Well, the REAL reason is that it cost about $270 million of today's dollars, an amount almost impossible to recoup. "Four Weddings and a Funeral" was a popular success, but it, too, would have been considered a disaster if it had cost as much as "Cleopatra" had. But "Cleopatra" didn't merely lose money. It became unloved and unmourned. Here's why.
The successful -- or at least, the popular -- ancient world epics all combine two things: perilous situations where the fate of nations hangs in the balance, and a central story involving at least one common man. Cleopatra combines the fate of nation hanging in the balance with a story about RULERS. Thee's not a common man in sight, unless you count Marc Antony, who doesn't appear until just before the intermission, and he isn't a common man, in any case. I don't think this is necessarly a flaw. But I think it IS why "Cleopatra" is so unloved.
The other reason, and this IS a flaw, is that Cleopatra the woman is so completely unlovable. Julius Caesar is at worst a charismatic tyrant, much easier to sympathise with than Cleopatra, who shouts constantly, is enigmatic to the point of not having any personality at all, and changes her mind not only from scene to scene, but from sentence to sentence. The scene to scene changes are the worst. I got the uncomfortable feeling that successive scenes were written by different people, who never bothered to compare notes.
And Cleopatra's costumes! Really! I had more than one reason to be glad when Elizabeth Taylor removed her clothes. The men's and and the women's costumes were credited to different people; I would have creidted them to different galaxies, the women's costumes belonging on "Star Trek". Some of the outfits on the dancing girls were at least racy.
Oh, yes: before I forget to state the obvious, Cleopatra was never really the main character, and the story didn't go anywhere.
HOWEVER, you couldn't spend the equivalent of $270 million in 1963 without getting something in return. No doubt you could today, but the technology didn't exist then. The spectacle IS spectacle, and the boats, and indeed all waterside scenes, are jaw-droppingly good. Why do people object to 20th Century Fox spending so much money to give us such sights? The money doesn't come out of OUR purse. The dialogue ain't so bad, the musical score is Alex North's best (inappropriate in places, but speaking as someone who doesn't really like North's music, it was still lovely), and even the anachronistic and trashy sets are better to look at than many things from the 1960s.
Two names leapt out at me from the opening credits. The fist was "Jacqui Chan", which I found amusing, in a small way. The second was "Richard O'Sullivan". That's right: Ptolemy is played by the lead actor from "Man About the House" and other British sitcoms which I suspect that nobody a day younger than me can remember. They were big in their day, though.
The successful -- or at least, the popular -- ancient world epics all combine two things: perilous situations where the fate of nations hangs in the balance, and a central story involving at least one common man. Cleopatra combines the fate of nation hanging in the balance with a story about RULERS. Thee's not a common man in sight, unless you count Marc Antony, who doesn't appear until just before the intermission, and he isn't a common man, in any case. I don't think this is necessarly a flaw. But I think it IS why "Cleopatra" is so unloved.
The other reason, and this IS a flaw, is that Cleopatra the woman is so completely unlovable. Julius Caesar is at worst a charismatic tyrant, much easier to sympathise with than Cleopatra, who shouts constantly, is enigmatic to the point of not having any personality at all, and changes her mind not only from scene to scene, but from sentence to sentence. The scene to scene changes are the worst. I got the uncomfortable feeling that successive scenes were written by different people, who never bothered to compare notes.
And Cleopatra's costumes! Really! I had more than one reason to be glad when Elizabeth Taylor removed her clothes. The men's and and the women's costumes were credited to different people; I would have creidted them to different galaxies, the women's costumes belonging on "Star Trek". Some of the outfits on the dancing girls were at least racy.
Oh, yes: before I forget to state the obvious, Cleopatra was never really the main character, and the story didn't go anywhere.
HOWEVER, you couldn't spend the equivalent of $270 million in 1963 without getting something in return. No doubt you could today, but the technology didn't exist then. The spectacle IS spectacle, and the boats, and indeed all waterside scenes, are jaw-droppingly good. Why do people object to 20th Century Fox spending so much money to give us such sights? The money doesn't come out of OUR purse. The dialogue ain't so bad, the musical score is Alex North's best (inappropriate in places, but speaking as someone who doesn't really like North's music, it was still lovely), and even the anachronistic and trashy sets are better to look at than many things from the 1960s.
Two names leapt out at me from the opening credits. The fist was "Jacqui Chan", which I found amusing, in a small way. The second was "Richard O'Sullivan". That's right: Ptolemy is played by the lead actor from "Man About the House" and other British sitcoms which I suspect that nobody a day younger than me can remember. They were big in their day, though.