Reviews (9)

Vivien is stunning!
This movie is pretty cool but Vivien makes it marvelous! Hey DVD people! Why does this movie get released on DVD for the UK and not the USA? I would like this movie for my DVD collection!

It's Still A Delight! Really It Is!...
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; ... 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!...

Definitly a disappointment
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.

Great Caesar's Ghost!
This is the most affordable of the great 1940's-1950's renditions of George Bernard Shaw's plays, done perfectly by great actors of their time: Claude Rains(CasaBlanca), Vivien Leigh(Gone With the Wind), Stewart Granger, et al. Mainly true to Shaw's play, it depicts a modern, empowering leader, not a military despot; clever, quick, dialectic drama, great staging, costuming, even musical scoring. This is Shaw, not history, or Shakespeare, of course. Except for Pygmalion, other Shaw plays on film cost ... more; this is a bargain for sparking the study of Shaw's brand of post-Victorian thinking. Finally, Caesar's Egypt invasion in this play suggests timely comparisons to present U.S. conflicts with Iraq, AlQuetta & the Islamic world.

Caesar and Cleopatra...Leigh/Rains Version
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. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Vivien is stunning!
This movie is pretty cool but Vivien makes it marvelous! Hey DVD people! Why does this movie get released on DVD for the UK and not the USA? I would like this movie for my DVD collection!

It's Still A Delight! Really It Is!...
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; ... 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!...

Definitly a disappointment
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.

Great Caesar's Ghost!
This is the most affordable of the great 1940's-1950's renditions of George Bernard Shaw's plays, done perfectly by great actors of their time: Claude Rains(CasaBlanca), Vivien Leigh(Gone With the Wind), Stewart Granger, et al. Mainly true to Shaw's play, it depicts a modern, empowering leader, not a military despot; clever, quick, dialectic drama, great staging, costuming, even musical scoring. This is Shaw, not history, or Shakespeare, of course. Except for Pygmalion, other Shaw plays on film cost ... more; this is a bargain for sparking the study of Shaw's brand of post-Victorian thinking. Finally, Caesar's Egypt invasion in this play suggests timely comparisons to present U.S. conflicts with Iraq, AlQuetta & the Islamic world.

Caesar and Cleopatra...Leigh/Rains Version
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. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Vivien is stunning!
This movie is pretty cool but Vivien makes it marvelous! Hey DVD people! Why does this movie get released on DVD for the UK and not the USA? I would like this movie for my DVD collection!

It's Still A Delight! Really It Is!...
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; ... 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!...

Definitly a disappointment
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.

Great Caesar's Ghost!
This is the most affordable of the great 1940's-1950's renditions of George Bernard Shaw's plays, done perfectly by great actors of their time: Claude Rains(CasaBlanca), Vivien Leigh(Gone With the Wind), Stewart Granger, et al. Mainly true to Shaw's play, it depicts a modern, empowering leader, not a military despot; clever, quick, dialectic drama, great staging, costuming, even musical scoring. This is Shaw, not history, or Shakespeare, of course. Except for Pygmalion, other Shaw plays on film cost ... more; this is a bargain for sparking the study of Shaw's brand of post-Victorian thinking. Finally, Caesar's Egypt invasion in this play suggests timely comparisons to present U.S. conflicts with Iraq, AlQuetta & the Islamic world.

Caesar and Cleopatra...Leigh/Rains Version
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. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Hey, it's not the best, but I had fun watching it.
You can call this movie all the names in the book, but you can't change my mind about it. I liked it. It was bad, yeah, but that's what made it funny. So make sure that when you watch this movie, you watch it with a light heart and don't be to critical on it.

The only good movie version of this book
This is a superb film version of Rider Haggard's thrilling adventure story. The actors all perform their roles with zest and conviction, with Paul Robeson outstanding as the rightful chief of the tribe returned to claim his birthright. Best of all, the film has a satisfactorily evil and terrifying Gagool, because what is King Solomon's Mines without Gagool the Witch?She is unbelievably left out of the bland and boring Stewart Granger version. This is the only version of the film worth watching, I cannot believe another reviewer thinks that the later versions are better. He obviously wouldn't recognise a good film if he fell over it.

Poor!
As generous as I have been handing out stars, I can't recommend this movie to anyone for any reason. Taking in to account it was produced in 1937, and the limited production capabilities then, it still doesn't warrant much. Do yourself a favor, look to enjoy some of the more modern versions.

Quality Complaint
The picture quality of this video can only be described as AWFUL.
After only a few minutes viewing I trashed it. It is disgraceful that this rubbish can be sold as new when it is obviously a copy of many back generations.

My Favorite Version of the Story!
I had seen Richard Chamberlain's goofy Indiana Jones imitation in the 1985 version, which is not an entirely bad movie. It does have its funny moments, like when he bursts through the door to face at least a hundred rifles and says, "Great reflexes, guys!" As for the 1950 version with Stewart Granger, all I can recall is the words of one critic who described his performance as "hypervirile." I might also add that it was a little too 1950's, which is ok if that's what you're in the mood for (and sometimes I am!). I have to say, though, that my own favorite is the little known 1937 version with Sir Cedric Harwicke as Allan Quatermaine (the great White Hunter), the great Paul Robeson as Umbopa, and Anna Lee as the stereotypical Irish lass. For those of you who know her only from her performances in John Ford's movies, check out the brogue! Roland Young radiates dry humor as Commander Goode, R.N. ("retired!")and John Loder places the stereoptypically adventurous 19th century English nobleman. Harwicke is not as rugged as Granger, or as humorous as Chamberlain, but he displays a quiet credibility. The end is a little far stretched, the deus ex machina of all deus ex machinas. But I think it only adds to the charm of the film, in which the underlying implication is, "Off course the English can work their way out of anything!" It is Robeson, whose performance is both larger than life and yet subtly understated, who gives the film its power. He sings, he acts, he grins, he wins the day! It's a shame he had to go to England to get decent roles in films which were denied him in America because of his race. Watch this one, I think you'll like it! ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Hey, it's not the best, but I had fun watching it.
You can call this movie all the names in the book, but you can't change my mind about it. I liked it. It was bad, yeah, but that's what made it funny. So make sure that when you watch this movie, you watch it with a light heart and don't be to critical on it.

The only good movie version of this book
This is a superb film version of Rider Haggard's thrilling adventure story. The actors all perform their roles with zest and conviction, with Paul Robeson outstanding as the rightful chief of the tribe returned to claim his birthright. Best of all, the film has a satisfactorily evil and terrifying Gagool, because what is King Solomon's Mines without Gagool the Witch?She is unbelievably left out of the bland and boring Stewart Granger version. This is the only version of the film worth watching, I cannot believe another reviewer thinks that the later versions are better. He obviously wouldn't recognise a good film if he fell over it.

Poor!
As generous as I have been handing out stars, I can't recommend this movie to anyone for any reason. Taking in to account it was produced in 1937, and the limited production capabilities then, it still doesn't warrant much. Do yourself a favor, look to enjoy some of the more modern versions.

Quality Complaint
The picture quality of this video can only be described as AWFUL.
After only a few minutes viewing I trashed it. It is disgraceful that this rubbish can be sold as new when it is obviously a copy of many back generations.

My Favorite Version of the Story!
I had seen Richard Chamberlain's goofy Indiana Jones imitation in the 1985 version, which is not an entirely bad movie. It does have its funny moments, like when he bursts through the door to face at least a hundred rifles and says, "Great reflexes, guys!" As for the 1950 version with Stewart Granger, all I can recall is the words of one critic who described his performance as "hypervirile." I might also add that it was a little too 1950's, which is ok if that's what you're in the mood for (and sometimes I am!). I have to say, though, that my own favorite is the little known 1937 version with Sir Cedric Harwicke as Allan Quatermaine (the great White Hunter), the great Paul Robeson as Umbopa, and Anna Lee as the stereotypical Irish lass. For those of you who know her only from her performances in John Ford's movies, check out the brogue! Roland Young radiates dry humor as Commander Goode, R.N. ("retired!")and John Loder places the stereoptypically adventurous 19th century English nobleman. Harwicke is not as rugged as Granger, or as humorous as Chamberlain, but he displays a quiet credibility. The end is a little far stretched, the deus ex machina of all deus ex machinas. But I think it only adds to the charm of the film, in which the underlying implication is, "Off course the English can work their way out of anything!" It is Robeson, whose performance is both larger than life and yet subtly understated, who gives the film its power. He sings, he acts, he grins, he wins the day! It's a shame he had to go to England to get decent roles in films which were denied him in America because of his race. Watch this one, I think you'll like it! ... Read more