IMDb user comments for
Cleopatra (1999) (TV)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

47 comments in total

---

11 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
A Fairer Portrayal of Cleopatra, 25 August 2006

Author: kitsilanoca-1 from Vancouver, Canada

Based on the novel The Memoirs of Cleopatra by Margaret George, this mini-series is an okay adaption of a truly fascinating piece of literature. I think that it gives a fairer portrayal of Cleopatra is important, though Leonor Varela isn't that good an actress. I found her acting so amateurish next to that of Timothy Dalton and Billy Zane; at least she was better than Kassandra Voyagis was as Arsinoe. Also she made Cleopatra seem very childish and whiny at times, which was annoying.

Otherwise I liked this story, Timothy Dalton as Julius Caesar was fine in the role, though too dark and good looking (someone tell Daniel Craig please play Caesar sometime in his career!) and Billy Zane did a good job as Marc Antony. The sets lived up to what Alexandria probably looked like, except there was little sign of the Greek influence on the city. The costumes were lovely and the supporting cast were some of the best (though I could have changed some of their lines for them), and I was able to overlook historical inaccuracies, such as Arsinoe being murdered in the dungeons of the palace of Alexandria under Cleopatra's orders. Arsinoe appeared as a prisoner in Caesar's Triumph, and since the public showed sympathy for her, Caesar allowed her to be released. They also didn't explain at the end that Caesarion was executed under Octavian's orders, but I guess they wanted to leave the audience with a bit of hope. Fine to watch on a wet or snowy afternoon.

---

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
A great movie all together., 25 May 1999
Author: Kristen

What can I say? I love watching these Egyptian movies! Although this Cleopatra did not surpass the one made in 1963 with Elizabeth Taylor, it is well worth seeing. The acting is very good, especially Billy Zane! The thing I like better about this movie than the old one is that it focuses a lot more on Cleopatra's son, Ptomely Ceasar, also know as Caesarion. The old one said nothing about Octavian trying to kill Caesarion. There are some very,...how should I put this..."revealing" scenes in it. (If you know what I mean.) The antagonist, Octavian, makes a wonderful villain and you just can't help but hate him! The special effects in the movie sometimes go un-noticed, but they are very good as well. There are a few scenes where someone is be-headed that are very good. The movie is not very gory, but there is a lot of fighting. The ending, as in the old one, leaves you hanging. (If someone knows what happens to Cleopatra's son please tell me!) I hope this movie is available to buy sometime soon, because I will definitely add it to my collection!

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Quite good for a TV Movie, 31 January 2000

Author: FlickJunkie-2 from Atlanta, GA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

(This comment contains specific examples of the story and plot that some might consider spoilers. If you have not seen the movie, you might want to wait until you have seen it to read this comment.)

This latest remake of Cleopatra is well done and surprisingly good for a TV movie (now in rental). I saw it on VHS in its entirety rather than broken down into two parts in the mini-series.

The costumes and sets were very well done, and true to the period. The battle scenes were lacking in realism, probably due to the prospects of a TV audience. The naval battles looked a little too much like toy models (which of course they were). The slave galleys showing the men rowing the boats were pristine and shiny like the cabin of some rich yacht, an obvious error.

My biggest bewilderment came over the fact that they shot this movie on video tape. They tried to make it look like film in the post production, but it didn't work. This seems to be fairly common practice in TV movies, but for a movie of this magnitude, where they obviously had a big budget for numerous sets, hundreds of extras, costumes and the like, why shoot it on video tape? It detracted from the overall richness of the photography and the movie as a whole. This is particularly disappointing since the sets and costumes were so meticulously well done.

The directing in this movie was very good. Franc Roddam coordinated the movements of large groups of people in very realistic ways. The camera work was very good and gave the viewer a lot of interesting perspectives. Unfortunately, there were some serious liberties taken with historical fact. For instance the film shows Ptolemy to be a cowering 12 years old when Caesar arrives in 47 BC. He was actually 19. It shows Caesar demanding that Cleopatra marry her brother, but she was married to him long before Caesar arrived in Egypt. The film shows Cleopatra having her sister Arsinoe killed and her brother-husband being killed in pursuit before Caesar left, but neither of those things happened. As a matter of fact, both were alive and well in 44 BC when Caesar was murdered.

Also, there is no definitive evidence that Cleopatra's son was fathered by Caesar and certainly no evidence that Caesar publicly declared such.

The biggest perversion of the truth was the death of Mark Antony. He did not die from wounds received in a naval battle. He committed suicide. Cleopatra realized that Octavian would defeat Antony and felt she had to get rid of him for political reasons. So she had her servants send word to him that she was dead and in grief he fell on his sword.

The story completely neglects her attempt at trying to seduce Octavian and his rebuking of her. It treats their last encounter more like a business negotiation. This was not inconsequential since it was one of the motivations for her suicide.

The acting was extremely well done. First honors go to Timothy Dalton for a powerful rendition of Caesar. He was both potent and passionate, just the way one would expect a brilliant ego maniac like Caesar to be.

Billy Zane delivered an excellent performance of the complex Mark Antony. I've seen criticism of his portrayal as being too sniveling with Cleopatra, but in reality he was utterly submissive to her and despite being a powerful leader, he was her emotional slave. He was torn between Rome and his obsession with Cleopatra, and continually submitted to her will. He carried off the internal conflict very well.

Leonor Varela is a newcomer and a little rough around the edges. In certain areas, she was magnificent. She captured the cunning seductiveness of Cleopatra, using her siren sexuality as a weapon to achieve her aims. She looked stunningly alluring, and her many translucent robes sometimes made it difficult to concentrate on the dialogue. Unfortunately, she tended to overact the emotional parts, especially rage. Hopefully, she will improve with experience.

I rated this movie a 7/10. If it were shot on film I probably would have added at least a point, maybe two. It was extremely entertaining and I would recommend those who missed it on TV to rent the video.

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Better than Liz & Dick but..., 21 January 2000

Author: Dusti from Washington state, USA

The sets, costumes and backdrops are kaleidoscopic with meticulous attention to detail. Timothy Dalton brought his years of stage work to the part and Caesar seemed bigger than life. He has seasoned well in the years since playing 007 and his strong masculine presence, rich baritone and passion carried part 1. He is convincing in his love for Cleopatra and their son. Leonor did her best to educate us to Cleopatra's fierce Patriotism. Her curvy figure in the filmy costumes came to life with a feline fluidity. Billy Zane makes a good choice for the young brash Antony, a loyal soldier/playful child. His huge smile and coltish antics would be difficult not to like. His intense shame at comrades and battles lost, is moving and heartfelt. So what is not to like in this film? Leonor's lack of acting experience drained life from this story. She managed playing the spoiled rich girl well enough. But her many temper tantrums and pouting ways lacked depth. Dalton carried their love scenes. But alas, the sophomoric grappling of Leonor and Zane in part 2 was anything but passionate. It is hard to believe that scene wasn't reshot. They looked like they were playing Twister in drag. Zane did well playing the good soldier, but a man not suited for leadership. For all this, renting this video is well worth the time. Its adherence to history far outdoes the Taylor/Burton film.

And watching the 'love scene' between Leonor and Zane in fast forward mode will always good for a laugh.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Terrible, 22 December 2006

Author: dgmarlowe

This movie was terrible. The reason I give it such a high score is because the two leads, Timothy Dalton and Billy Zane, were fantastic. Unfortunately, this movie did not keep up with them. Leonor Varela did not deserve to be in this movie. She was acting as if it were a high school play, pouting and stamping her way through the movie. She was extremely uncharismatic and did not have a sixteenth of the depth and class Taylor and Colbert did. I won't criticize the movie too much for its historical inaccuracies. One thing that did put me off was the portrayal of Octavian. He was the main antagonistic force, which he also was in the two previous versions, but in this one history is altered. Octavian was not part of the plot to assassinate Caesar and was not even in Rome when Caesar was killed. The actor who played Octavian in this version of Cleopatra, Rupert Graves, was obviously trying to copy the characterizations that Roddy McDowall, in the 1963 version of Cleopatra, gave to Octavian. He failed miserably. I've read quite a number of reviews saying that the sets and coloring were good. I personally thought that the colors were too lurid and the sets too small. However, for a TV movie budget, it did okay. My final word is that this movie is fun to watch, but don't take it too seriously.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
This is the best version of Cleopatra, 19 February 2007

Author: glorianticona from Peru

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Yeah, THIS IS THE BEST VERSION OF CLEOPATRA THAT I SAW IN MY LIFE, i saw another version but they were not pleasant, in change this version or series for TV, is special, clear, love,betray, i could feel the feeling of the actors and actress. Wonderful the interpretation of Marc Anthony (Billy Zane),Julious Caesar (Timothy Dalton) and Cleopatra (Leonor Varela). I m from Peru and it was too hard to have this movie, ONE FRIEND SENT IT TO ME FROM UNITED STATES.Really this version must give around the world... But i have that movie....and i m happy to see it, many times...yeah many times.....Gloria Anticona, from Perú. Really all the passion, betrayed, of this movie is very nice.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Cleopatra (1999), 7 November 2005

Author: Boromir007 from Belgium

According to the budget most of the TV-films have, I should tell that Martin Hitchcock did some great work as production designer and Enrico Sabbatini created some convincing costumes. David Connell his cinematography is sometimes breathtaking, but in the scenes on water it sometimes looks very fake, a pity. The action has its moments, but don't expect to much of it, especially the special effects are quite weak. But that is not really a failure because they probably did not have enough money for spectacular battle scenes. The main character Cleopatra is portrayed by Leonor Varela, she isn't bad and performed some good dialogs, but she does have a few very mediocre appearances. The first half of the film focuses on the relationship of the Egyptian quine and Julius Caesar. Timothy Dalton is as usual impressing. And although he played better roles in his wonderful career he gives an interesting interpretation of the Roman conqueror. The second part concerns about Cleopatra her interferences in the Roman civil war between Marc Antony and Octavian, both strong performances by Billy Zane and Rupert Graves. The most interesting supporting roles were Olympos (Art Malik), Brutus (Sean Pertwee) and Rufo (John Bowe). They did some good work with those roles, but Kassandra Voyagis (as Arsinoe, sister of Cleopatra) is painful to watch, she is a disturbing factor, and the actors appear to act more relaxed and with more confidence when her character isn't around anymore. This production outreaches the standard quality of an OK TV-film. And although there are some disappointing shots I think it is worth to watch, just do not be in the mood for a great epic adventure with tons of spectacle. Remember it is made for television.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
It's a good historical and overlong television film, 10 November 2004

Author: ma-cortes from Santander Spain

The movie deals upon epic life of : Cleopatra(Leonor Varela), Julio Cesar (Timothy Dalton) Marc Anthony( Billy Zane) and Octavio Augustus(Rupert Graves).It's created the first triumvirate:Cesar, Pompeyo and Craso.Cesar fights against Pompeyo who's vanquished. Cesar goes to Alejandria, Tolomeo hand over the Pompeyo's head at Cesar who rules over of Egypt and gives up the throne to Cleopatra. Julio Cesar is killed by Bruto(Sean Petwee) and Casio (Bruce Payne). After the second triumvirate : Marc Anthony commands Egypt, Lepido in Africa and Octavio Augustus in Roma and Hispania. Marc Anthony is married with Octavia , Augustus's sister. After Marc Anthony is wedded with Cleopatra and they are defeated by Octavio Augustus in Actium.

Runtime film is overblown , it's a little boring but the history's buffs will like too much. The picture obtained various nominations television but didn't achieve none. The battles stage are breathtaking ,they have been made by computer generator special effects and thousands extras . Set design is of first range, the film is very atmospheric,Roman time is well designed. Timothy Dalton interpretation is top notch, likeness to Billy Zane, Leonor Varela is beautiful and enjoyable. Frank Roddan direction is excellent and Trevor Jones music is riveting. Rating : 6,5 . Well worth catching

---

Enternaining film, and Cleopatra herself was amazing., 3 June 2008

Author: justdim from Sweden

This film was fun and entertaining, for sure, Timothy Dalton as Ceasar and Billy Zane as Marc Anthony were brilliant, in my opinion. And Leonor Varela did an OK job as Cleopatra, i think. The story is fine, i liked the cinematography and costumes, but the battle scenes are very poor, to be honest. But i guess that is to be expected of a TV movie. The most important thing for me tho was Cleopatra herself, because i am a big fan. I used to read many books about her when i was younger, and she always fascinated me. She still does. I doubt she was beautiful to the standards of our time, but when i saw Cleopatra in this movie, i didn't care, i wanted to believe she was as completely insanely beautiful and seductive as Leonor Varela is in this movie. A few times in this film she says that she's a goddess, and she does indeed look like one, amazing!

---

Only 3 goofs in the entire movie. That IS a record and tells a lot, 16 April 2008

Author: kakushi_ken_oni_no_tsume from Romania

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 !

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history