Lack of good storyline.

I wanted to but couldn't!

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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 !

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.

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.

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.