Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

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

FilmBuff1994 Julius Caesar is a great movie with a really well developed plot and a terrific cast. I really enjoy the classic William Shakespeare play, and feel like this film honours it to a very high degree. Had film been around in Shakespeare's time, I would imagine this being exactly how he would want the film to look, presented on a very grand scale, with dazzling set pieces, but always staying through to the relationship between characters and their dialogue. There was a few characters that I quite enjoyed in the play that I felt were underused in this film, particularly Christopher Lee as Artemidorus, who only has about two minutes of screen time for a character that could have been stretched much further, and particularly, Richard Chamberlain as Octavius Caesar. The character is not a massive part in the play, but his scenes are significant, and to have cut some of them was an injustice to the film.The performances all shine, and it is clear that these actors understood every word of their dialogue and had a deep understanding of what their character is going through. While he was never my favourite character when having seen and read the play, the undeniable screen presence of the great Charlton Heston made him the character I was most drawn to in this film. He conveys a lot of subtle emotions, as well as a great ability to express rage. It is a piece of work that I believe Shakespeare fans can appreciate. Well acted and very tense, Julius Caesar is a great ride that I would recommend to anyone looking for a good drama. Brutus and Cassius plot to kill Roman Emperor Julius Caesar as a result of his growing arrogance of power. Best Performance: Charlton Heston

ma-cortes This good rendition of the Shakespeare playwright talks about tragedy, ambition, politics, corruption and wars. The film starts in battle of Munda where Julius Caesar(100-40 b.c.) vanquished Pompeyo and terminates in battle of Filipos where the second triumvirate(Marco Antonio, Lepido and Octavius Augustus: Richard Chamberlain) vanquish Brutus and Cassio. Aristocrat party prepares a conspiracy and March 15, 44 b.c -Idus of March- Julius Caesar was assassinated in senate .Remains surprisingly true to Shakespeare's adaptation and working directly from the original, unlike many other historical movies of the same era. The Caesar killing is originally staged including unexpected frames of the murderous washing their hands in the blood of Julius and below of Pompeyo sculpture.There are magnificent acting from a memorable Charlton Heston as Marco Antonio, an electrifying John Gielgud as Caesar, a sneaky Robert Vaughn as Casca and a splendid Richard Johnson as Cassius, among them. Performances attractive enough extends right down to the minor characters, wealthy of expert character-drawing, as Christopher Lee, Diana Rigg and Andre Morell as Ciceron. Directed with imagination and professionalism by Stuart Burge and well produced by Peter Snell who followed with a sequel also little known 'Marco Antonio and Cleopatra' starred and directed by Charlton Heston.This gripping flick will like to Shakespeare devotees but its spirit is intact in spite of are taken some liberties. It's hard to believe this underrated film did not have success, today is best deemed but contains brilliance of dialogue perfectly played by all-stars. Despite this one turns out to be inferior than classic film 'Julius Caesar(1953)' considered definitely the best version available directed by Joseph L Mankiewicz and starred by top American players as Marlon Brando( similar role Charlton Heston-Marco Antonio), Louis Calhern(John Gielgud-Caesar), Greer Garson(Jill Bennet-Calpurnia),James Mason(Jason Robards-Brutus), Edmond O'Brien(Robert Vaughn-Casca role) among others.

Chuck Rothman (crothman) The cast is great, but the movie is completely lacking in drama. Most of the problem is with Jason Robards's performance. He practically sleepwalks through the role of Brutus -- no emotion, no life, no nothing. The play trudges along with only a few flashes of quality. Major disappointment.