptian temptress's lust for Marco Antonio after Julius Caesar's death and results to be an intermittently extravaganza by Charlton Heston who is a tower of strength , as always . Charlton ¨Chuck¨ seem to be enjoying herself in the lead character in this hokey , spectacular as well as theatrical adaptation based on Shakespeare's play .This marked the third and final time Charlton Heston would play Mark Antony , he did so previously in Julius Caesar and also in Julius Caesar . For a middle budget of three million dollars , Heston asked Metro Goldwyn Mayer footage from ¨Ben Hur¨ , as was added stock-shots of the famous sea battle. Superb British/Spanish support cast such as Eric Porter , Peter Arne , Julian Glover , Douglas Wilmer , Warren Clarke , Freddie Jones as Pompey and Juan Luis Galiardo , Sancho Gracia , Aldo Sambrell and Fernando Rey who was wounded by an armour dressed by Heston . Evocative and sensitive musical score composed by John Scott and performed by London Symphony Orchestra , and musical additional by Augusto Alguero . Colorful and glamorous photography in stunning Technicolor by one of the best Spanish cameraman , Rafael Pacheco . Sumptuous sets and impressive production design by Jose Maria Alarcon and Jose Alguero , and breathtaking battles especially aboard ships and rousing final fight among two armies . It was completely shot in Spain , at Moro , Sevilla Films , Madrid studios , and on location in Aranjuez , Tabernas , Cabo De Gata and Roquetas De Mar (Almeria) . In Cabo De Gata was filmed a naval battle in which took part two ships .

Other films dealing with the infamous Egyptian Queen and her Roman lovers saga are the following : Silent version ¨Cleopatra¨ with Theda Bara ; ¨Caesar and Cleopatra¨ by Gabriel Pascal with Claude Rains , Vivien Leigh and Flora Robson , ¨Cleopatra¨ by Cecil B De Mille with Claudette Colbert , Warren William and Henry Wilconson ; ¨Cleopatra¨ by Joseph L . Mankiewicz with Elizabeth Taylor , Rex Harrison and Richard Burton and TV adaptation ¨Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra¨ with Richard Johnson and Janet Suzman and ¨Cleopatra¨ TV series by Frank Roddan with Leonor Varela , Timothy Dalton and Billy Zane .

Unlike some particularly grating Shakespeare adaptations of recent years, Charlton Heston's overlooked "Antony & Cleopatra" manages to work as cinema and as an adaptation of a work by the world's most famous playwright. The production values-- giant panoramas, expensive battle sequences, glorious period costumes-- are staggering, and Heston comports himself quite well in the triple role of screenwriter/director/actor. Not that I intend to use all my Shakespeare film reviews to bash Kenneth Branagh, but compared to Heston, he's awful, unpalatable in all three capacities. He is that anyway, but even Heston's just-decent acting is well balanced by his expert direction of others. The exception to that is Hildegard Neil, an awful Cleopatra. She has zero dignity in the role, and manages to bear a creepy resemblance to "Rock 'n' Roll High School"'s Principal Togar every now and then. John Castle's performance as Caesar is obviously the best in the film, but still doesn't touch Roddy McDowall's bold, furious, intense Octavian in the Liz Taylor mega-film. Comparisons with that other movie are inevitable, and the winner is hands-down the earlier epic. This version is not very well paced, and, let's face it, it wasn't exactly Will's best dialogue. And Hildegard Neil really drags the movie down a bit, although she's not as bad as everyone says. Visually it's majestic, and that John Scott/Augusto Algero score is certainly pleasing to the ears (though it can't rival Alex North's "Cleopatra"). It's okay, but I can't say I recommend it unless you're on a really serious Shakespeare kick and the only other movies available are Branagh's.

This is Shakespeare lite in the sense that the play has been cut to fit a movie, not a play. It has been done quite well and the balance between movie and classic play is well proportioned.

Where the movie excels is in the locations, the epic battles and the camera work. It is a very strong production in the Hollywood way. It serves as a fine introduction should anyone wish to experience the original text.

The actors are all in good form and make the lines serve their character. The conditional here is Chuck Heston. He is of the Olivier 'ham' school of acting. Each line is painfully rendered, the jaw clenches, the syllables come as if Heston may then expire. There are some parts where he is just fine: the battles, especially but he seems ill at ease compared to the other actors.

Have enormous appreciation for Shakespeare and his plays ever since being introduced to 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and 'Macbeth' in primary school, when reading the text aloud and analysing as a class which fascinated and benefitted me (not everybody liked doing it though). 'Antony and Cleopatra' is for me towards the top ranking his plays, beautiful text and with two of Shakespeare's most justifiably iconic characters.

This version of 'Antony and Cleopatra' was also seen for seeing how Charlton Heston would fare as Antony and as director and for the cast. While it is far from a perfect film, its flaws not being small, or one of the best adaptations of Shakespeare's plays ever made, as far as versions of 'Antony and Cleopatra' go this is one of the better faring one. And this is probably not a popular opinion, if its low rating here, the not so favourable reviews and that it was not a financial success are to go by.

A lot of good things can be seen here. It looks very grand, with suitably lavish but not overblown scenery and truly beautiful photography. The music score very much matches this grandeur, in a way that's lush and stirring without losing momentum. Heston's direction is mostly on point, especially in the action and his expert direction of the supporting cast (less so unfortunately in the central relationship).

Script is intelligent and faithful, personally didn't think it was overly so. The more action oriented moments excite, have energy and don't look static, complete with a clear eye for spectacle without it swamping the drama. On the most part the story is involving, maintains the play's spirit and has powerful moments. Heston is authoritative and pretty much text-book as Antony, but for me the supporting cast (all excellent) are even better. The standouts being John Castle's fierce Octavious and Jane Lapotaire's full of life Charmian. Am surprised too that not an awful lot has been said about Eric Porter's moving and noble Enobarbus.

Was significantly less keen however on the Cleopatra of Hildegarde Neil, her performance lacked sensuality and dignity and was almost too sullen. The chemistry between Heston and Neil also could have done with a good deal more passion, found them bland at times together.

Momentum is not always there, the battles/action always compel and even scintillates, but Cleopatra's scenes apart from her final one was on the pedestrian side.

Concluding, not great but better than given credit for. 7/10.

I am a huge Charlton Heston fan. He is without a doubt one of the greatest actors of all time, but what was he thinking when he made this movie. Normally if he made a bad movie I could blame it on the screenwriter or director, but in this case it's all him. The suckiness of this movie is all his fault. It proves that not even Heston can make a Shakespeare story interesting. I wasted 2 and a half hours of my life on this snooze fest and I'll never get that time back. This is by far THE WORST Heston movie that I've ever seen. If you are a Shakespeare fan maybe you'll find this movie entertaining, but if you're not don't waste your time, you'll regret it in the long run.

Charlton Heston is my hero, and always will be. But this version of ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA does not belong in his highlights reel, even if he directed and saw it as the highpoint of his career.

There are some bright touches.

Jane Lapotaire as Charmian is absolutely irresistible -- with her energy, wit, and sense of fun, she steal the picture right out from under the vacant beauty posing as Cleopatra. It's no accident that Jane got to play Cleopatra herself a few years later, and she was sensational! (Colin Blakely was a better Antony, too, much more passionate and emotional than Chuck Heston.)

Freddie Jones is funny and poignant as the broken down has-been, Pompey. Historically, Sextus Pompey's father was the supreme ruler in Rome, long before Caesar, Octavian, or Antony. But by now the last of the Pompey dynasty has been reduced to scavenging on the fringes of the empire, running a "navy" that is really a ragtag fleet of pirate ships. Decaying, drunken, and falling to pieces before your eyes, Pompey is the saddest character in the play. Freddie Jones gets that, but still makes the man funny and even noble when it really counts. Great job!

Warren "Dim" Clarke will forever be remembered as Malcolm MacDowell's right hand droog in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. It's a singular pleasure to see him shine in a brief appearance as Scarus, the bravest and most loyal of Antony's soldiers. Watch him emerge from the surf bawling curses at the cowardly Cleopatra, after her ill-timed flight has cost the forces of Antony everything. He projects all the energy, masculinity, and military valor that is missing from the rest of the film. Go Dim Go!

Now I love Charlton Heston. When he plays cold, aloof, cynical authority figures, he's the best in the world. But Antony is so many things that Charlton Heston doesn't understand and can't project on the screen. You never see the drunken Antony, the good-time guy who loves getting down and dirty with the soldiers, with the slaves, with whoever is around. You never see the vast appetites of the man, for food or drink or sex or laughter or anything else. You just see this dignified guy who suddenly loses everything in a murky battle scene. And when says the lines, "you knew, Egypt, you knew too well my heart was tied to your rudder," you think, yeah, but we didn't know. You didn't show us that, Chuck. Antony is a brave soldier, but he's also warm, impulsive, sensual, and charming, and those are things you just don't do well on screen.

Even the death scene suffers from Chuck's determination to stay in control. Shakespeare chose to show Antony bungle his suicide, so that in his final agony he could be helpless in Cleopatra's arms. But Chuck downgrades the agony to an absurd degree. Antony has been stabbed in the stomach but he just trots over to the monument to say hello!

The death scene in THE OMEGA MAN was a lot closer to the mark.

Ever since I studied it at school, I have regarded "Antony and Cleopatra" as one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. It is both a "love tragedy" like "Romeo and Juliet" and "Othello" and a political tragedy like "Macbeth", "Coriolanus" and "Julius Caesar" to which it forms a sequel. It has long been popular in the theatre, but has proven to be less so with film-makers. This is the only feature film adaptation to have been made of it in the sound era, although there were two silent versions and there have been several made for television. None of the great cinematic Shakespeareans, such as Olivier and Branagh, have been tempted to have a go at it. There was, of course, the 1963 epic "Cleopatra" with Elizabeth Taylor, but although the second part of that film told essentially the same story it did not use Shakespeare's dialogue.

Fortunately, the late Charlton Heston shared my love of the play and decided to film it with himself as Antony. He originally asked another great Shakespearean, Orson Welles, to direct, and then also took on the role of director when Welles turned it down. This was Heston's first directorial credit, although it was an open secret in Hollywood that he had taken over the direction of "Major Dundee" when Sam Peckinpah was incapacitated through alcoholism. He was only to direct one more feature film, "Mother Lode", although he also directed a made-for-television version of "A Man for All Seasons".

Despite the title, there are actually three people at the heart of this drama, the third being Octavius Caesar, Antony's political rival. Throughout the play there is a contrast between Rome and Egypt. Rome stands for the masculine, for stability, order, morality, the martial virtues and for self-denial. Egypt stands for the feminine, for love, sensuality, mutability and for self-indulgence. (Shakespeare clearly understood the concepts of yang and yin long before they were formally introduced into Western thought from Chinese philosophy). The film was shot in Spain, which provides an appropriately "Mediterranean" look, although I would have preferred it if it could have been shot in Italy and Egypt, to bring out this contrast between two different worlds. Budgetary considerations, however, may have precluded this.

Caesar is the prime example in the play of Roman values, Cleopatra of Egyptian ones. Antony, who wants both political power and the love of Cleopatra, is caught between the two. At one point Caesar tries to heal their political rift by organising a marriage between Antony and his sister Octavia, but we know this will never work. Although she is beautiful and virtuous, Octavia is too much the Roman maiden, and too much her brother's sister, for her ever to be a serious rival to Cleopatra in Antony's affections.

I think that Heston plays Antony in the right way, emphasising the fact that his character is not just caught between love and ambition but is also caught between two worlds. Beneath the middle-aged sensualist one can discern the tough Roman warrior which Antony once was. John Castle's Caesar may have an authoritarian streak as well as a puritanical one, but it would be wrong to see him simply as a villain. Beneath the youthful prig one can discern the future Emperor Augustus, the statesman who was to restore peace and stability to the Roman Empire after decades of civil war. Among the supporting cast mention must be made of Eric Porter as Antony's lieutenant Enobarbus, who starts off as a cynical observer of events but then becomes a tragic hero in his own right when he has to decide between remaining loyal to his old friend Antony and throwing in his lot with Caesar, who appears certain to emerge victorious.

There will always be controversy about Cleopatra's ethnicity; the historical character was of Greek descent and therefore probably Caucasian in appearance, but lines in the play itself suggest that Shakespeare thought of her as a black African, and she is sometimes played by black actresses in modern stage productions. In 1972, however, a love affair between a white Antony and a black Cleopatra would have been controversial, at least in America, and the role went to the British actress Hildegarde Neil. (The previous year, in "The Omega Man", Heston had played a character in a romantic relationship with a black woman, but in that film their love was only one small element in the story. In "Antony and Cleopatra" the love between the title characters is the whole point of the play). Neil certainly had the looks for the part, and speaks her lines well, but I felt that she lacked the sensuality and seductive allure which Taylor brought to the role.

The film was not well-received by the critics when it first came out and only had a limited release in the US. Even today it is not well-known and rarely turns up on television. (Fortunately, I caught it recently on one of those rare occasions). Yet in my view it is a well-crafted piece of cinematic Shakespeare which deserves to be better-known. It can certainly stand comparison with Olivier's trilogy of Henry V, Hamlet and Richard III. 8/10

A goof. Octavius Caesar's lieutenant Marcus Agrippa is portrayed here as an elderly man with a grey beard, much older than Caesar himself. In fact, the two men were around the same age. Also, surviving portrait busts of Agrippa show him as clean-shaven.

I found Antony and Cleopatra at a used DVD store 4 months ago. I had never heard of it, but I was attracted to it when I saw that my favorite actor- Charlton Heston, was the star, writer, and director. (He's mostly my favorite actor due to his work in Biblical epics- see my "Reverse Recommendation" section.)

I delayed watching it because I found out that the script is straight from a Shakespeare play. I admire bits of Shakespeare ("Wherefore art thou Romeo?", "To be or not to be?"), but his use of Old English is a bit too sophisticated for me to comprehend- and this is coming from a Christian who prefers the King James Bible.

Anyways, I just sat down and watched the movie, and I was conflicted throughout. The plot follows an affair between Mark Antony (whom Heston plays) and Cleopatra.

The acting is well done, not just from Heston, but his co-star Hildegarde Neil. In fact, even though Charlton Heston is my favorite actor, I admired Neil's performance more in the movie.

Her filmography mostly consists of other Shakespeare adaptations and some other movies unfamiliar to me. There are other good actors as well, such as Fernado Rey, who played a wiseman in Jesus of Nazareth.

I also must respect Heston's faithfulness to Shakespeare's play (it's quoted verbatim) and the skill of the production. Other aspects impressed me as well, such as stabbings through stomachs and armors looking very realistic.

There were also some funny lines, although they sadly have escaped my memory. Also, the movie went by fairly decently for a runtime of 2 hours and 28 minutes.

Despite what I admire about Antony and Cleopatra, I don't think it is a movie I'd see again. The biggest issue for me is, as I mentioned, the Old English. This made it hard at times for me to understand what was going on. I got the overall gist, but there were times, especially in the first third, where I wavered between "I get this" and "What's going on?"

Apparently, this had bad reviews when this was released 50 years ago. Heston wrote in his autobiography that "the film I cared more about than any I've ever made was a failure." Posthumously to Heston I'd like to say that while I can't quite recommend the movie, it's not a "failure."

Despite the great acting, sets, and some good moments throughout, the movie was too complex for someone not well versed into Shakespeare. I would have enjoyed this much better had Heston stayed true to the play AND updated the dialogue to modern day English.

If you are a Shakespeare buff, I recommend this most to you. For those interested in Heston's performance and work as a director, this would be worth a watch. For anyone else though, I am very disappointed to say I can't recommend it. I respect Heston's effort and admire his ambition, but I must say that I admired his work here more than I enjoyed it.

Reverse Recommendations: For better movies with Charlton Heston- I would recommend his religious epics, like The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, The Greatest Story Ever Told, and The Agony and the Ecstasy. The Greatest Story Ever Told is my personal favorite out of all of these.

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.

Had this movie directed by William Wyler, it would had definitely left its mark not only in the filmography of Charlton Heston but also by grabbing a number of Oscars. Wyler possessed the acumen to get the best out of actors by exercising retakes, besides sharpening the script with archaic dialogues (suitable for historical epics) while accentuating the screenplay and melodrama with academic use of deep focus of sentimental emotional expression.

Whilst this is a really quite good looking version of the Shakespeare tragedy, it's the overly wordy adaptation that drags it down. What director Charlton Heston and his writing team seem to failed to appreciate is that much of the original text was designed to complement the simplicity of the stage. With an whole gamut of visuals for us to enjoy, much of the original dialogue is rendered superfluous, and abridging that is the challenge that fails this production. Essentially, it picks up just after the assassination of Julius Caesar with Lepidus (Fernando Rey), Octavian (John Castle) and Marc Antony (Heston) managing an easy truce so they can deal with Pompey (Freddie Jones). Octavian is also nervous about Antony and so suggests that he marry his sister Octavia to create a stronger bond between them and also to irritate the other player in this game. Cleopatra (Hildegard Neil) has also moved on from Julius and Antony is very much in her grip. Now he has some egg shells to tread upon as she reacts to his new nuptials and he realises that maybe together than are strong enough to redraw the map of the Roman world. It doesn't really try very hard to present us with grand scale battle scenes, but instead uses some quick-cut editing to illustrate conflict interspersed with dialogue and the odd action shot. At times that's quite effective, but most of this film just looked like a vanity project for a star very much engaged with the original work but without really much idea as to how best to deliver it engagingly on the screen. His casting of Neil is a bit hit and miss, and his own tendency to lingering shots to camera rather slow this to a snails pace. Castle does well as the softly softly Octavian as does Eric Porter as Enobarbus, but otherwise this is all just a bit long and unremarkable.

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.

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!!

Charlton Heston worked very hard in "Anthony and Cleopatra" an adaptation of Shakespeare scripted by himself . Heston is the director too, and the movie is a wonderful experience of filmmaking, a true labour of love, with some fault, perhaps, but full of energetic sequences . a story of love, passion and death . Heston knows very well the Shakespeare original, and he express in the screen all the strenght , all the fascination of the shakesperian text . "Anthony and Cleopatra" was filmed in Spain , with a marvellous soundtrack and a great camera work . Heston is superb in the title role.

I bought this movie knowing it didn't have a big success in its time and also it didn't receive good critics. So I didn't hope a very good movie and the only reason to buy it is because I'm a big fan of Charlton Heston (even I don't like Shakespeare). But, who knows? This movie has been a very big and pleasant surprise for me! Here I have discovered that Heston is not only one of the greatest American actors, also a good (very good) director. This title is great because it combines the loyalty (and love) to Shakespeare with the sense of entertainment for the big screen. And the result is powerful: maybe the actress who plays Cleopatra is not the best for this character (although she is a good actress), but Heston and the rest of the cast are wonderful, the same as the soundtrack and the way to adapt the original material. I think this movie should be respected more.

Heston managed to "open up" the play without losing the intimacy of the love story. The stately epic lives side by side with the intense love story. When the wounded Antony looks up to Cleopatra's tomb and cries "I am dying Egypte, dying!" I got it. The passions of such great leaders shake nations to their core.

This one is about Heston, on the verge of losing his matinée idol status by 1974 but with the acting seasoning of more than two decades. He tackles Shakespeare and brings his own experiences of filming Julius Ceasar, El Cid and Ben Hur to the table.

It is a labour of love indeed, but also one of determination. Bravo! Still waiting for the DVD with plenty of extras. This film deserves to be re-visited by scholars.

I think Heston delivers a very fine Marc Antony, and despite the limitations of the Elizabethan script, one closer to the historical Antony than say, Richard Burton's rather neurotic (if charismatic) non-Shakespearean take on the role with Elizabeth Taylor-- though of course this was a far later script, and based on a novel. Antony was a hero of his time, sort of a rock star to the Romans, and was popularly reputed to have been descended from Hercules. In John Castle's terse portrayal, Octavian is well served as the master manipulator he truly was. Rome explained Cleopatra's partnership with Antony as the folly of a Roman unmanned by an exotic temptress, and since after all the winner gets to write the history, this is the version handed down to us.

I have a real problem with Hildegard Neil's Cleo, however. I know she can act, but she just doesn't work as the glittering siren Shakespeare intended. She's actually a Londoner, but her Cleopatra seems more like some modern Newport socialite. We see Antony falling head over heals for this person, and you just have to say "go figure!" Carmen Sevilla's beautiful Octavia has considerably more physical allure, though of course she's portrayed as frigid and no competition for the Nile temptress. (The historical Octavia was actually one heck of a lady, and later brought up some of Antony's children by Cleopatra.)

One of the standouts in this cast is Jane Lapotaire's luminous Charmian, for my money a much more compelling presence than the supercilious and somehow tacky Cleo. In 1981 Lapotaire was in fact cast as Cleopatra in an Elizabethan-dress BBC production of A&C, but to mixed reviews.

Anyway, this 1972 version of Shakespeare's version of the Roman version of Antony and Cleopatra's story is well worth a look, and its flaws are easily overlooked.

It's a crime this movie isn't on DVD yet. If you can get ahold of the 20 year + old VHS tape and you like either Shakespeare or Charlton Heston, then get it. The Richard Johnson/ Janet Suzeman version is good, especially Patrick Stewart, but that was a TV production- this is a film. No constant close-ups or backgrounds that are hard on the eyes. Instead you get lots of scenes filmed on location (by that I mean outdoors, not a set thats suppose to be outdoors), action scenes involving gladiators and a honest to goodness depiction of the Battle of Actium (ok, they reused some Ben-Hur footage in parts, but its still not bad for the time), and a musical soundtrack. The cast is great, and Heston is perfect as Antony. The actress playing Cleopatra gets criticism from some, but I think she did a great job as well. This is the definitive version of this play, all things considered.

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.

It would be very interesting to see how audiences in the 21st century would react to this movie if it were just released and shown in theaters -- the very same film, cast and all. My guess is that it would go over big. If for no other reason, than for the lavishness of the film and the tremendous action scenes. Many may also go for the love affair between the two leads. And, literary folks today would no doubt find it an interesting discussion topic for comparison with Shakespeare's play. Of course, historians might enter the discussion regarding the Battle of Actium, the personages, the politics and even the authenticity of costumes, ships, weapons, etc.

That should be enough to arouse the interest of any modern youths and older who have not seen this film. Because, "Antony and Cleopatra" was and is a first rate movie production of both a famous play, and of a piece of history that Shakespeare's play is about. It's not a great film, but a good one. Most of the filming was done in Spain, and the sea battle scenes were taken from earlier footage shot for the 1959 film, "Ben-Hur."

After watching this film again recently, I enjoyed it as much as I must have when I first saw it in a theater decades ago. It wasn't a blockbuster then, and due to some negative criticism after its release in Europe in 1972, it had only limited release in the U.S. in 1973. I don't know of anyone who saw it then that didn't think it was a very good film.

I think that movies of this nature and scale don't lose their appeal or impact with audiences. They are types of historical classics made on a grand scale. And that should make them appealing to audiences far into the future. Indeed, with all of the production involved, with so many properties, sets, costumes and more, such films reduce the need for future remakes. And, it doesn't hurt more recent generations and audiences to become familiar with the actors of the past who are in these roles.

All of the cast give fine performances. Charlton Heston helped produce and also directed the film, besides starring in it. Among superb roles and acting are those of Hildegarde Neil as Cleopatra and John Castle as Octavius Caesar. This is an entertaining fictional historical and literary-based movie. If William Shakespeare were alive to see it, my guess is that he would like this film as an extension of his play and for its historical portrayals.