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
Simply A Masterpiece
Best movie ever!
I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional
This Hallmark TV version of the Cleopatra tragedy has all of the trappings of Egypt, and the technology to boot. But it falls short in its delivery, and it's just simply not convincing. It is tough to get actors to play "sword and sandal" flicks with credibility. "Gladiator" probably stands out as the best of the fairly recent vintage. Comparing this film to Liz Taylor and Dick Burton is not fair...there simply is NO comparison, and it does not approach the level of the 1963 movie. However, the sets and the cinematography are absolutely fantastic. If you can sit through a dreadful portrayal of Cleopatra, you may become engaged- if not completely entertained. I do not recommend that you watch this film...unless, of course, you are inclined to do so. It would be best to have the 1963 version on hand, so you can make comparisons.
If this book remained faithful to the book then we can only assume that the author was ignorant of history. Mark Anthony never died of injuries obtained in battle as depicted. He died a coward's death by committing suicide and even then, he asked his slave to do it for him. The slave chose to kill himself instead. In the real story Mark Anthony was ashamed by the slave's great valor and decided to copy him. But even in death Mark Anthony was a drunken failure and failed at his own suicide attempt. He cried out for Cleopatra and was taken to her, bleeding. She hauled his litter up on ropes and Mark Anthony died a while later. If you want history don't watch this movie. If you want romantic drivel then you will probably enjoy it!
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 !
I saw this in a history class of the Roman Republic, believe it or not. This film smacks of made-for-TV all over it, and it is simply hilarious. It looks like a cheap imitator of "Xena: Warrior Princess" rather than a genuine attempt at historic recreation. All the basic historic facts seem in order, but with overly-pretty actors and over-the-top violence and action scenes thrown in to lure the Xena fans. Marc Antony is the super-hunky Billy Zane, though he seems supremely whiny and wimpy in this movie. HE'S the great Roman General?! Master of the Horse?! Puh-lease! Hunkiness means nothing if you're such a scaredy-cat, you let the girly-looking Octavian (he looks like Napoleon Dynamite) beat you in battle. It's clear Cleo chose him only for his looks! Cleopatra is an over-the-top sexy babe, and a cheap imitation of Xena. She joins Antony in battle at Actium, kicking major butt and slicing and dicing with her sword. She is also a yappy, whiny shrew of a woman that, in spite of her great beauty, it is very unlikely any man would want to hook up with her. I adamantly refuse to believe that Antony and Cleopatra were uber-hot supermodels; but, for the purposes of this film, it works! It's lovely schlock, and connoisseurs of schlock and camp will love this film.