Overrated

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Prominent stage actress of the day Helen Gardner never became part of the Hollywood scene. This production of Cleopatra was done at her eastern based studio and the supporting cast is made up of players from the Broadway stage. As such the film is a curiosity for those who want a glimpse of people on the stage in those years before World War I.Ms. Gardner makes one buxom Cleopatra, one like you will not likely see again. But that Lillian Russell type figure was considered the standard of beauty back then. Wonder what Lillian Russell might have thought had she seen this film?For 1912 it's a bit risqué. In addition to the standard story of Mark Antony and Cleopatra there's also a story line here about a humble fisherman who has the hots for his Queen and Cleo takes him on as a boy toy.I really was not impressed with the added music soundtrack and singing of modern type music, jarringly out of place for the time. This really cries for a theater organ.It's a museum this Cleopatra, nothing more.

Like other people, I found the sound track to be rather annoying.I think that the main problem with this and similar films is that it appears that the actors forgot that they were making a silent movie and that no one could hear what they were saying.You have much too long sequences where two people are talking to each other, generally with not even many gestures, and only occasional subtitles.Of course this was a very early film, and people were feeling their way, but lacking both sound and any interesting settings, this turns out to be pretty dull.The peculiar movement of the barge as it moves on and off scene does give it a surrealist appearance.

Good but not great. Like some of the other commentors, I saw this on TCM with the new music soundtrack. Unlike many, I liked the new music. Since this film is so dated, the music "freshens it up" a little. It's really more effective as a time capsule rather than as a drama. The star, Helen Gardner, also produced, so this is her vision. We all know the story, but what is interesting is the acting style and visuals. I agree with the other viewer here about the female cast members. You can't help but notice. With all these surgically enhanced, or personal-trainer enhanced, washboard-abbed stars today, it is nice to see a movie full of people who weren't under such pressure to look a certain way. There's plenty of "unintentional humor" here too, for those looking for camp value.

Despite some added fictional characters, this is still essentially the legendary and historical Cleopatra and Antony story. It is only cinematic in making use of quick scene changes, otherwise it is very much a photographed play, more choreographed than directed. Acting is highly mannered and stylized in a way that will likely send modern viewers into gales of laughter sometimes. Compare this film to D.W.Griffith's BIRTH OF A NATION only three years to see what a revolution occurred in cinematic technique. Fortunately Griffith's style prevailed, while Gardner's film remains a quaint curiosity.Among the many curiosities, viewers will note that "Cleopatra" and all her attendant ladies are definitely of the matronly and well-fed type. Maybe in 1912 this was what the menfolk liked!