GamerTab That was an excellent one.

RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Reiko_95 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 !

chrisaltman-1 I give it a 7 ONLY for the first part where Timothy Dalton performs as Julius Caesar. He was FABULOUS!!! Great performance as usual from this man. Having been a longtime fan of Mr. Dalton's, I can't believe I'm just now seeing it. I actually bought the DVD so I can watch his performance over and over. Even though Leonor Varela was okay, she DID have HOT chemistry with Dalton, more so than she had with Billy Zane. But then what woman doesn't have on screen chemistry with Dalton (well, maybe Mae West!). I read that Varela and Zane were engaged but never married. I can see why when watching them on screen......LOL!!!! BORING!!! Oh and Caesar's death scene is AMAZING, even though I winced throughout. Anyone who is a Timothy Dalton fan should rent (or buy) and watch the first 90 minutes. You won't be sorry.

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.

kitsilanoca-1 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.