Home > Drama >

Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar (1953)

June. 04,1953
|
7.2
|
NR
| Drama History

The assassination of the would be ruler of Rome at the hands of Brutus and company has tragic consequences for the idealist and the republic.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Fluentiama
1953/06/04

Perfect cast and a good story

More
Cleveronix
1953/06/05

A different way of telling a story

More
RipDelight
1953/06/06

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

More
Humaira Grant
1953/06/07

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

More
Eric Stevenson
1953/06/08

It's hard to address a movie that has a plot everybody already knows. Not just that, but it's based on a true story everyone should already know too! As someone who's into history, I was quite fascinated by that. I always found it strange how the play was called "Julius Caesar" when he died halfway through and Brutus was the main character. Despite this being the first version I ever saw (or read) I understood everything that was going on. Again, probably because I'm familiar with the real life story behind it. The acting is as great as you'd imagine.The only thing I'm unclear on is how Brutus was able to get his own army. I do kind of wish we got to see more of that, but it wasn't really the focus of the story. I guess I'd have to look into history to do that. Well, it does show him rallying the people against Caesar so that question might be answered. It's funny how Mr. Caesar has the initials "JC" and he even died with people he all trusted, just like that other JC. The big difference is that this one was truly a dictator even though I wouldn't have wished this bad a fate on him. ***1/2

More
nicole_guerrero
1953/06/09

This movie goes into depth with the details from the book. (It gives you a visual of the scenes from every act) Summary: It is about Julius Caesar and he is warned to be careful with his life and his wife has a dream of him getting killed. He at first listens but the gets convinced that it was just a dream so he goes to the meeting with the senate.He goes to the senate and they have planned to stab him to death because they believe that he will gain to much power and they fear he will abuse it. The Senate proceeds with their plans and they kill Julius Ceaser.Caesar's funeral comes up and they let Antony speak and Antony tells the whole truth of what they did. Then Brutus tries to convince them that it was done because it was a choice either save Rome or let Julius make them in to slaves. The crowd does not believe him so now Brutus and Casiuss are in hiding trying to protect their life's. At the end Brutus and Casiuss die but not because they are captured but because they choose to die.

More
adeebamaryal
1953/06/10

Julius Caesar was a good movie it was almost like the book Julius Caesar by Shakespeare. They used the same words and the movie was old but it was good.I really enjoyed reading this movie of the play. Each scene is preceded by a summary of the scene and followed by the scene, and As an student, I have been reading Shakespeare for quite awhile, and I still found this book very helpful. If you are new to reading Shakespeare, I particularly recommend this because you will find it very interesting and helpful. it will help u with the history and there really isn't a discussion about how good the play is...they are all fantastic and are. This was was very helpful to understand the book.

More
Steffi_P
1953/06/11

Since the dawn of the talkies Hollywood had been searching for ways to do justice to the words of William Shakespeare. Now that Laurence Olivier had made his mark with Henry V and Hamlet, the game had been raised considerably. The dilemma of the US film industry was over whether to muster as much English Shakespearean authenticity as they could, or to throw decorum to the winds and make the bard go Hollywood. But this 1953 version of The Tragedy of Julius Caesar brings together experienced and prestigious actors from both sides of the Atlantic with the young, iconic and caustically modern rebel Marlon Brando. How could such a vibrant mismatch work? To find the answer, we have to go back to bard basics. Shakespeare works on a number of levels, and as a result his plays are accessible today despite the archaic and complex wording in them. While few things in a Shakespeare play are stated directly, his lines convey both literal meaning and, through a poetic use of language give the appropriate tone and an impression of what is meant. Characters will often go the long way round to get a point across (for example Casca describing individually each of the three times Caesar put the crown aside, each time exaggerating Caesar's supposed reluctance), in which double meanings and loaded terminology tease clarity out of the flowing speech.Bringing clarity to the meaning of Shakespeare's words is also the job of a creative director, and this applies to both stage and film directors. Doing the job here is one of the best of his day – Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz relies upon professional actors to make an impact, while he himself concentrates on background detail to frame and augment their performance. When he shows Caesar standing before a crowd, the extras in the background are unnaturally still, giving Louis Calhern even more stature and presence. When Cassius and Brutus go to plot Caesar's downfall, the sudden enclosure of the set gives an impression of the privacy of the space, but Mankiewicz still throws in little meaningful additions to the shot that comment on the goings-on. The statues of famous Romans act as surrogates for the presence of the real thing. The billowing cloak of a guard at the end of the corridor gives a bit of dynamic character to certain points in their conversation. During Cassius's powerful soliloquy the moving camera appears to make the ominous, windswept set grow around him.So after the genius of Shakespeare and the craftsmanship of Mankiewicz, it is all down to the talents of the cast. We really do have a delightful line-up here. The thing about all these professionals like Calhern, James Mason, John Gielgud, Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr, is that they all know how Shakespeare is "supposed" to be done. They are able to competently and effectively string the bard's words together into one flowing tapestry. They bring out all the aesthetic beauty in the prose, and this no small or worthless task, and not one of them fails or falters here. Still, it is yet possible to get more from Shakespeare than this.The part of Mark Anthony, while not the largest in the play, is certainly at its moral centre. He is, for want of a better word, the hero; a restorer of justice and the voice of a more just future. It is appropriate then the he be played a little differently. Brando had not done Shakespeare before, and he appears to have taken a fresh approach to the material, viewing Mark Anthony not as a character in the works of the most renowned literary figure the world has ever known, but as an individual to inhabit like anyone else he might play. What Brando really brings to the part is a sense of earnestness. When he delivers his great speech to the masses, his tone is not only commanding – it is decidedly indignant. When he yells the immortal line "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me yours ears" he reads it as nothing more or less than a man crying for the attention of the crowd. What Brando does is bring heart and humanity to the pure aestheticism of the play as it exists on paper.Is it sacrilegious to have some hip, method-acting poster boy take on one of the mightiest roles in theatre's grand tradition? There are those who think so – the stage remains to some extent a haven for snobs, but it is their attitudes who are doing Shakespeare a disservice, not the forward-thinking or creative ones. We shall leave the last words to the immortal bard himself, those that he put into the mouth of his antagonist Cassius upon Caesar's murder: "How many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted over, in states unborn and accents yet unknown?"

More