Cleopatra (1999) (TV)

Director:

Franc Roddam

Writers (WGA):

Margaret George (novel)
Stephen Harrigan (teleplay) ...

Release Date:

23 May 1999 (USA)

Genre:

Biography | Drama

Tagline:

Passion. Power. Betrayal.

Plot:

Cleopatra, the famed Egyptian Queen (Leonor Varela) born in 69 B.C., is shown to have been brought by...

Plot Keywords:

Femme Fatale | Ancient Egypt | Ancient Rome | Cleopatra | Julius Caesar

Awards:

Nominated for 4 Primetime Emmys. Another 1 nomination

Cast

Billy Zane	...	Marc Antony
Timothy Dalton	...	Julius Caesar
Rupert Graves	...	Octavian
Leonor Varela	...	Cleopatra
John Bowe	...	Rufio
Art Malik	...	Olympos
Nadim Sawalha	...	Mardian
Owen Teale	...	Grattius
Philip Quast	...	Cornelius
Daragh O'Malley	...	Ahenobarbus
Bruce Payne	...	Cassius
Sean Pertwee	...	Marcus Brutus
David Schofield	...	Casca
Kassandra Voyagis	...	Arsinoe
Indra Ové	...	Charmian

Runtime:

177 min | Brazil:155 min (DVD version) | 50 min (3 episodes)

Country:

Germany | USA

Language:

English

Colour:

Colour

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1

Sound Mix:

Stereo

Certification:

Australia:M | Netherlands:12

Filming Locations:

Agadir, Morocco

Company:

Babelsberg International Film Produktion

Goofs:

Miscellaneous: After Cleopatra died, you could still see her tummy moving.

Quotes:

[On Caesarion]
Marc Antony: [to Octavian] Looks like you have competition.
Octavian: I don't think so. Caesar will never name him his heir.
Marc Antony: You know the future?
Octavian: I know my uncle.

Movie Connections:

References Ben-Hur (1959)

Only 3 goofs in the entire movie. That IS a record and tells a lot

Hi there ! I just finished watching this movie and in my opinion was very well done in some parts it even topped the 1963 version of Mankiewicz's film. The sets were pretty well made the costumes the same and the dialog was in no way staggering and as for the plot except for a few minor inconsistencies - one of them shown in the Goofs section- was just as the storyline in no way boring. Now with all these having been said i can't figure out for the life in me why so many people don't "agree" with this movie ? Is it because it is a remake and the fact that remakes are generally considered bad ? Why does a remake always have to be considered a - pardon the expression- shitty work ? This mentality seems to have stuck with certain people along the years and it's wrong. Anyway i found this movie - for a TV movie it really is something- to be very good so good that it kept me glued to the screen for the entire 3 hours. And one other thing the actors fit their roles perfectly and took them seriously. I also saw a review that complained about the running time. People, it's an epic it takes a long time to unfold the story of historical events of such proportions, it's supposed to last long. This is not your average slash-and-dash-shoot'em-up Friday-night-video. It takes a lot more time to tell the story of an epic movie than it does that of an action flick. Details have to be considered, historical accounts, facts, etc. I give the movie a 9/10 mostly because of how the main characters played throughout the entire picture and last but not least because someone out there like Frank Roddam had the balls to make a remake of the 1963 version that didn't pale to it and in many ways live up to its significance by making it even better. An on one last note this is the only movie that i've seen here on IMDb that only had 3 THREE goofs in the Goofs section. That ought account for something. Whatever that something is, i think we can all figure it out on our own. Peace all !