SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Eric Stevenson Having gotten pretty far into Shakespeare Month, I think this is probably the weakest film I've seen so far. And the thing is, when you have someone as beloved as Shakespeare, it's really hard to even go bad with him, except that Hamlet version shown on "Mystery Science Theater 3000". I was quite impressed by the color. 1970 was the year that nearly every movie was in color and it shows. There's one major complaint I have. Why is it that the actors portraying Julius Caesar and Brutus look so similar? I thought that was a weird casting choice.Well, that's minor, but the thing is, this movie doesn't give you anything that unique. I guess the pacing is nice, but the battle scenes aren't that good. In a few ways, it actually does improve over the 1953 version because the actual assassination of Caesar is depicted well. I feel bad for not recognizing Charlton Heston. The length was pretty good, but there's just nothing to really recommend it over any other Shakespeare movie. The acting could be better, but it's just fine overall. **1/2

Freedom060286 More than anything else, the poor performance by Jason Robards as Brutus ruined this movie. He sounded like a schoolboy who had never acted before, reading his lines for a play. Also, Robert Vaughn did a poor job as Casca.However, some of the other cast members such as John Gielgud and Charlton Heston performed well. Diana Rigg was perfect as Portia, and Richard Johnson gave the best Cassius performance I've ever seen. The costumes and cinematography were okay, but the direction left a lot to be desired. And the screen writing wasn't what it should have been either, they should have stayed with the lines from Shakespeare rather than rewriting the script.Overall, despite some positive attributes, this is not a very good movie.

virek213 When it comes to cinematically pulling anything off that has its basis in the world of William Shakespeare, the task can frequently be enormous. In general, Orson Welles and Lord Laurence Olivier (but call him Larry) are the two men most identified with successes at the Bard's work, on both sides of the camera; then there's Franco Zeffirelli (especially with his classic 1968 film version of ROMEO AND JULIET), and the later adaptations of Kenneth Branagh. And much more controversially, there is director Roman Polanski's extremely violent 1971 take on MACBETH, which was as close as The Bard came to outright horror.And then there's the political/historical tragedy that is JULIUS CAESAR.The 1953 version, adapted for the screen and directed by Joseph Mankiewicz, was and still is considered one of the best of the Bard's adaptations ever to make it to the screen. And then in 1969, an enterprising and young Canadian producer named Peter Snell decided to mount a new adaptation of this work. The result was, by all accounts, one that arguably fell into the shadow of Mankiewicz's version, which after all had Marlon Brando as Marc Antony; Louis Calhern as Caesar; and Sir John Gielgud as Cassisus, one of the conspirators. Indeed, many consider this film wildly erratic for various reasons, including one quixotic bit of casting that didn't come off. Still, the play is the thing, as the old saying goes.For this go-around at JULIUS CAESAR, the film is helmed by English director Stuart Burge, who did a yeoman adaptation of the Bard's OTHELLO in 1965, with Robert Furnival faithfully adapting the play to good effect. And you have, in the main, a great cast. Gielgud appears here in the title role, and he does a superlative job. Charlton Heston does a solid turn as Marc Antony (although in his journals he admits that's not such a big trick, since, in his view, if you can't do Marc Antony, you probably shouldn't be doing The Bard in the first place). The film also benefits from the turns given by Richard Chamberlain (as Octavius Caesar), Robert Vaughn (as Casca), Christopher Lee (as Artemidorus), Richard Johnson (as Cassius), Diana Rigg (as Portia), and Jill Bennett (as Calpurnia).The thing, though, is that a lot of the focus of the play, and subsequently the film, is not so much on Caesar as much as it is on Marcus Brutus, the man torn between his allegiance to Caesar and a need to save the Roman Republic from Caesar's machinations. It takes a solid performance to pull it off really well; and if the actor doing Brutus isn't well versed in Shakespeare, the film will invariably suffer. This is what happens here, with Jason Robards having accepted a role he just wasn't cut out for, when the oft-elusive Orson Welles was unavailable.. What worked in the plays of Eugene O'Neill, and on screen in films like ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, THE BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE, and MAGNOLIA doesn't really work well here. He is simply a great actor in a great role, but it was not one that he could have ever showed his best at—though over the course of the film, he does improve.That having been said, the stellar performances of Heston, Gielgud, Vaughn, and the others make up for Robards' inadequacies; and Burge's direction, while not really on a par with Welles, Olivier, or Zefirelli, is solid enough. Clearly, this isn't the most successful adaptation of The Bard. But given how hard it is to pull Shakespeare off cinematically, it is worth a 7 (out of 10).

artzau Julius Caeser was an enigmatic character historically, as well as in Shakespeare's portrayal of him. Reading his works in Latin is both a delight and wonder. The propaganda of the Gallic Wars lays the foundation for wartime journalism, portraying the enemy as something slightly less than human and the cause of the invaders as something noble and enlightened. Having said this, one looks at the Bard's depiction of Caeser's assassination and his portrayal of Caeser as something different from History.Sir John Gielgud was always stately in whatever role he played. He was an excellent Cassius in the 1955 version but seems a bit distanced in his role as the Dictator. One reviewer accuses him of being a ham and "overacting." Well, thanks for sharing that unshared opinion. Heston plays Moses playing Marc Anthony and Jason Robards grumbles his lines as Brutus. The real role that justifies the price of admission is that of the Brit, Richard Johnson whose angry, sullen Cassius stands out against Robards's wooden Brutus. Christopher Lee and Robert Vaughn both execute their roles splendidly as do the ladies, Jill Bennett and the ever lovely Diana Rigg. The pretty boy role of Octavius by Richard Chamberlain was merely OK and clumsy and the fight scenes seem a bit cranky compared to what we see today. But, we're in it for Shakespeare, not a shoot'em or garish cast of thousands recreating bloody battle scenes.I prefer the 1955 version with the Ham of hams, Brando as Mark Antony and Louis Calhern as Caesar. There, the great Gielgud and a competent James Mason made the respective roles of the conspirators, Cassius and Brutus sparkle.