Smartorhypo
Highly Overrated But Still Good
Platicsco
Good story, Not enough for a whole film
Erica Derrick
By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
windypoplar
Cleopatra is one of the most fascinating figures from history. This 1999 TV movie does a good job of telling her story from her point of view. Granted Leonor Varela is a bit off, but she's not bad and the movie moves very well, its hard to believe its almost 3 hours, its time that never feels wasted. The story of Egypt's last great queen and her Roman lovers Julius Caesar and Marc Antony have been told before, most notably in '63 with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, this film is close to that and in some ways better.Billy Zane is terrific here, he plays Antony better than Burton! Zane remembers Antony was a solider who was prodded into lofty ambition by Cleopatra, even pitting Roman against Roman and splitting an empire, in his heart he must have known he couldn't succeed, Zane never lets your forget that and his performance should have been honored. Timothy Dalton is a good Caesar too. He plays the conqueror full on, ambitious and powerful, but not a monster or a hero, just a man who wanted glory for Rome. His assassination is well handled here. Rupert Graves is a slimy Octavian (Augustus) and does well as the villain.The look of the film is pretty good, though at times it feels like a filmed play. The music is unmoving, but the fx shots tolerable. The battle of Actium is brief but accurate, Antony always rushed in like a bull. For a TV move they manage to be sexy and violent, two things necessary to tell Cleo's story. The birth of Cesarion is realistic.The only real downer here is I think this movie was made, or at least planned before the discovery of records found in the sea that told of Antony and Cleo's great love and of the fact they did have children! At least 4, including a set of twins. It is also possible that a girl was saved from Octavian's butchery. The rest did not make, including, probably Cesarion. Unfortunately we don't see that here and the end, though well played, is just like earlier versions. Still this is historical fiction at its best. Well done!
dbdumonteil
This above-average made-for -TV epic has roughly the same structure as Mankiewicz's largely underrated work;a first part deals with Cleopatra and Julius Caesar,then the second part is about her affair with Marc Antony.It is entertaining stuff ;of course the lines are not on the same level as the 1963 opus (they say that Mankiewicz used to re-write them night after night) and Cleopatra 's Alexander-the Great's dream is reduced to a hope for a kingdom of peace and love(Cleo and Marc Antony dixit).Shakespearian Timothy Dalton was a good choice for Caesar ,they just forgot the Roman was bald ;Billy Zane was also convincing as Marc Antony.Leonor Valera was OK in the first part,but she was definitely too young in the second one which demanded a more mature woman.Rupert Graves was given the part of the villain.His Octavian is so vile that Cleopatra does not even try to seduce him before committing suicide.
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews
I don't know much about Cleopatra... well, to tell you the truth, before watching this, I didn't know anything at all. The name ringed a bell, and that's about it. I bought this along with the 1997 TV version of The Odyssey partly because my father expressed interest in seeing them, and partly out of my own interest in the epics. While, according to my father, this film gets many details right, it still throws some stuff in that makes little to no sense and which is hardly historically accurate; some parts were obviously doctored to make for more drama or Hollywood-like scenes(at one point, Cleopatra picks up a sword to fight several Roman legionnaires with ease). The sets and costumes are gorgeous, no argument there. Most of the effects were see-through, but that's no wonder for a TV-movie with a TV-movie budget. The costume people are all in my cool book, though, if for nothing else, putting Leonor Varela in so many sheer, thin and/or tight dresses throughout the film. The plot is mostly accurate. The pacing is fair. Much of the film was clearly based on the real events, the real clothes worn and the real places. They must have done extensive research, and it definitely shows. Bit of a pity they throw away some credibility with aforementioned Hollywood scenes. The acting is fairly good; Zane, as usual, does not disappoint. Dalton proved to me that he had talent, something I never would have believed about him before. Varela is decent. The visual side of the film is fine, but nothing innovative or impressive is to be found here. Same goes for the depth of the film. I enjoyed the somewhat erotic, though at times nearly soap-opera-like relationships Cleopatra had, but I can see why some wouldn't. All in all, it tells the story(most of it) and looks 'real' enough. Nothing mighty impressive, but most of us have come to expect much, much less of the typical TV-movie. I recommend this to people who want a retelling of the story and want drama more than accuracy. 7/10
ArwenLaitoste
Well, this wasn't the worst Cleopatra movie ever, but it sucks compared to the book it's based off of. "The Memiors of Cleopatra," is an incredible novel, and this missed most of it. The novel covers Cleopatra's life from the age of 9 and goes up to her last moment, but there is a lot of emotion and wonderfully historical analysis that was missed in this mini film.Also, I enjoyed the fact Cleopatra was a little less stereotypical, but stereotypical nonetheless. Cleopatra was Greek. Cleopatra was a brilliant and smart woman, who knew 9 different languages. They forgot the fact that she had 3 children with Marcus Antonius. So if you want to watch a movie on the real Cleopatra...you might want to wait until someone directs one.
