Good story, Not enough for a whole film

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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

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.

JULIUS CAESAR (2+ outta 5 stars) It's hard to really say anything bad about Shakespeare... but, as far as film adaptations of his work are concerned, there are good ones and there are bad ones. This version, produced in 1970, is not actually *bad*... but it doesn't really do justice to the drama or the language of The Bard of Avon. The problem with most of the acting, particularly that of Charlton Heston, is that it seems to be more recitation than acting. There is more attention paid to annunciating the words forcefully than to creating actual human characters. Without the human dimension the film seems like nothing more than a poetry reading. The staging is also lacking in imagination and excitement... the cameras are just there to capture the faces on film, not to add anything to the cinematic experience. Still, there are worse ways to pass the time than to listen to great actors like Jason Robards, John Gielgud and Charlton Heston (among others) reciting great stage lines. "If we do meet again, why, we shall smile... if not, then this parting was well made."

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.