Not that I want it, for a time I desperately wanted the Angelina Jolie Cleopatra to be made, but then I rediscovered my love for this film and realized that this is the definitive Cleopatra portrayal, there's no need for any other. But I do wonder why they didn't try for almost 50 years.
shareI'd dearly love to see a historically accurate adaptation, but don't expect to see one out of Hollywood. Because Hollywood wants her story to be all about sex... and it really wasn't. She was a monarch, a politician, and her relationships with men were very much entwined with politics, if not entirely politically motivated. Hollywood wants the story of a seductress, not a queen who's trying to free her country from Ronan oppression.
Plus, Jolie is too old and Haggard for the role now, so her version is kaput.
Anyway, that's a theory I totally pulled out of my ass, but given what we've heard about the inner workings of Hollywood in the last few weeks, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.
Well, the 1963 version is the most historically accurate.
shareTrue, for what that's worth.
Really, the story of Cleopatra could make a great film, if they made it more about her intelligence and political scheming than her sex life. Which wasn't going to happen in the age of Harvey Weinstein, maybe it will in the future.
I used to hate it but I have realized that the film is great, probably the greatest on the subject. Not entirely thanks to Mankiewicz, I don't believe his planned 6 hour movie would have been better. She comes across very intelligent in this one, and Elizabeth Taylor really inhabits the role. I think her political scheming may be exaggerated, I don't think she ever wanted anything from Rome, except the independence of Egypt. I also do not think that she was with those men just for her country.
shareI cannot agree that "Cleopatra" is a great film, or that Liz Taylor is great in it. She gave few terrific performances and this isn't one, IMHO the film as a whole is dull and Taylor doesn't come across as anything like a real person or a real monarch.
But the film is spectacular to watch, and so is Liz, I can see why someone else might enjoy it more than I do. But I still think the great film about Cleopatra is yet to be made.
I also felt that it was dull and poorly made, I even tried to re-edit it, I really tore it down, but now I see it couldn't possibly have been made in any other way. I do consider it a great film and I must say I do enjoy it. To me Elizabeth Taylor is the best actress of all time, nobody else could have done that role, to me. She has the gravitas.
shareFunny how people's perceptions vary, because I never though Liz had gravitas, as a young woman or later in life. There was always something kittenish about her, except in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wooolf".
sharewell maybe that is the wrong word, but there is a natural regalness to her that the role of Cleopatra is just natural. For generations she was the iconic image of Cleopatra, I just can't imagine anybody else in the role. Although I enjoyed Lindsey Marshal's Cleopatra in Rome, which was very realistic but they won't give her a feature film.
shareShort answer: Low audience demand would not begin to justify the projected budget for such a remake.
shareyou think people would not be interested in Cleopatra?
shareAudiences today are by and large more interested in comic book films and other broad spectacle. Studios have kicked around various Cleopatra updates over the years (as well as similar projects like Nefertiti), but nothing concrete has materialized.
That said, Sony has been developing a film based on the 2010 biography, and it's currently being rewritten. Your boy Denis Villeneuve is attached to direct. We'll see how far it gets.