Cleopatra (1999)
Cleopatra, the famed Egyptian Queen born in 69 B.C., is shown to have been brought by Roman ruler Julius Caesar at age 18. Caesar becomes sexually obsessed by the 18 year old queen, beds her, and eventually has a son by her. However, his Roman followers and his wife are not pleased by the union. In fact, as Caesar has only a daughter by his wife, he had picked Octavian as his successor. The out-of-wedlock son of Cleopatra is seen to be a threat to his future leadership. Thus Brutus and other Roman legislators plot the assassination of Caesar. Caesar's loyal general, Marc Antony, and Octavian then divide up the Roman empire. Antony takes Egypt and soon takes up the affair with Cleopatra. However, Octavian soon launches an attack on Antony and ultimately defeats and mortally wounds him. Rather than permitting herself to be humiliated by Octavian, Cleopatra sends her son away to India and she commits suicide by permitting the deadly asp to bite her.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
I tried watching the 1963 version of "Cleopatra" with Elizabeth Taylor a few years ago and gave up after about 90 adventure-less minutes of boring dialogue. The 1999 version makes up for this shortcoming as it combines action & adventure with the expected melodrama.A few memorable highlights are as follows: -- Timothy Dalton is outstanding as Julius Caesar and has an undeniable commanding presence. That distinguishing cleft chin of his somehow fits the role just perfect.-- Billy Zane is also great as Marc Antony. He played the psycho killer in "Dead Calm" and the love-to-hate villain in "Titanic," but his character in "Cleopatra" is the express opposite. As Marc Antony, Zane is both likable and heroic, not to mention loyal and realistically human.-- There are some great Moroccan locations for the outdoor scenes. The indoor & city sets are good and have that distinctive Egyptian vibe; the costuming as well.-- The multifaceted score isn't overly bombastic but it is fitting, properly edited and memorable.As for Leonor Varela, the actress who plays Cleopatra, she has the requisite exotic looks for the part, but she's too bland. She's undeniably good-looking, but she's not my cup of tea (too thin), so all that leaves (for me) is her performance, which is merely adequate. However, I'll say this: She's more fitting for the role than Elizabeth Taylor! The '63 version failed to pull me into its story; this '99 version pulls you right in and is easy to follow. I'm not saying that it's the most captivating piece of cinema, but it's certainly better than the '63 rendition.WARNING: The run time of the film is 177 minutes and the DVD 155 minutes, but the VHS version runs only 139 minutes, cutting 38 minutes from the original! GRADE: C+ or B-
The first 5 minutes of this movie are incredible. Technically, it's top notch, the sets and costumes are luxuriant, and this is a Must Have for Dalton fans; Caesar never looked (or sounded) so good, striding into Alexandria with so much ego and charisma. Unfortunately, we all know what happens to Caesar, and it happens about halfway through this thing. Then we're left with Cleopatra, the most insufferable lead ever, due in part to terrible acting and the other part to terrible characterization. She does little but whine and pout like a petulant teenager, and is useless for addressing any of a Queen's duties. She can't help this movie any more than her similarly poorly-cast sister Arsinoe, or Billy Zane's unsympathetic Marc Antony. Everyone seems to realize that Caesar is too hard an act to follow, but they do try. The results are mediocre to good in places.However, it's totally worth the watch and the buy for the first hour, which is beautiful, sexy, and violent with an engaging story. And personally I never tire of watching Tim Dalton do what he does best: Upstage everyone and make out with untalented co-stars.
I found this a good movie to pass your time, but not by any chance of any historical value. The portrayal of Cleopatra reminded me a cheap soap opera.The twist of the facts is... funny! She gave birth while feeding her people!?!? O please... A pregnant Queen of Egypt (especially this one) would not bother going from one room to the other for that reason! They tried to make her appear a saint for God's sake! And the way they tried to justify her murdering her own sister... beyond description.Cleopatra was the greatest politician of her time. Her decisions were based anything but her feelings and morals. She did everything for only two reasons: Power and self-preservation! She was born in a family where she had to straggle for survival, something she did very well. Anything that stood on her way was either murdered (her brothers and sister) or seduced (Ceasar and Mark Anthony).Unfortunately Octavian was too powerful to kill and too... gay to be seduced. So, he was her end...
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 !