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.

kurt_messick This production of Cleopatra, intended originally as a miniseries on television, is a reasonably good production with significant differences from the block-buster Hollywood version starring Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton and Rex Harrison. Cleopatra here is depicted as someone striving to maintain her own position, not necessarily someone with an eye toward world-wide conquest. Cleopatra is portrayed as an inexperienced person (both sexually and politically) until tutored by the more experienced Romans. She comes to understand her fate is inextricably intertwined with Caesar, then Antony, but her love for Antony keeps her from making the politically expedient move of giving in to Octavian. Apparently two Roman rulers are enough for one lifetime.Like the earlier film production, this one plays fast and loose with the actual history, albeit in different ways. The figure of Octavian/Augustus is far more present earlier here than he was in history; for a production that goes on the greater part of three hours, remarkably little detail about the history is brought forward, and I found that distracting. The last hour could have easily been recut into a half-hour, and some judicious editing throughout the rest of the film could make it into a much better paced two-hour film.The acting was tolerable but generally unconvincing. Timothy Dalton as Julius Caesar, Billy Zane (who got top billing) as Marc Antony, and Rupert Graves as Octavian were not up to their usual acting standards in this production. Dalton was not very expressive, and Zane and Graves were overly so (Graves plays an almost flippant character, not at all in keeping with the historical Augustus). Ironically, the title character Cleopatra was played by relative newcomer Leonor Varela, who was probably the best actor in the piece.The sets are great, as are the costumes (if not always appropriate – Cleopatra rarely wore Egyptian garb, preferring her more native Greek), and the music is worthwhile. The battle scenes are pretty typical television fare (with occasional glitches that make these seem more minor skirmishes than great battles). Unfortunately, the sea-going scenes of ships looked far too obviously fake to suspend disbelief.This is a pleasant diversion, but in the end not a truly memorable production save for bits and pieces here and there. But it is a good thing that such productions are still being undertaken.

solbro1-1 This movie was pretty good, but it did get somewhat boring towards the end. I almost fell asleep.The writing was uninspired and in places really bad. But I am so familiar with the two Shakespeare plays based on the same historical events, I may be biased. During Marc Antony's speech to the crowd at Julius Caesar's death I couldn't help but compare it to the mesmerizing speech made in the movie "Julius Caesar" staring Marlon Brando. I also had a problem with the way the movie portrayed Octavian and I don't think the problem was Rupert Graves. It was the script. In a couple scenes they show Octavian to be a coward. Which, considering he became Rome's greatest Emperor, Augustus Caesar, I believe that Octavian was probably a lot of things but coward was definitely not one of them. I almost think they decided to make him cowardly so Marc Antony wouldn't look so whipped.Anyway, this was a nice romance style movie and I liked the pretty colorful sets.