Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

GazerRise Fantastic!

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Wuchak Released in 1970 and based on William Shakespeare's play, "Julius Caesar" chronicles the last days of Julius Caesar (John Gielgud) in mid-March, 44 BC. Richard Johnson plays Cassius, the leader of a group of high-ranking Romans who seek to assassinate Julius while Jason Robards appears as reluctant accomplice, Brutus. Charlton Heston plays Mark Antony, a sympathizer of Caesar who condemns the murder. Jill Bennett and Diana Rigg are on hand as Calpurnia and Portia respectively. Richard Chamberlain plays Octavius, Caesar's nephew. Whether or not you'll like this film depends on if you favor The Bard and iambic pentameter. If so, you'll probably love it; if not, you'll find it dreadfully dull. Those in the middle, like me, will certainly find things to appreciate, but will generally be bored by the proceedings. Heston is captivating as Antony, particularly in his extended funeral speech to the citizens. He's pretty much as effective as Brando in the 1953 film in his own unique way. Unfortunately, Robarbs is the definition of wooden during the first half, but he's quite effective in the second. He's a fine actor; he's just not the best fit for Shakespeare. This is basically the same movie as the 1953 version, albeit with different actors. I prefer it because it's in color and is more modern with superior action sequences, like Caesar's brutal assassination and the climatic battle. It's interesting comparing the two movies because each have their strong and weak points. The film runs 117 minutes and was shot in MGM British Studios & Pinewood Studios, England, and Spain (battle sequences). It was directed by Stuart Burge. GRADE: C

judithnelson07 I've seen plenty bum Shakespeare, but Jason Robards as Brutus he takes me the cake. He resembled nothing so much as a barrel with a head on top. The rest of the cast was pretty good, however, especially Richard Johnson as Cassius (why wasn't HE Brutus), Diana Rigg as Portia and Charlton Heston as Antony. John Gielgud as Caesar does his lines beautifully, as always, but does not quite convey the menace and power of Caesar. (He was better as Cassius in the 1953 version.) Interesting here is the contrast in line delivery between Johnson and Robards; it makes you wonder why Cassius isn't the leader and hope of the conspiracy. Production values are sometimes dubious; but battle scenes are better than the cowboys-and-Indians fight in the 1953 version. Of course, the text is shortened, but all essential scenes are kept.

MARIO GAUCI This second big-screen attempt at Shakespeare's play is pretty much neglected in the face of the lavish (despite being in black-and-white) and acclaimed 1953 MGM version. A number of cinematic adaptations of The Bard's work had been made in the interim, but the Roman Empire setting and concluding battle sequence seemed ideal at a time of big-budget, star-studded epics. That said, the film under review is noted as being "technically ragged" and has even been likened to a peplum! I had initially balked at the prospect of adding this to my collection in view of the fact that both existing DVD editions are only available in a full-frame format; still, I changed my mind so that I could include it in my Charlton Heston tribute. When I was in Hollywood, I had watched another Shakespearean film adaptation from the same director – OTHELLO (1965), with Laurence Olivier; I recall being somewhat underwhelmed by it – coming across as excessively stagy and, therefore, uninventive compared to Orson Welles' highly cinematic rendition from 1952 (though it may also have been due to the massive length, 166 minutes, of Burge's take on that celebrated play). At 116 minutes, JULIUS CAESAR is a more manageable enterprise and, as I said, at least it 'opens up' towards the end; besides, its gripping narrative of political machinations is among Shakespeare's more compelling.Which brings us to a comparison of the 1953 and 1970 versions: if there's one thing that could be leveled against the former is that it flaunts the trademark MGM gloss – plus the fact that it was determined to have a star in even the rather negligible female roles (Greer Garson as Calpurnia and Deborah Kerr as Portia), not so much because they were right for the part but because it would have added to the marquee/prestige value or, more crudely, the budget could afford it! Otherwise, that film is distinguished by Marlon Brando's fiery Mark Antony, James Mason's thoughtful Brutus and John Gielgud's wily Cassius – not to mention Miklos Rozsa's typically grandiose score. While the 1970 film adds color and a wider aspect ratio (somewhat negated here by the disappointing panning-and-scanning of the image) to benefit the spectacular elements of the plot, and the casting itself looks pretty impressive on paper, it can't really hold a candle to the earlier version! Charlton Heston is decent as Antony: he had already played the character in a 1950 TV adaptation and would do so again in the 1972 ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA – based on another Shakespeare play and which he personally directed (I know this latter film was shown a couple of times in my childhood, including a Sunday matinée' broadcast on local TV but I'm damned if I recall whether I had sat throughout its entire 170-minute running-time, or even if the print was that long to begin with; inexplicably, the film seems to have vanished off the face of the earth since then!). In any case, Heston's by-now established larger-than-life persona is enough to carry the weight of the role, and he does especially well in the pivotal oratory at Caesar's funeral – whilst lacking the essential brooding passion that had marked Brando's earlier portrayal. Jason Robards Jr. is a notoriously glum Brutus – seemingly uncertain as to how approach the text, his resultant feeble performance truly hurts the overall effort. Richard Johnson, on the other hand, is a fine Cassius: ironically, the fury displayed by him at Brutus' decision to allow Antony to speak on behalf of Caesar in front of the people is that more palpable here in the wake of Robards' ineffectual Brutus! John Gielgud exchanges Cassius's robes from the 1953 film for those of the titular figure – a legendary interpreter of The Bard's work, he offers a dignified portrayal of the fated conqueror/dictator with a misplaced trust in his peers. Robert Vaughn is a surprisingly good Casca, perhaps Cassius' closest supporter; Richard Chamberlain is Octavian, Antony's ally in routing the conspirators – he only turns up in the last third, with his best moment coming during the confrontation on horseback (flanked by Antony himself) with Cassius and Brutus at Philippi. Diana Rigg as Portia has just one scene alongside her husband, Brutus, but the future Dame clearly outshines the miscast Robards!; Jill Bennett appears as the superstitious Calpurnia. Christopher Lee, who receives fairly prominent billing, has only a very negligible role – as a citizen (mystic?) whose advice to Caesar to be wary of his flatterers goes tragically unheeded – but it was nonetheless nice to see him in this company; Michael Gough, a horror icon in his own right, is another of Caesar's envious senators determined to bring him down for the good of the Empire; Andre' Morell plays Cicero – his character is often mentioned but the actor's silent contribution is completely redundant, since he only appears in a couple of brief shots! The opening sequence – a sinister panorama of a battlefield strewn with rotting corpses and vultures hovering above – is striking (this is surprisingly followed by one instance of nudity amid the footage serving as background to the credits!) and the finale notches up a few acceptable bouts of action, but the rest of it is generally uninspiring. For the record, I've watched numerous straight adaptations of Shakespeare's work over the years (beginning from a fairly young age); of late, however, I've become wary of them because of the considerable effort required to get attuned to his idiosyncratic style of writing – and, even if I was already familiar with this particular play via numerous viewings of the 1953 film, it sadly proved to be no exception to the rule here either

scumbagstyle This is a film built entirely for fans of Shakespeare. If you want a truly cinematic version, try the Brando version. This version is as true to Shakespeare as any film I have seen. John Gielgud in his second Julius Caesar film role, this time as Caesar himself, is studied and brilliant. Brutus plays off of Antony well as the weaker of the generals. Surprisingly, Heston plays a brilliant Antony, strong and resilient, as Antony should be played, and showing a serious command of the language and supernatural world of Shakespeare's Caesar. I recommend this film for any true reader or scholar of Shakespeare as the definitive Julius Caesar film adaptation. If you want Hollywood-type entertainment, go for the earlier but flashier Brando version.