Caesar and Cleopatra Movie Reviews

I just recently became a Vivien Leigh fan after seeing her in great films. I picked this up at my public library, looking foward to see her again. When I put into my VCR and when this movie appeared at the screen, I must say I was terribly disappointed. Nothing like GWTW or Waterloo Bridge. Her version of Cleopatra was ofial. And Claude Rains also gave me a bad impression, since it was the first time I had ever seen him on screen. I fell asleep half way through the movie, and when I woke up, I intended to fall back asleep. It was a horrible waste to my Saturday evening. But you can't be totally harsh because Vivien Leigh was going through some tough times during the making of the movie. But i'd recommended Waterloo Bridge, or GWTW, or any other Vivien Leigh film, but not CAESAR AND CLEOPATRA.

This version of Caesar and Cleopatra is an historical farce. The talent of Leigh and Rains are wasted on this thing. At the start of the film when Leigh meets Caesar Leigh plays the role of Cleopatra as a whimsical/foolish/giddy girl. Outrageous. Good costumes for a period piece but when compared to the Claudette Colbert or Elizabeth Taylor verions this is a disgrace. Don't bother...you have been warned.

Yes, those that complain that this 1946 film version of Shaw's famous play of the same name is mainly 'stage-bound' and the acting often seems 'stilted'-- well, sigh, they surely have a point.

Bernard Shaw himself (he did not die until the 1950s) is credited with the screenplay, which may have something to do with the criticisms. Shaw is very talky and hard to 'transfer' to motion picture standards of verisimulitude, but this movie has a beautiful, delightful Vivien Leigh, the incomparable Claude Rains, the beautifully dashing Stewart Granger, plus 'old friends' of the classic British cinema such as Flora Robson, Felix Aylmer, Basil Sidney, Stanley Holloway, Leo Genn, Francis L. Sullivan -- all who appeared in wonderful films like Laurence Olivier's 'Hamlet', David Lean's 'Great Expectations' and many other intelligent pictures of that pre- and post-war (WWII, that is) period. (There is even a very very young, but very lovely as always, Jean Simmons as a slave of Cleopatra who plays the harp.)

The picture attempts an 'epic' look, with battles yet noted I'm afraid by unconvincing stunt work and 'casts of thousands' sort of milling about -- and Cecil B. De Mille does this so much better than Gabriel Pascal, the director of 'Caesar and Cleopatra'. But I myself admit I love the Shavian ambience -- the intellectual activist actually attractive (in Shaw's plays at least!) to the winsome young woman; sex as friendship, discussion and respect; thought as more important than 'action-adventure'.

If Shaw's plays do seem too dated to you and they generally bore you, yes, stay far away from this film! But if you brighten when 'entertainment' is also provocative to the intellect and not only to the eye (and other sense organs) -- and particularly if you have great affection for the era of British cinema dominated by Olivier, David Lean, and the early Tony Richardson and featuring so many familiar and adept character actors that fill the firmament with 'supporting' stars, you will like the movie, and ignoring its quite obvious flaws, enjoy every minute: I guarantee it!...