Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alexis" data-source="post: 289310" data-attributes="member: 68">I really agree with this. Cleopatra is a pretty terrible film. An overblown spectacle that goes on and on forever.&nbsp; Never do I feel the need to sit down and watch it as it&#039;s so terminally dull. I think if the film was mostly done at the fox backlot and maybe in the California or Nevada desert for some location work it actually would have been better than the wasted time in London and Rome. Why they thought filming what&#039;s supposed to be Egypt in England in I think September/October was a good idea, I will never know! The film would have probably had more matte shots instead of huge sets, but the film wouldn&#039;t have cost so much due to delays and all the silly back and forth all over the bloody world. Stephen Boyd was a fine actor too and I think he would have been great with Joan. Cleopatra maybe could have been Joan&#039;s break out role. Not the huge overblown rambling spiel of nonsense that it was. I think a lot of the film would have been better if the budget was not so huge.&nbsp; I think even the wardrobe wouldn&#039;t have been the mess that it was. Elizabeth Taylor&#039;s costumes were fitted so specifically to her shape, and to reflect the shapes of the times, it&#039;s all so 1960s. I know that&#039;s very of the time for films to not ever manage to not look the period they were, if they were shot in the 1960s. However if the film was shot with Joan, and with a lesser budget the wardrobe would have probably been more faithful to the times. Probably more in line with some of the biblical epics that were being done at the time. Not really historically accurate, but more what one would expect. Joan couldn&#039;t have made the demands that Elizabeth made.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alexis, post: 289310, member: 68"] I really agree with this. Cleopatra is a pretty terrible film. An overblown spectacle that goes on and on forever. Never do I feel the need to sit down and watch it as it's so terminally dull. I think if the film was mostly done at the fox backlot and maybe in the California or Nevada desert for some location work it actually would have been better than the wasted time in London and Rome. Why they thought filming what's supposed to be Egypt in England in I think September/October was a good idea, I will never know! The film would have probably had more matte shots instead of huge sets, but the film wouldn't have cost so much due to delays and all the silly back and forth all over the bloody world. Stephen Boyd was a fine actor too and I think he would have been great with Joan. Cleopatra maybe could have been Joan's break out role. Not the huge overblown rambling spiel of nonsense that it was. I think a lot of the film would have been better if the budget was not so huge. I think even the wardrobe wouldn't have been the mess that it was. Elizabeth Taylor's costumes were fitted so specifically to her shape, and to reflect the shapes of the times, it's all so 1960s. I know that's very of the time for films to not ever manage to not look the period they were, if they were shot in the 1960s. However if the film was shot with Joan, and with a lesser budget the wardrobe would have probably been more faithful to the times. Probably more in line with some of the biblical epics that were being done at the time. Not really historically accurate, but more what one would expect. Joan couldn't have made the demands that Elizabeth made. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?