LetThemEatCake

Indeed, the best part of the film is the chemistry between Burton and Liz Taylor, yet 99% of the reviews I've seen fawn over Rex Harrison. Sexism much? I can't even explain it, his performance is the worst.

this reminds me, I used to watch this show in the 80's about space but it was in spanish, it was very ominous, I seem to recall something about being trapped in a black hole, does it ring any bell?

More examples on the magic of editing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFFGphgtI0A I don't think the restoration was good because the film looks totally magenta.

This is one of my favorite sequences from the film: the dialogue is super, the lighting is magnificent, those shots were the floor is blue, one pillar is green, another is lit gold, I've never seen anything like that in my life, the acting by both is super and the sparks between them is unlike any other pairing in film. Can't believe it's all buried under muck basically and that the only thing people comment about upon watching this film is Rex Harrison's hammy and soporific performance and Roddy McDowall's shrieking Octavian. Way to miss the point of everything.

Thank you for the advice, I am currently downloading the 50th anniversary blu ray, which I may say, was not a good restoration, it is magenta all throughout, I'm downloading that and I'll try to edit it on windows media player, thank you again. As far as your points, I'm not contrary to that way of thinking, I also read abridged versions of books and later on I sought out the complete versions and nothing less would do because as I grew up to love art I realized that the artist's vision is sacred and it has to be respected, there is no point whatsoever in seeking out something abridged. Now I disagree with the rest of your post, and I'll tell you why: film, contrary to all artforms out there, is a true collaborative effort. It's impossible for a person to do it on their own. That is the reason why I don't consider myself a fan of auteur directors, I love their films but I'm not going to be a fan of them because whose to say who really was who made their films great? I love Alien and Blade Runner as much as the next person but let me tell you, Prometheus is one of the worst film in history and Exodus is not far behind. The rest of Scott's filmography isn't the greatest either. What I'm trying to say is that, a great film often happens not because of the director, but despite him. Now you wouldn't want several versions of a famous painting, a novel, a partiture or a poem. That would go against the artist's sacred vision and his work, even if somebody else financed it, the work is still his. In a film the director is the lead of course, but so much is involved and all the other artists have their opinions too, I'm sure they'd do the film differently but there has to be a final decision and sometimes it's the directors and sometimes it's the studio or producers. That doesn't mean the directors got screwed, it's just the way it is. It's like perfectionism, or artists of several disciplines that are perfectionists, at some point you have to say this is it and let it go. What Oliver Stone did makes it seem like he's not a talented filmmaker, makes it seem like he doesn't know what he's doing. Also, as an audience we don't get to decide what version to see. We can't demand many versions of a painting and choose the one we like. I feel it goes against the artistic work, but director's cut exist and they are sold and that is fine but I feel it has done a disservice to the art of film. Case in point: Batman Vs. Superman. This movie is terrible mainly because it didn't make sense. Then I read some reviews about the extended edition and they mainly said that with the extended scenes the movie now makes sense. Well, in my mind if the theatrical cut doesn't make sense then it is badly done. Then I started to notice bad editing in many more films and I have come to the realization that studios are purposefully editing down the films in order to save it up for the dvd. I find that execrable. The theatrical release can't come second, it's impossible, it's a total disrespect to the art of film and I think this is the result of the expectation that has been created because of the director cuts and extended editions, I don't think it benefits films. It's like an adaptation of a book, or a historic character, if the film doesn't make sense in the theatrical release then they did it wrong. As far as Cleopatra goes, it's a very specific case, I really can't compare it to any other case, and I really don't know why there is a minority that asks for the 6 hour cut, I believe they are other Elizabeth Taylor fans like myself, and I too would like to see all the Elizabeth Taylor footage but I love film as much as I love Elizabeth Taylor and I'd rather have a good Cleopatra than a 6-hour Cleopatra. I've also already read the original script and believe me it is not a good script. Other than this very small group of Liz fans, I don't see anyone else that would be interested in all 6 hours of Cleopatra, some people may object to any cuts on the principle of preserving the director's vision at all cost but I don't agree with that specially when it's shoddy work. I mean this film is shoddy. The opening credits sequence with those horrible faded fresco images and fonts actually depict scenes that didn't make the final cut. Couldn't they have fixed this before release?? This is shoddy work. But it doesn't have to be a shoddy film, it can be fixed... if it's edited down. And they also basically dismissed the theatrical cut. The theatrical version of Cleopatra was 3 hours long. This version has since disappeared. Now I don't think I would have liked this version because from what I read it eliminates one good Taylor scene, but this should have been the dvd release and then they could have done a special edition with the 4 hour director's cut. I don't know, maybe I am totally wrong on this but when almost everyone complains about its running time, maybe they are right? I think Cleopatra is the longest Hollywood release, it's insane.

I don't live in a rock, the movies aren't discussed because they didn't turn out to be classics but fads of the moment.

I haven't heard anyone discuss them for years in real life or the media and the subsequent sequels haven't been anywhere near as successful.

That is true, she was going to be play Cleopatra but she set it aside so she could do her Unbroken movie and then she went back to it but everyone had already moved on the Steve Jobs movie.

That is true, she was going to be play Cleopatra but she set it aside so she could do her Unbroken movie and then she went back to it but everyone had already moved on the Steve Jobs movie.

Why is that weird?? There was an OBSESSION with that trilogy, even if one didn't want to see it, one would be dragged to see it whether by family, friends or your date or whatever. Of course I saw it and everybody else did so to. Your question is silly. It's like saying oh I didn't see Titanic. Everyone saw it. The important thing is that literally nobody speaks about that trilogy now because the movies were garbage.

Would it be ok if I downloaded the film from those putlocker sites, I believe that's an mpeg, and then open it up on that program?? I haven't seen those versions, just the ones in theaters, personally I detest The Lord Of The Rings, I was falling asleep during all of them at the theaters, but I believe that's a different case, the studio knew it was going to be a trilogy, it was shot back to back, etc. Mankiewicz went crazy and didn't tell anybody.

I haven't seen that one but I just read that the studio took the film away from him and heavily edited it. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not on the side of movie studios, we know those people are scum for the most part, but other than the director's cut of Blade Runner, I haven't seen many good director cuts. the Alien and The Exorcist director's cut are not better than the theatrical version. Oliver Stone had the unheard of privilege of being able to release 3 versions of "Alexander" and the theatrical version was also better. I even saw the Alien 3 Assembly Cut, and the much maligned Alien 3 was much better.

Well, you can read the original shooting script and the scenes that were actually shot in the link I posted you would realize the level of insanity of Joseph L. Mankiewicz. I'm not a filmmaker, I'm not a writer but I have seen countless films for almost all my life and I think a cardinal rule is edit, edit, edit. You put into a film what's essential and what matters. Mankiewicz' vision of Cleopatra is page after page after page of what doesn't matter. The owner of the page I posted in previous posts, is a stupid person that I've known online, and of course he's going to find a way to justify it, but no director in their right mind would shoot so much material. Furthermore, the 4 hour cut is a bad cut because there is the trace of subplots and jokes that didn't make the full cut in its entirety. In other words, in Cleopatra you have the punchline of a joke but not the lead up dialogue or scenes to said joke or subplot. I don't know about you but if I can't get a full joke or a subplot in a film because of time restraints, I would edited the joke or the subplot out ENTIRELY. Mankiewicz didn't do that. Hence a 4 hour running time. Is there a simpler way to make an edit? I remember in university there was a program you could edit videos on and it was fairly simple to just cut and replace scenes. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, since you are done with the subject, I'm not here to pester anyone.

Well there is zero interest in Cleopatra. Zero. Something that I don't understand, this reverence for the 4 hour cut. I really don't. Which movies is Universal letting go to dust?

They did do that, that is why Walter Wanger got fired in the middle of production because everything was out of control. Mankiewicz got fired too for the same reason. Why do you keep blaming the studio though? I don't get it. They asked for something and Mankiewicz went insane.

Who is interested in Cleopatra though? I am a fan of the movie and I've had several occasions of people recoiling in dread of Cleopatra, because of its running time. The showings of the restored print in major cities flopped all over the world, in one report only 17 people saw it in a theater of 200 people, surely because of the running time. Where I live I've never seen the blu ray of Cleopatra, which means that in its main market it sold poorly, again surely because of the running time. I haven't seen Cleopatra on the tv for decades now because of its running time. The movie was on netflix some time ago, after I checked on imdb and there was zero activity. Mommie Dearest was shown on netflix for the first time and after I checked the boards and other places and there was a flurry of activity, which means that young people saw the movie for the first time, I doubt the same people bothered with Cleopatra. In other words, there's nothing the studio or the general public can actually do with Cleopatra because of its running time. You preserve an original cut of a film when it's actually good. Cleopatra is not, so I really don't understand the insistence of preserving Mankiewicz' insanity.

But that's the thing, they did not know. Mankiewicz never delivered a finished script. Nobody knew what he was doing until they got the 6 hour monstrosity and realized it wouldn't make sense with less running time because Mankiewicz was that shady. Why is it their fault? Why would we need two films in a perfect world? I fail to understand that. I think that editing a film down would cost almost nothing, they would recoup so much more with the dvd sales of a new cut.

And how do I do it?? I am torrenting the blu ray edition, it's a two part file, how do I edit it?? Also, I disagree with your comments, it's one thing to have a creative disagreement, and a very different thing to just do two movies when the studio asked for one. Everyone signed up for one movie, not two movies. Also I have read the original Cleopatra script and the footage that he shot was beyond unnecessary. It's the equivalent of shooting the characters brushing their teeth. It's terrible and rightfully belong on the cutting room floor.

Thank you but I wasn't referring to the real Cleopatra but about the movie. Nothing the general public knows about the movie is actually true. For instance, I just read a moment ago, and I've read it many times before, that Cleopatra was intended to be a two part movie. Well that is not true. The studio never wanted a two part movie. They wanted "Cleopatra" and nothing more. Joseph L. Mankiewicz never delivered a finished script for approval, so he was improvising as he went along, not only that but he was heavily addicted to speed shots at the time and doing drugs 24/7 while doing this movie. It was his drug addiction and general lunacy and sexism that made him come up with this insane idea of a two part movie and that's what he delivered to the studio and the studio was like what the hell is this? And they forced him to make it just one film because that's what they asked. In other words, Cleopatra is not a butchered masterpiece. The only person that butchered Cleopatra was Joseph L. Mankiewicz and that is why I believe strongly in a new cut because there is a good movie in this, it just needs somebody else to do it but I am apparently 100% alone in this, as evidenced by my interaction with some **** HOLE from 20th Century Fox: https://twitter.com/xletthemeatcake/status/776167310516183040 I guess this film will further be forgotten, which is a pity. It's just a pity how it all turned out really.

Does anyone know who I can tweet about a shortver version of Cleopatra? I've already commented on the 20th century fox facebook, I could google for executives and so on but if some of you know it would be great help.

lol but why? It's just sexism really. That was Mankiewicz's problem, if you read the restored script you realize just how much MUNDANE THINGS he shot, it's ridiculous, that's why the movie cost 400 million dollars, not because of Liz Taylor, but because of his insanity, it needs to be said more. The story of this movie needs to be rewritten, period. Nothing the general public knows about it is true.

That is true. Why are people focusing on the men though?

omg what is this?? I thought Theda Bara's was the only silent Cleopatra. Either way there is only one true Cleopatra and that is Elizabeth Taylor.

He was Caesar, there was very little shot but you can see all the Mamoulian footage on the documentary Cleopatra: The film that changed Hollywood.

I had a great reply but the computer crashed. Anyway, Mankiewicz was brought it at Liz Taylor's request.