Julius Caesar (1971)

the audience applauded

good back-story, and good acting

Don't listen to the negative reviews

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Watching a period film means watching an age unfold in front of your eyes; it's something that brings back the past alive, either in an entertaining or offbeat manner. JULIUS CAESAR, which was shown to me and my classmates in school by our history teacher, turned out to be nothing but just a heavily boring and stage-dramatic period drama which has only its performances as the plus points.Drama doesn't necessarily mean it has to be boring. It can be entertaining as well. JC delivers on the performance front, but fails to serve its purpose in any possible way. Technically too, the film is just average, and with fairly decent yet average battle scenes, the film doesn't hold its ground. Efforts by the actors and makers are appreciable, but as a whole, the film's quite unimpressive.Honestly, the film started well but as it proceeded, it turned out to be a completely disappointing affair which felt too long and overdone at 117 minutes.

Like another reviewer stated, this is a respectable but highly flawed film adaptation of the play "The Tragedy of Julius Caesar". The performances are respectable enough, depending on the actor one references. Charlton Heston does a great job, but Robards performance as Brutus doesn't weigh in until about half way through the drama, and seems to be a little undirected for the first half of the play. It seems like a lot of the money that went into this project went into paying the actors' salaries, for the art direction gets the period wrong in several places, and puts Marc Antony's famous speech on an indoor set instead of an outdoor plaza as was meant.The most jarring for the military afficionados is the inappropriate armor and armament for the soldiers. The generals wear naval hats, and the armor is some kind of mish mash from other periods in history. I can only guess that this was done because the director liked the style (which was common for this period in film making for Hollywood to take such atrocious liberties with history).It's worth it for seeing Chuck Heston's Marc Antony, but the version with Marlon Brando some yhears earlier (shot in black and white) is the one to see.For all it's flaws, and there are many, this 1970 version staring Heston is worth a look. Heston plays Marc Antony as a passionate loyalist who seethes with the angst of betrayal, and does an ecellent job of it. Gielgud's Julius Caesar is solid, but I think the audience deserved someone with more gravitas and "a martial countenance", to borrow from the language of the time.See it once.

This American International production of Shakespeare's play is an O.K. adaption of the Roman tragedy with John Gielgud as the title character giving an authoritative but compassionate performance as the ambitious Roman General. He is only on screen for a short length, but commands each scene that he is in. It is Jason Robards who wins acting honors here as Brutus, making you understand his motives for doing what he does to preserve the Republic. Charleton Heston as Marc Anthony seems as if he is not part of the ensemble and the major focus, even though he too has only limited screen time. His famous speech at Caesar's funeral looses total impact because of this. Diana Rigg is very good as Brutus's wife with Jill Bennett the only other female as Caesar's wife. The battle scenes are not as powerful as those from MGM's 1953 version, even if they are in color. Some of the scenes have a bit of a horror element to them, not surprising considering AIP's usual output. The lack of wide screen smashes the visuals together to be rather blurry at times, and this weakens the impact of much of the intended epic.

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.