source: Antony and Cleopatra

Have enormous appreciation for Shakespeare and his plays ever since being introduced to 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and 'Macbeth' in primary school, when reading the text aloud and analysing as a class which fascinated and benefitted me (not everybody liked doing it though). 'Antony and Cleopatra' is for me towards the top ranking his plays, beautiful text and with two of Shakespeare's most justifiably iconic characters. This version of 'Antony and Cleopatra' was also seen for seeing how Charlton Heston would fare as Antony and as director and for the cast. While it is far from a perfect film, its flaws not being small, or one of the best adaptations of Shakespeare's plays ever made, as far as versions of 'Antony and Cleopatra' go this is one of the better faring one. And this is probably not a popular opinion, if its low rating here, the not so favourable reviews and that it was not a financial success are to go by. A lot of good things can be seen here. It looks very grand, with suitably lavish but not overblown scenery and truly beautiful photography. The music score very much matches this grandeur, in a way that's lush and stirring without losing momentum. Heston's direction is mostly on point, especially in the action and his expert direction of the supporting cast (less so unfortunately in the central relationship). Script is intelligent and faithful, personally didn't think it was overly so. The more action oriented moments excite, have energy and don't look static, complete with a clear eye for spectacle without it swamping the drama. On the most part the story is involving, maintains the play's spirit and has powerful moments. Heston is authoritative and pretty much text-book as Antony, but for me the supporting cast (all excellent) are even better. The standouts being John Castle's fierce Octavious and Jane Lapotaire's full of life Charmian. Am surprised too that not an awful lot has been said about Eric Porter's moving and noble Enobarbus. Was significantly less keen however on the Cleopatra of Hildegarde Neil, her performance lacked sensuality and dignity and was almost too sullen. The chemistry between Heston and Neil also could have done with a good deal more passion, found them bland at times together. Momentum is not always there, the battles/action always compel and even scintillates, but Cleopatra's scenes apart from her final one was on the pedestrian side. Concluding, not great but better than given credit for. 7/10.

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.

When I first saw this film I liked it very much except for Hildegard Neils performance as Cleopatra. I guess the Liz Taylor version is hard to forget. But this is Shakespeare and Ms. Neil handles the part very well. After repeated viewings, I have come around. Mr. Heston was correct in his casting. Neils Cleopatra is convincing. You can't have Antony interested in a wimpy love sick girl. This Cleopatra "acts" and gets angry, sullen and has a range of emotions. You could see why Antony would be attracted to her over the sedate but beautiful Octavia. This is a terrific film and grossly under rated. It was restored by Fraser Heston's company in 2005 but I have yet to see it's release on DVD. What happened?

This is a beautiful production. Very lavish. Charleton Heston is excellent as Mark Antony. Directing is superb. All the cast is excellent. Compare this to Orson Welles production of "Othello". Was Charleton Heston responsible for the difference? Obviously there were others involved in both productions, but I believe Welles was plagued by lack of funds. It seems like Heston didn't have that problem. I don't know why? There is a sunny delightful brightness to this play/film, that cannot be portrayed on the stage. I wish he could have done all 37 Shakespeare. Well worth the price of admission. Who can replace these types of artists (Heston, Welles)? No one as yet.

I am a huge Charlton Heston fan. He is without a doubt one of the greatest actors of all time, but what was he thinking when he made this movie. Normally if he made a bad movie I could blame it on the screenwriter or director, but in this case it's all him. The suckiness of this movie is all his fault. It proves that not even Heston can make a Shakespeare story interesting. I wasted 2 and a half hours of my life on this snooze fest and I'll never get that time back. This is by far THE WORST Heston movie that I've ever seen. If you are a Shakespeare fan maybe you'll find this movie entertaining, but if you're not don't waste your time, you'll regret it in the long run.

This epic period drama produced in the early-'70s was Charlton Heston's third cinematic performance as Mark Antony a propos of versions of 'Julius Caesar' produced earlier in his career in 1950 and 1970 - the latter starred that great English classical actor Sir John Gielgud as Caesar. Financed by Folio Films, the Rank Organisation, Zurich-based Transac and the Spanish backer Izaro Films and filmed at Madrid's Moro Studios, Alcazaba and Aranjuez plus the deserts of Tabernas in Almeria between June and August 1971 and released in that greyest of hippy years -1972 - this is a very credible, economic production and is full of classical things. I was most impressed by the visual relationships - a vigorous gladiatorial combat scene, the alien pyramids and temples, lavish costumes, interesting props that include a huge marble head of Apollo and statues of Venus, glittery bronze door panels, an ebony throne, high-stepping feather-plumed plumed Roman horses etc plus a lush romantic light classical score composed by John Scott. The abundant Spanish sun is astonishing and the camera records the zeitgeist and passage of time in the summer and autumn of 1971 so well. Heston's grandiloquent performance in some scenes can be compared to the flair of those other American stars - Marlon Brando in Burn! (1968-1970) and Kirk Douglas in the adventure film The Light at the Edge of the World (1971). In the aftermath of the Battle of Actium, Heston with his hawk-like profile seems strangely self-willed - sporting an auburn caesar cut and black cape he bestrides the Mediterranean surf like a Colossus - he shows an astonishing sense of projection. Antony's death scene - when he is stabbed by his servant features a strange Spanish night-time setting - the subdued light is very evocative while the funeral scene features a monumental square grey-blue slab and other interesting classical world props. The English actors - the young blond John Castle as Octavian and thin, greyhaired and dark-eyed Eric Porter as Enobarbus are very good. Charlton Heston's 16-year-old son Fraser was involved on the set and in an interview from 2009 featured on the retail DVD he remarks that his father was inspired by the 'mystique' of Spain. Hildegard Neil who plays Cleopatra is married in real life to Yorkshireman Brian Blessed who played Augustus in the B. B. C. Period drama series I Claudius (1976). For me, this is Chuck's second most interesting performance after his epic role in Peckinpah's Major Dundee ('64-65).

I think Heston delivers a very fine Marc Antony, and despite the limitations of the Elizabethan script, one closer to the historical Antony than say, Richard Burton's rather neurotic (if charismatic) non-Shakespearean take on the role with Elizabeth Taylor-- though of course this was a far later script, and based on a novel. Antony was a hero of his time, sort of a rock star to the Romans, and was popularly reputed to have been descended from Hercules. In John Castle's terse portrayal, Octavian is well served as the master manipulator he truly was. Rome explained Cleopatra's partnership with Antony as the folly of a Roman unmanned by an exotic temptress, and since after all the winner gets to write the history, this is the version handed down to us. I have a real problem with Hildegard Neil's Cleo, however. I know she can act, but she just doesn't work as the glittering siren Shakespeare intended. She's actually a Londoner, but her Cleopatra seems more like some modern Newport socialite. We see Antony falling head over heals for this person, and you just have to say "go figure!" Carmen Sevilla's beautiful Octavia has considerably more physical allure, though of course she's portrayed as frigid and no competition for the Nile temptress. (The historical Octavia was actually one heck of a lady, and later brought up some of Antony's children by Cleopatra.) One of the standouts in this cast is Jane Lapotaire's luminous Charmian, for my money a much more compelling presence than the supercilious and somehow tacky Cleo. In 1981 Lapotaire was in fact cast as Cleopatra in an Elizabethan-dress BBC production of A&C, but to mixed reviews. Anyway, this 1972 version of Shakespeare's version of the Roman version of Antony and Cleopatra's story is well worth a look, and its flaws are easily overlooked.

This movie does a better than average job of turning a Shakespeare play into a movie, but it doesn't succeed well as a movie. I thought the stage props, although minimalist, worked. The camera work was fine. With the exception of Heston, who seemed to be spend the first third of the movie smiling at some joke that rest of the cast weren't in on, I thought the acting was good. The characters were believable and their previous work on British TV served them well. The script was faithful to the play - actually too faithful - and this is why this was a so-so movie. Shakespeare was first and foremost an entertainer. He didn't write to please scholars, he wrote to amuse and tell a story to the masses. To do this he tried to use action sequences and clever plot devices, but most of all he tried to be a clever wordsmith. The problem with those that stay too faithful to the play is today's audiences don't speak as Elizabethans and the power of the words are lost. If Shakespeare was alive today he would update his script to reflect current English. This movie could easily have been edited down by 45 minutes and gained much by the editing. If Cleopatra makes hungry where she most satisfies, this film satisfies if we had been left hungry for more.

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.