"Cleopatra" is one of the most notorious films in history, for often discussed reasons, not the least of which is bankrupting 20th Century Fox with its $44 million price tag.
In the end, was it worth it? Hard to say, but you can't beat "Cleopatra" for sheer spectacle, opulence, majesty, and costumes! And for those of us who grew up in the '60s, let us not forgot that Cleopatra makeup we all walked around with.
There are also some wonderful performances in this film, notably Rex Harrison as Caesar, Richard Burton as Marc Antony, Roddy McDowell as Octavian -- and let's not forget the perfectly cast Elizabeth Taylor, gorgeous and resplendent and certainly believable as both queen and seductress.
The film sticks to the true history, with the exception of the children Cleopatra had with Marc Antony -- four in all, including twins. The only child shown in the film, Caesarian, didn't outlive his mother by much, as Octavian had him killed after Caesarian won support as Pharaoh of Egypt.
Since the film took so long to make, one does notice differences in Taylor's appearance, particularly her weight. In the scenes filmed after her illness, she is quite tiny and in the scenes beforehand, she is a little bigger. Since the scenes seem to have been filmed out of order, it can be disconcerting. Let's face it, it's hard to stay at the same weight for five years, particularly after you've nearly died. None of it is enough to detract from her great beauty.
Cleopatra eventually made more than $44 million, but that doesn't mean it actually turned a profit. In order to show a profit, usually a film needs to make three times its cost. I don't believe to this day that Cleopatra has ever done that. No matter - it was the start of a huge love affair and was yet another coffin nail in the big studio system. And with all of that, it's a well-made film that doesn't scrimp on opulence. Somehow, even with all that went on, it never lost its way.
In the end, was it worth it? Hard to say, but you can't beat "Cleopatra" for sheer spectacle, opulence, majesty, and costumes! And for those of us who grew up in the '60s, let us not forgot that Cleopatra makeup we all walked around with.
There are also some wonderful performances in this film, notably Rex Harrison as Caesar, Richard Burton as Marc Antony, Roddy McDowell as Octavian -- and let's not forget the perfectly cast Elizabeth Taylor, gorgeous and resplendent and certainly believable as both queen and seductress.
The film sticks to the true history, with the exception of the children Cleopatra had with Marc Antony -- four in all, including twins. The only child shown in the film, Caesarian, didn't outlive his mother by much, as Octavian had him killed after Caesarian won support as Pharaoh of Egypt.
Since the film took so long to make, one does notice differences in Taylor's appearance, particularly her weight. In the scenes filmed after her illness, she is quite tiny and in the scenes beforehand, she is a little bigger. Since the scenes seem to have been filmed out of order, it can be disconcerting. Let's face it, it's hard to stay at the same weight for five years, particularly after you've nearly died. None of it is enough to detract from her great beauty.
Cleopatra eventually made more than $44 million, but that doesn't mean it actually turned a profit. In order to show a profit, usually a film needs to make three times its cost. I don't believe to this day that Cleopatra has ever done that. No matter - it was the start of a huge love affair and was yet another coffin nail in the big studio system. And with all of that, it's a well-made film that doesn't scrimp on opulence. Somehow, even with all that went on, it never lost its way.