Marco Antonio y Cleopatra

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.