Alicia I love this movie so much

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Eric Stevenson After seeing the longest movie in my entire life, I ended up watching this because once again, I heard it's a version of Shakespeare's "Antony And Cleopatra". The battle scenes are easily the best parts of the movie. It does kind of drag on with the conversations. Well, who am I say that after watching a four half version? As always, there's no reason to put up spoilers because we already know what's going to happen. Now only is it a story hundreds of years old, but it happened in real life! I knew little about Claudette Colbert.The dialogue is still quite nice. They actually ask at one point if Cleopatra is black. That actually is a realistic representation of her physical appearance because there's no reason to think she was. She was still ugly, though. It does make me wonder if these films could also qualify as versions of Shakespeare's "Julius Caeser" as they also show his assassination. Well, they don't really show the fate of Brutus, so its not quite the same story. ***

dweilermg-1 In 1963 when the Liz Taylor version of Cleopatra was in movie theaters and getting big hype local TV channels across the USA were airing this classic 1934 Claudette Colbert version. Many of us watched and enjoyed it and didn't bother going to see the remake in theaters. The free airing of this movie may have hurt Liz's newer version in the box office. We all could say "Yes, we saw Cleopatra" without saying which version. Jackie Gleason even joked about it in a sketch on his TV variety show. When Alice Ghostly as his girlfriend wanted to see Cleopatra his cheap guy character told her he'd seen it already. Then her dad said "She means the new one with Elizabeth Taylor, not Claudette Colbert!"

Benedito Dias Rodrigues The cinema told many times Cleopatra's story,all them tried to be magnificent but just a one got it,this version has a great visual treatment,lavish sets,a large numbers of sexy choreograph,Cleapatra's costumes are fantastically design,but this movie suffer when to compare with 1963 version maybe black and white can explain...another thing Colbert vs Taylor have a great distance,the facts isn't accurate,a lack of hieroglyphics in the sets,anyway the movie is good but wasn't convincing in many ways....maybe too short to tell such complex story and events,sounds that it made be rushed,...however a good epic and dated of course.

Cyke 113: Cleopatra (1934) - released 10/5/1934, viewed 9/2/08.Russia and Afghanistan join the League of Nations. BIRTHS: Brian Epstein, Sophia Loren, Leonard Cohen, Brigitte Bardot.KEVIN: Cecil B. DeMille is at it again with this lavish sword-and-sandal quickie centering on the romantic life of the legendary Egyptian empress, this time played by Claudette Colbert. It should come as no surprise that this film is very poor history by any measure. Historical events that span decades are compressed into weeks or even days. Seemingly important benchmarks, such as the children that Cleopatra bore with Caesar and Antony, are dropped completely. I guess I was a little surprised at how shallow the movie came out to be. All of the actors are playing caricatures, and all their dialogue is spoken in overblown poetic prose. As this is the second DeMille movie we've seen, some comparing and contrasting is in order. 'Sign of the Cross' was more about the large setpieces than about the actual story. This film, no less lavish or expensive-looking, lets the background stay in the background more than hijacking the story. This time, all the big battles and sexytime bears the Production Code seal of approval. This film has far superior (and Oscar-winning) cinematography from Lubitsch-veteran Victor Milner. While 'Cleopatra' is paced and structured far better than 'Sign of the Cross,' I found the former movie, despite its many flaws and similarly two-dimensional performances, to be much more moving than this one. At no point during this film did I feel anything significant for the characters, except maybe for the first flirting scenes between Antony and Cleopatra, which were the best acted and best staged in the film. And Ian Keith is way too old for Octavian at any point in the story.DOUG: Cecil B. DeMille's take on Cleopatra, once probably the biggest and most definitive version of the story, now looks downright routine by comparison. I have not yet seen the 1964 version with Liz Taylor (I'm kind of waiting until they find all that missing footage). *Contract Player Alert*: Claudette Colbert (eventual Oscar winner for It Happened One Night), for all her awesomeness, never really disappears into the character; she just looks like Claudette Colbert in Cleopatra drag. Maybe it's just that she's the only face I recognized. Still, she looks very good in those costumes, and Cleo comes off (rather intentionally) as the most interesting character, with Caesar, Antony, and Octavian all come off as greedy one-dimensional fools. Also worth noting: the movie opens with a seal of approval from the Production Code of America, the first time we've seen it on the Odyssey so far. It's interesting to compare DeMille's Pre-Code spectacle Sign of the Cross with this one. It's especially noticeable in a montage sequence in the third act which shows the Roman army rampaging through Egypt. Demille's indulgent stretches of violence from Cross are gone, replaced with short, indecipherable clips with occasional stabbing and spearchucking. I hate to say it, but think I liked this one better than Cross. Unable to resort to racy scenes of violence and nudity, DeMille now has to focus on the story, what little of it there is. Recommended? Sure.Last film: The Count of Monte Cristo (1934). Next film: The Merry Widow (1934).