If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

But I can't believe the overall rating of 7,0. Although beautifully filmed and with a great soundtrack, I found it very boring, dull, and dreadful. It was like seeing ''Doctor Zhivago'' after 10 hours of stock fottage of the Russian revolution was added. The opening credits lasted 10 minutes while they could have lasted only 5 minutes. Yet many films are very long but still entertaining and engaging to watch (like ''The Longest Day'', ''The Greatest Story Ever Told'', ''The Young Lions''), but this should have lasted at least two hours. I felt asleep the first time I watched it, and the second time I left it after 2 hours! And when I leave a movie even after the second viewing it's a bad sign. Many scenes (like the parade scene) seemed to last an eternity, and the acting was very wooden.Now don't assume I don't like old American movies. I liked and loved many of them, just not this one.

What does it take for someone to rate this epic motion picture 1/10 ? Well, you could ask "valgreet" who says the movie is "Just about unwatchable". That IMDb member of 12 years has, in that time, reviewed only about as many flicks. I think it is a shame that the absurd 1/10 rating should appear. Over several decades, I've watched a few thousand movies, and have reviewed hundreds, here on IMDb and elsewhere. There is NO way anyone could possibly justify a rating below 7/10, all factors considered. A rating of 1/10 or 2/10 is especially vicious, I feel. "Cleopatra" is a landmark film, especially noteworthy in many areas, and certainly not just for the presence of Burton and Taylor. It is a picture that any serious moviegoer needs to see, preferably on as large a screen as possible. 9/10.

The unevenness has been explained many times. This was supposed to be two movies. We will never know because the producers grabbed their pocketbooks and wouldn't let go. This is a good story, but it doesn't work because about a third is missing. That said, take each of the characters and ask yourself if they did a good job presenting themselves. Taylor is beautiful and very interesting, Rex Harrison is his usual intriguing personage, and Roddy McDowell, who I remember most as a child actor may be the best of all. I mostly remember the drama among the actors and all the news coming out of Hollywood, concerning "Cleopatra." Taylor and Burton, Taylor and Harrison, on and on. I think there are times when the hype supersedes the product and we were treated to daily reports from the press on this "disaster." Still, if you can look past the unevenness, there's a lot of fun here. Especiallly the epic battle scenes and all the other spectacle. At the time, perhaps the most expensive film ever made.

The Biggest Box Hit of 1963, Nominated for 9 Academy Awards (winning 4), and one of the Largest Money Makers of All Time, Nearly Bankrupted the Studio (Fox). A Conundrum You Say. Well No. The Movie Cost so much that the Revenue could Not be Recovered, at least until a Future Date, too Late to Salvage the Studio System and Fox's Lingering Time "In the Red".Truth be Told, Nothing could have saved the Studio System. By the Mid-Sixties the Cultural Changes were Virtually Clueless to Major Motion Picture Studios that were being Exposed as Bloated, Myopic, Greedy, Dictatorial Dinosaurs and were being Out Performed at the Box-Office by Inexpensive Independent Movies that were Cutting Edge and Culturally Hip.So the Studio System Died of "Future Shock" and a Lack of Insight about Expanding Consciousness and Art as Commerce.Forget all the Misplaced Blame put on this Gorgeous, Eye-Candy of a Film. It also Tickles the Ear and Tweaks Intellectual Cravings about Empires of Antiquity and the Politics and People who Ruled these Gargantuan Conglomerates of Defeated People and Their Assimilation into what was then a "Practical" Notion of World Domination.The Movie is Infamous for its "Liz and Dick" Tabloid Tussles and Scandal Sheet Salaciousness and the Cost Overrides and Daily Troubles on the Set, mostly because of the Enormity of Everything.What is Impressive, along with the Obvious Beauty of it All, is that the Movie was Made with Organics. Living, Breathing, Actors, Costumed by Needle and Thread Designers, on Sets Constructed by Sweat with Artistic Hubris that was Pushed to the Limit of Physical Applications.Elizabeth Taylor, borders on "too old for the part", Manages enough Natural Beauty with the Help of Make-Up, Costumes, and Camera Angles to make the Part of Egypt's Last Pharaoh Enticingly Attractive, using Her Wits as well as Her Wiles to Seduce and Manipulate Rome's Caesar and General. Rex Harrison (Caesar) Out Performs Liz, but Not So for Richard Burton (Antony) who seems Lost in the Part, or at least too Drunk to Care.Roddy Mcdowell makes an Impression in a Supporting Role, as do Others. But the Biggest Impression of All is the Technicolor Production that Peaks with Cleopatra's Entrance into Rome. The Film cannot Top That and the Second Half is Flaccid and makes the Film Feel like it had a Premature Money Shot.