User Reviews

(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.

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.

Flat, uninspiring tale of one of the greatest female leaders of all time, Cleopatra. Fails to capture the magnitude of the historic Egyptian, portraying her as a seductress with a lust for power, and nothing more. Our young Cleopatra is alluring, yet she does not win us over as the manipulative Queen, or Goddess, as she prefers.

Billy Zane is the smitten Antony, spellbound by Cleopatra's charms, yet not the strong leader she needed to help her build an empire. Timothy Dalton's Julius Caesar could have been that man, had he not fallen to Brutus' conspiracy. Dalton's performance is one of the better turns on offer, though not by much.

The cheap production disappoints, and the constant British accents become very annoying in the middle east. Lacks three key ingredients for a film of this type: a grand score, sweeping cinematography and stunning sets - see "Ben Hur". Not an epic; not anything.

Saturday, August 14, 1999 - T.V.

I missed the beginning of this film, which might account for why I disliked it so much. On the other hand I've studied the fall of the Roman republic for years so I know the story. Then again, that might also be the reason why I disliked this film.

The film has more historical inaccuracies than extras. Though it's so inaccurate that I don't think they made an attempt for it to be correct, in which case it can be forgiven. The odd thing is that they sometimes go to great lengths to be historically accurate that it ends up getting confusing. Like throwing in Antonius' marriage to Octavia, and then pushing it aside two scenes later. Why even bring it up if it serves no purpose for the plot and Octavia is never even seen? And like calling Antonius by his actual name (Marcus Antonius) in some scenes, and by his strange English name Mark Antony in other scenes.

Though historical inaccuracies aside, the film could still have been an entertaining watch if it wasn't for the leading lady. There isn't an ounce of dignity in her. She's hysterical, dramatical, and completely lacking control of herself. Instead of being a clever and composed queen Cleopatra turns into a hysterical teenager with a bad case of PMS. 95% of that comes from the poor acting, but 5% is also from poor script writing. Far too many stupid dramatic scenes are written into the script. Sometimes you weren't watching Antonius and Cleopatra, you were watching immature versions of Dawson and Joey from "Dawson's Creek".

If you want to watch something about this period, watch... anything but this.