Julius Caesar (1970) User Reviews (41)

Prestigious though unknown Shakespearean production with plenty of American-British stars

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 8 April 2009]

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 the famous battle of Filipos where the second triumvirate (Mark Anthony , Lepidus and Octavius Augustus : Richard Chamberlain) vanquished Brutus and Cassius . Aristocrat party prepares a conspiracy and on March 15, 44 B. C -Idus of March- Julius Caesar was assassinated in the Roman senate . It remains surprisingly true to Shakespeare's adaptation and working directly from the original , unlike many other historical movies at the same era . Caesar's killing is originally staged , including unexpected frames of the murderous washing their hands in the blood of Julius and below the Pompeyo sculpture.

There's 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 result to be attractive enough and extending 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 that followed a sequel , also little known , titled : 'Marco Antonio and Cleopatra' starred and directed by Charlton Heston . This gripping flick will appeal to Shakespeare devotees , as the deep spirit is intact , in spite of taking some liberties . It's hard to believe this underrated film did not have success , today is much better deemed than the past , containing brilliance of dialogue perfectly played by all-stars . Despite this great cast , it turns out to be inferior than classic film 'Julius Caesar (1953)' considered definitely the best version available , being competently 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.

Modest Production in Some Ways Superior to the Brando Version.

[kayaker36 · 7/10 · 26 February 2009]

By now in his late forties and sporting an obvious, bright red hairpiece, Charlton Heston seemed an odd Antony when first seen. But Heston remained fit all through his long career. While he does not as much look the part, his Marc Antony provides a sturdy center for this second filming of the Shakespeare tragedy. Also, Charlton Heston had a scholarly side unusual for a Hollywood actor. He clearly gave much thought to this portrayal which on the whole is better than the misplaced Method emoting of Marlon Brando's Antony, some seventeen years earlier.

Featuring a mixed cast of British and American actors, the result is mainly predictable but some surprises and disappointments also feature. One disappointment is Gielgud as Caesar. Sir John was a veteran Shakespearian by 1970 with a fine voice and tons of dignity. Yet at sixty-six he was a touch too old for the part. More to the point, the effete Gielgud lacked the masculine force to play this virile ex-general whose battlefield victories were said to be matched only by his conquests in the bedroom.

One surprise is the subtle portrayal of the conspirator Casca by American Robert Vaughan. "Sour" Casca, the cynical observer, is a minor character but sharply drawn and Vaughan makes him come alive during his few minutes on stage. Jill Bennet is sympathetic as the prophetic wife of Caesar but in the role of Brutus' wife the well-born Portia, Diana Rigg at age thirty-two looks luscious and is simply superb--Shakespeare in the finest style. Another veteran Shakespearian, Richard Johnson, is nearly as good as the jealous, manipulative Cassius.

Jason Robards plays Brutus like a wooden Indian for the first two acts. In the third act however--that is, after Brutus and Cassius have fled Rome--he seems to grow in the part and his acting gains conviction.

The importance of the plebeians to the play was understood by this director, who cast the roles carefully.

Flawed But Still Worthwhile Adaptation Of A Great Shakespeare Opus

[virek213 · 7/10 · 16 July 2013]

When it comes to cinematically pulling anything off that has its basis in the world of William Shakespeare, the task can frequently be enormous. In general, Orson Welles and Lord Laurence Olivier (but call him Larry) are the two men most identified with successes at the Bard's work, on both sides of the camera; then there's Franco Zeffirelli (especially with his classic 1968 film version of ROMEO AND JULIET), and the later adaptations of Kenneth Branagh. And much more controversially, there is director Roman Polanski's extremely violent 1971 take on MACBETH, which was as close as The Bard came to outright horror.

And then there's the political/historical tragedy that is JULIUS CAESAR.

The 1953 version, adapted for the screen and directed by Joseph Mankiewicz, was and still is considered one of the best of the Bard's adaptations ever to make it to the screen. And then in 1969, an enterprising and young Canadian producer named Peter Snell decided to mount a new adaptation of this work. The result was, by all accounts, one that arguably fell into the shadow of Mankiewicz's version, which after all had Marlon Brando as Marc Antony; Louis Calhern as Caesar; and Sir John Gielgud as Cassisus, one of the conspirators. Indeed, many consider this film wildly erratic for various reasons, including one quixotic bit of casting that didn't come off. Still, the play is the thing, as the old saying goes.

For this go-around at JULIUS CAESAR, the film is helmed by English director Stuart Burge, who did a yeoman adaptation of the Bard's OTHELLO in 1965, with Robert Furnival faithfully adapting the play to good effect. And you have, in the main, a great cast. Gielgud appears here in the title role, and he does a superlative job. Charlton Heston does a solid turn as Marc Antony (although in his journals he admits that's not such a big trick, since, in his view, if you can't do Marc Antony, you probably shouldn't be doing The Bard in the first place). The film also benefits from the turns given by Richard Chamberlain (as Octavius Caesar), Robert Vaughn (as Casca), Christopher Lee (as Artemidorus), Richard Johnson (as Cassius), Diana Rigg (as Portia), and Jill Bennett (as Calpurnia).

The thing, though, is that a lot of the focus of the play, and subsequently the film, is not so much on Caesar as much as it is on Marcus Brutus, the man torn between his allegiance to Caesar and a need to save the Roman Republic from Caesar's machinations. It takes a solid performance to pull it off really well; and if the actor doing Brutus isn't well versed in Shakespeare, the film will invariably suffer. This is what happens here, with Jason Robards having accepted a role he just wasn't cut out for, when the oft-elusive Orson Welles was unavailable.. What worked in the plays of Eugene O'Neill, and on screen in films like ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, THE BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE, and MAGNOLIA doesn't really work well here. He is simply a great actor in a great role, but it was not one that he could have ever showed his best at—though over the course of the film, he does improve.

That having been said, the stellar performances of Heston, Gielgud, Vaughn, and the others make up for Robards' inadequacies; and Burge's direction, while not really on a par with Welles, Olivier, or Zefirelli, is solid enough. Clearly, this isn't the most successful adaptation of The Bard. But given how hard it is to pull Shakespeare off cinematically, it is worth a 7 (out of 10).

How to Spoil an Otherwise Good Film

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 10 August 2020]

There are two well-known cinema adaptations of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", the one from 1953 starring John Gielgud and the one from 1970 starring John Gielgud. (Gielgud played Cassius in 1953 and Caesar in 1970). This was the first Shakespeare play I ever read when we studied it at school, and the 1970 version was the first Shakespeare film I ever saw; our English teacher, who also ran the school film society, often used to show film versions of the books we were studying in his class.

Watching the film again recently for the first time since my schooldays made me think that I could have chosen a better cinematic introduction to the works of the Bard. It is a prime example of how one poor performance can spoil a film which might otherwise have been a good one. The film was not popular with the critics, and most of their reviews placed the blame for its shortcomings on the actor playing Brutus, Jason Robards. Howard Thompson calls him "incredibly dull and wooden", but that description seems like the highest praise compared with what Roger Ebert had to say, accusing Robards of staring vacantly into the camera and reciting Shakespeare's words as if he'd memorized them seconds before, or maybe he was reading from idiot cards. Now there were occasions when Ebert could allow his rhetoric to run away with him, but this was not one of them. Robards's performance was inert and soulless and betrayed an inability to speak Shakespearean verse convincingly. It fully deserved everything Ebert said about it.

This is unfortunate, because Brutus is the key role in the play. Although the title is "Julius Caesar", Brutus, the leader of the conspirators who plot to kill Caesar because they believe he is planning to establish a dictatorship, is the most prominent character in terms of time on stage and of lines spoken, far more prominent than Caesar, who dies halfway through. In fact, Brutus can be seen as the tragic hero of the play. Even his enemy Mark Antony dubs him after his death "the noblest Roman of them all", pointing out that while the other conspirators acted out of envy or resentment of Caesar, Brutus alone was motivated by idealism. He was regarded by Caesar as a friend, but concluded after a struggle with his conscience that his ideals of liberty and patriotism counted for more than friendship. So the role of Brutus, perhaps more than any other character in the play, demands a great performance. It got such a performance from James Mason in 1953; it did not get one here.

Gielgud has been criticised on this board for being insufficiently "virile", but this strikes me as a misguided criticism. The historical Caesar may well have been as much a conqueror in the bedroom as he was on the battlefield, but that is not how Shakespeare portrays him. His Caesar is ageing and diminishing in physical strength; stress is laid upon his physical infirmities, such as epilepsy and deafness. His strength is political, not physical, and this is how Gielgud plays him, as a successful general turned elder statesman who knows that his support is based both upon the legions at his back and on the support of the Roman populace, who have little reason to love the Republic which has always represented the interests of the patrician class. From a 20th century viewpoint the play was often interpreted as being about the clash of dictatorship versus democracy; from the viewpoint of the 21st it is startling to look more like authoritarian populism versus elitist liberalism

I liked Diana Rigg as Brutus's wife Portia, one of only two female characters of any significance. The other is Caesar's wife Calpurnia; this is one of Shakespeare's most masculine plays, revolving as it does around what were (in Shakespeare's day as well as Caesar's) two very male pursuits, politics and war. Other good performances came from Richard Johnson as a direct, blunt Cassius and from Robert ("Man from UNCLE") Vaughn- not the first actor I would have thought of for the role- as Casca. The best, however, comes from Charlton Heston as Mark Antony, a role he was to reprise two years later when he directed his own version of "Antony and Cleopatra". Although the two plays are very different in tone, Heston's Antony is recognisably the same character in both films- a sportsman, a sensualist and a skilled political operator, the polar opposite of the puritanical, priggish Brutus. Unfortunately, Robards is so poor that in the great rhetorical duel when Brutus ad Antony both address the crowds after Caesar's death, Antony wins by default.

Despite Robards's inadequate contribution, however, I have awarded the film an above-average mark, because to do otherwise would be unfair to the rest of the cast, some of whom are very good. It would also be unfair to Shakespeare, who cannot be held responsible for how actors perform his works, and this is one of his most fascinating plays. I would, however, recommend that any English teachers hoping to use the cinema to introduce their pupils to Shakespeare should show them the much better 1953 version. 6/10

Egomania part deaux

[Blueghost · 17 July 2013]

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.

Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!

[brogmiller · 7/10 · 15 October 2020]

Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar', first performed at the Globe in 1599, is indisputably the greatest political play ever written in which the playwright utilises the art of rhetoric which had been drummed into him as a schoolboy. Nowhere is this rhetorical skill used to greater effect than when Mark Antony, speaking over the corpse of the assassinated Caesar, gradually turns the plebs against the 'honourable' conspirators. Apparently Charlton Heston asked our greatest actor, Laurence Olivier, how Antony should be played. Olivier's advice was to "play him like an ageing film star"! Although a little long in the tooth for the role Heston is in good enough physical condition to get away with it and both his voice and presence carry him through. His is filmic Shakespeare to be sure. One wishes one could say the same for the Brutus of Jason Robards Jnr. On paper he is good casting but is alas abysmal in the role and weakens the film immeasurably. Heston was very scathing about Robard's portrayal and would have much preferred Orson Welles. Who wouldn't! Richard Johnson is excellent as the disgruntled Cassius and definitely has the 'lean and hungry look'. Sir John Gielgud as Caesar is a little too 'camp' for my liking. His particular style of acting suited far better his performance as Cassius in the 1953 version of Joseph L. Mankiewicz, during which he coached Marlon Brando as Antony in the finer points of Shakesperean delivery. Just as Edmond 0'Brien was a revelation as Casca in that film so too is Robert Vaughn in this. There are some excellent scenes here and this is a good introduction to the play but Stuart Burge is no Mankiewicz and has furthermore been lumbered with Robards, whereas Mankiewicz had the services of James Mason. As both a film and filmed Shakespeare the earlier version wins hands down.

Hollywood Shakespeare, but not at all bad

[judithnelson07 · 7/10 · 22 February 2015]

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.

The fault, dear Brutus, was in the star this time

[GusF · 7/10 · 15 March 2016]

The first of Shakespeare's plays dealing with Roman history, this is quite a good adaptation but it could have been considerably better. The play is a brilliant psychological drama that explores the themes of honour, loyalty and patriotic necessity and the conflict between them through the characters of Brutus and Mark Antony. Caesar himself is only a supporting character but the entire play pivots around him. Sadly, this pales in comparison to the brilliant 1953 version directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. This is largely due to the fact that, in stark contrast to Mankiewicz, Stuart Burge is a rather mediocre director who shoots the film in a very awkward manner. He previously helmed the excellent "Othello" (1965) but that film's success lay in the strength of its central performances more than the direction, not least because it was really a filmed stage play in style as opposed to the film adaptation of a play. This film has a distinctly low budget look and feel, something which a more talented director might have been able to obscure or possibly prevent altogether. The crucial assassination scene and the battle scenes towards the end are unconvincing and more than a little hysterical. When it comes to directing Shakespeare, Burge lacks the flair of Laurence Olivier or Kenneth Branagh.

Brutus is one of the most complex characters that I have come across in a Shakespearean play and this version does not do him justice, to put it mildly. He is a tragic hero who reluctantly agrees to participate in the plot to assassinate Caesar. This leads Mark Antony to describe him as "the noblest Roman of them all" as he genuinely believed that he was doing the right thing while his co- conspirators "did that they did in envy of great Caesar." He is a patriot who tells the plebeians that he loved Caesar but loves Rome more. However, Brutus is too noble for his own good as his idealism causes him to insist that the conspirators spare Antony's life. In allowing Antony to deliver the funeral oration after the murder, he gives his rival the opportunity to turn the plebeians to his side, damning himself in the process. I said in my review of "All the President's Men" yesterday that Jason Robards' Oscar winning performance as Ben Bradlee was mostly monotone. Had I watched this film beforehand, I would have been more complimentary as his turn as Brutus is considerably worse. It is the cinematic equivalent of dead air. Except when he shouts (unconvincingly), Robards seems incapable of altering either the intonation of his voice or the expression on his face. When Brutus announces that his wife Portia is dead, he seems indifferent, which wasn't really what Shakespeare was going for. For most of the film, Robards looked and sounded like he was trying to remember his lines. Maybe he thought that getting them out was enough and he didn't have to worry about delivering them in a convincing way, something which he fails to do every single time that he opens his mouth. The fault, dear Brutus, was in the star this time.

The best performance certainly comes from the great John Gielgud, who played Cassius in the 1953 version, who is brilliant as the title character. Caesar is just as ambitious as the conspirators claimed that he was. His extreme arrogance and his refusal to heed the supernatural omens surrounding the Ides of March prove to his undoing. Charlton Heston, reprising his role from an obscure 1950 version, is very good as Mark Antony but I certainly preferred Marlon Brando's take on the character. Whereas Brando was mesmerising during the lengthy funeral oration scene, Heston goes a little over the top. Mark Antony is a fascinating character: willful, impulsive, fiercely intelligent, shrewd and ruthless. Unswervingly loyal to Caesar both before and after his assassination, he is nevertheless not as honourable as Brutus as he manages to persuade the conspirators that he is on their side. Heston's Mark Antony seems much more openly cynical than Brando's and I would have preferred it if Heston had taken the more subtle approach.

Richard Johnson, a highly experienced Shakespearean actor, is excellent as Cassius. His motives for plotting against Caesar are far less idealistic than those of Brutus as he is extremely envious of the fact that the Roman people are treating the dictator as if he were a god. Deceitful, ambitious and totally lacking in integrity, he is the consummate politician. Robert Vaughn is suitably sneaky as Casca whereas a perfectly cast Richard Chamberlain has a great extended cameo as Octavius. The two of them, Heston and Robards are the only Americans in the film. In spite of the fact that they receive star billing, Diana Rigg and Christopher Lee have very little screen time as Portia and Artemidorus respectively but are likewise excellent. Lee's only other appearance in a Shakespearean film was a non-speaking role in "Hamlet" (1948), which is a shame as I would have loved to have seen him tackle a meatier part in one of the Bard's plays. The always wonderful André Morell is completely wasted in the oddly silent role of the great orator Cicero while the usually reliable Jill Bennett goes quite far over the top as Calpurnia. The film also features nice small appearances from Michael Gough (who played Cassius in a 1959 TV version directed by Burge) as Metellus Cimber, Derek Godfrey as Decius Brutus, David Neal as Cinna and Thomas Heathcote as Flavius as well as not one but two future "Blake's 7" stars, namely Steven Pacey and Michael Keating.

Overall, this film has a great deal of unfulfilled potential but there is plenty of good acting on display, notwithstanding Robards' performance (for lack of a better word). The first half was generally much stronger than the second.

Eying Each Other

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 6 April 2006]

One of the things that I always thought about Julius Caesar is that in the life of one of the great movers and shakers of the ancient world, he's merely a figure in which all kinds of people at the end are busy weaving their schemes around, be it his death or his conferred immortality.

Antony and Brutus are each worried about their place in Caesar's affections and Brutus figures he's lost out to Antony. It makes him an easy mark for Cassius's plots. After the dirty deed of assassination is done, it's Antony and Octavius though they are teaming up against the conspirators, you can tell both in this version and in the better Fifties version that MGM put out that they will soon be at odds.

Charlton Heston is a strong Antony here, but unfortunately for the play to succeed you need an equally strong Brutus. That's not what you get in Jason Robards, Jr. For a man who in his time was considered the greatest interpreter of Eugene O'Neill, when it comes to Shakespeare the man was out of his league. No reflection on him, everyone has casting limitations.

A real good interpreter of the Bard who played Cassius back in 1954 plays Caesar here. John Gielgud is equally fine in both versions. And Richard Johnson and Robert Vaughn are superb as conspirators Cassius and Casca. And Richard Chamberlain who was trying very hard to shed his Dr. Kildare image is fine as the cunning Octavian who Antony ultimately underestimates.

Charlton Heston in his memoirs takes blame for casting Robards and Robards himself realized he was miscast. Oddly enough in that earlier version James Mason as Brutus was the best one in the film.

Not bad

[artzau · 7/10 · 8 December 2009]

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.

Not enough to completely praise it, but not worth burying either

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 15 January 2021]

My main reason for seeing this 1970 version of 'Julius Caesar' was the cast. Did have my doubts about Jason Robards working as Brutus, but had no doubt that Charlton Heston and John Gielgud would be winners as Marc Antony and Caesar. The play itself is not one of the bard's best, but the supporting characters are so well rounded and many of the speeches are memorable (Marc Antony's big speech is one of the most famous of any Shakespeare play for good reason).

Of the film versions, this 1970 version is a contender for the weakest. It is far from awful, though its worst assets are pretty badly done, but there are things that come off effectively and are easy to appreciate. In my mind, the 1953 film, a near-masterpiece (apart from the Caesar), is infinitely superior in pretty much every sense. It is a shame, as 'Julius Caesar' (1970) did have a good deal of potential with an intriguing and talented cast and a very good play, but that potential doesn't fully materialise in the execution.

'Julius Caesar' (1970) does have good things. Most of the cast come off well, with Heston dominating as Marc Antony. A noble and authoritative performance with clear understanding of the text's meaning, most evident in the funeral oration speech. Gielgud is an eloquent and commanding Caesar, though will agree with those that say that he was better as Cassius in the 1953 film, not looking taxed in any way and his Shakespearean expertise is obvious. Another standout is Richard Johnson as an intense and deeply felt Cassius.

Robert Vaughan (a surprise for me, being someone who didn't associate him with Shakespeare usually) is effectively sneaky but in a beautifully understated way. It is amazing that Diana Rigg managed to be as moving as she was with Portia being very underwritten here. It is well photographed on the whole and has some nice set design. Some of the staging is effective, the action not being clumsy surprising and the assassination is hardly trivialised in feel. Shakespeare's text is delightful.

However, there are sadly a number of debits. Completely concur with the universal panning of Jason Robards' portrayal of Brutus, Robards is a disaster in the part and looks uncomfortably wooden and bemusingly spaced out throughout but especially in the early stages. Personally thought that most of the direction was pedestrian and too much of the character interaction static. The climax is seldom nailed and the film does nothing to change my mind, coming over as somewhat silly.

While Shakespeare's dialogue is wonderful, the effectiveness of it in delivery varies as it has had a lot more spark and pathos elsewhere. Despite moments where they look good, the production values tend to look on the cheap side and too claustrophobic. Despite Richard Chamberlain deserving some credit from trying to shed his typecast image at the time, he didn't come over as dangerous enough as Octavius and there was a sense that he was starting to become long in the tooth. There are truncations, and it does mean that the supporting character roles generally are too underwritten and come and go, the drama occasionally lacks cohesion too and the pace is dull.

Overall, has its good things but generally disappointing. 4/10

Flawed, faithful and pierced by brilliance

[skoyles · 8/10 · 15 December 2003]

I shall not cavil: Julius Caesar is my favourite Shakespearean play and i can bore anyone to tears by reciting great chunks of it. My dear wife may love Hamlet, but for me it is Caesar; I have loved this play since I was in elementary school, and had the great joy of seeing it in 1966 at Stratford Ontario with a brilliant young Bruno Gerussi as Antony: there was a lively Antony to make Brando's look somnambulant. Given my love for the play, I await the day that some computer genius releases this version having excised poor Jason Robarts and inserted James Mason from the Brando movie. According to some reports, Robarts (and actor whom I admired tremendously) was very simply drunk out of his mind for the filming of this motion picture. He does an excellent job for someone sloshed; sad, because as we see from his other work, he could have been a fine Brutus, though perhaps a better Cassius. But it is Heston who shines as Antony. Where Brando methodically plays Antony as Brando (with hints of his future Fletcher Christian), Heston *is* Antony, fearlessly playing the manipulative, self-serving (anti-)hero. Just listen to his dismissive "So is my horse, Octavius" to hear a true master at work. A flawed but faithful Julius Caesar.

JULIUS CAESAR (Stuart Burge, 1970) **1/2

[Bunuel1976 · 6/10 · 30 April 2008]

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

Great Cast, With One Notable Exception

[aramis-112-804880 · 4/10 · 5 August 2017]

"Julius Caesar" is perhaps the most accessible of Shakespeare's plays. Short, direct, pithy. It's a cautionary play about the error of assassination. With a cast of wonderful actors down to the smallest roles, this should have been a classic for the ages.

Charlton Heston is a great Marc Antony. Richard Chamberlain is a feisty Octavian. Diana Rigg is perhaps the loveliest ever Portia; and talented as she was as the "Avengers" action star, she does Shakespeare like she was born to it. The real prize of this flick, however, was Robert Vaughn's sly, humorous Casca. It's a shame Shakespeare didn't give him more screen time.

Not only is the major cast full of headline stars, aficionados of English actors will recognize the names Preston Lockwood, Andrew Morell, Ron Pember, Michael Gough and others in very minor parts.

Unfortunately, what sinks this movie like the Titanic is possibly the worse casting decision in human history, Jason Robards as Brutus. In case you don't know, the star of "Julius Caesar" isn't John Gielgud's Caesar or Heston's powerful Antony. It's Brutus, the man who tries to usher in a republic but who, assassinating an old friend who looks to become a tyrant, inadvertently brings forth the Roman Empire.

Robards is TERRIBLE. He walks zombie-like through the early part of the flick. An actor known for his greatness in Eugene O'Neill, Robards seems to have never heard of Shakespeare. His leaden delivery (if one can call it that) of lines shows no distinction between one word and the next. It's not like he thinks every word is as important as the next, but that none of them matter a whit. He might be a foreign actor reading the words phonetically off cue cards.

Toward the end Robards shows a bit of life, but by that time we're all asleep. And he's still giving the lines like he never considered what they meant. Robards makes the whole thing look like a high school production put on for extra credit.

Another bad casting decision is Richard Johnson as Cassius. A good actor in normal circumstances, Johnson was probably a poor choice as he was not well known to American audiences. The scenes between Cassius and Brutus should be subtle, often delivered with a wry wit. But with Robards seeming to feel he's done his bit by showing up at all, in their mutual scenes Johnson gives the feeling he's a lone reindeer dragging the sleigh by main force.

Johnson should have studied Diana Rigg, who gives a subtle and touching performance as Portia, apparently deciding it was best to pretend Robards wasn't in the room.

I don't know if this was a period when Robards was hitting the bottle, but he sunk what might have been a masterpiece. One wonders, where was the director? Director Stuart Burge is not well-known. His work consisted mostly of television stuff; but he had done great plays before, juggling temperamental actors like Olivier, Redgrave, Michael Hordern and Jeremy Brett, amongst others. Why was he MIA, instead of telling Robards to snap out of it or he'd hire a real actor? Since Brutus is the central character of the play (which should have been called "The Tragedy of Brutus" . . . well, Robards alone turns the whole enterprise into a disaster. It's like watching a train wreck. You can see the tragedy coming but there's not a darn thing you can do to stop it.

It's not a total waste of talent. Johnson and Chamberlain try to take too much upon themselves, but some of the stars are worth watching, including Heston, Vaughn and Rigg. If you must watch this sluggish mess, keep your thumb on the fast forward.

What a dud!

[peacham · 11 October 1999]

This has got to be one of the worst adaptations of a Shakespeare play ever made. Heston swaggers and bellows as Antony, Robards is out of place in shakespeare, and the usually exceptional Richard Johnson is woefully miscast as Cassius. Only Gielgud and Rigg in their brief appearances bring this film to life. the original film was much better . Gielgud was a great Cassius and Mason a wonderfully tragic Brutus. Both films however lack a strong Antony. For those who do not know the original play this version may be passable but to those who do its just pure drivel.

Alright

[ericstevenson · 6/10 · 8 August 2017]

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

Julius Caesar

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 3 June 2023]

I recall seeing Charlton Heston on stage at the height of his "Man For All Seasons" theatrical pomp, and he wasn't half bad. In this, however, made much earlier - he is still very much honing his theatrical skills. He portrays Mark Anthony, and the rest of an admittedly acclaimed cast stick pretty closely to the narrative of the bard's telling of the rise and fall of Caesar. That role falls to Sir John Gielgud, the only established thespian amongst this rather odd assembly of talent that deliver, with varying degrees of conviction, some of the best lines in English literature. Jason Robards makes a decent fist of Brutus as does Diana Rigg (Portia) but Richard Chamberlain (Octavius), Robert Vaughn (Casca) and Richard Johnson (Cassius) really fall well short of the mark with their over-dramatised emphasis on the language and the gestures. The costumes and photography in general look fine, but somehow that seems to add to this effort's problems - it lacks the intensity and intimacy of a stage performance. Indeed, I wonder if the same cast were to have done this in a theatre, might it not have been more distinguished? It is certainly worth a watch, there is a suitably rousing score from Michael J. Lewis, but I think the end product is not equal to the sum of it's parts.

Well-varnished and credible adaptation from early-'70s

[mark-rojinsky · 7/10 · 29 December 2021]

Very simply - a credible adaptation. Filmed at MGM Studios in Borhamwood , Pinewood and Madrid in July 1969 and released in 1970 - the early-'70s were pioneering years. Imperious US star, Charlton Heston - he of the hawk-like profile and lofty height is committed as Marc Antony while Sir John Gielgud is very good as Caesar: his English is superb, although Jason Robards is a very flat Brutus. The script and screenplay deploy the beautiful phrases from Shakespeare to good effect. The studio settings and props are well-varnished while the Spanish setting featuring Brutus's death scene and eulogy after the Battle of Phillipi features a spectacular sky at twilight - a mauve/mother-of-pearl colour which looks slightly surreal. Heston would return as Marc Antony in Antony & Cleopatra (1972) which was filmed in Almeria and Madrid between June and August 1971. Fraser Heston said that his father admired the 'mystique' of Spain.

A cure for insomnia, maybe.

[crothman · 5/10 · 25 February 2002]

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.

Saucy knaves shall loathe it, highbred nobles shall love it, moderates betwixt

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 17 March 2017]

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

Worthy Version that shouldn't be forgotten.

[paeap · 10/10 · 1 October 2001]

This is a pretty good film version of the play. Sure, Jason Robards is a little stiff at first, but he gets better as the film goes on. John Gielgud is fine as to be expected. Charlton Heston does an admirable job as Antony. Overall, this is a very good movie version that doesn't take a backseat to the earlier Mason/Brando version. Try to follow it up with the Antony and Cleopatra with Charlton Heston taking up the Antony role again. They complement each other well.

Strictly By-The-Book Adaptation

[hokeybutt · 5/10 · 23 April 2005]

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."

A great production ruined by one flat performance, saved by Charlton Heston

[jilldeel · 16 March 2019]

I don't know why they put Jason Robards in the starring role as Brutus. He is so flat, so emotionless and so miscast, it seriously mars the entire film. How the director couldn't once say "Jason! This is Shakespeare! Step it up a bit!"

No one likes anyone that chews the scenery but Robards is the other end of the spectrum. He sounds like someone giving the morning farm report reciting Shakespeare.

The saving grace of this film is Charlton Heston. It is obvious, he is too old for the role, but his mere presence and performance make up for his age and the flatness in the rest of the production. His "Friends, Romans, Countryman," speech is the finest performance of that speech you will ever witness. It is worth watching this film, simply to witness Heston outshine everyone else in the cast. and make this film worth the watch for his performance alone.

It is sad. I think what this film could have been, had a better actor been given Brutus, but alas, that is not the case. Fast forward through the rest of the film and just enjoy Heston!

Not nearly as good as the 1953 version

[Freedom060286 · 5/10 · 7 May 2015]

More than anything else, the poor performance by Jason Robards as Brutus ruined this movie. He sounded like a schoolboy who had never acted before, reading his lines for a play. Also, Robert Vaughn did a poor job as Casca.

However, some of the other cast members such as John Gielgud and Charlton Heston performed well. Diana Rigg was perfect as Portia, and Richard Johnson gave the best Cassius performance I've ever seen.

The costumes and cinematography were okay, but the direction left a lot to be desired. And the screen writing wasn't what it should have been either, they should have stayed with the lines from Shakespeare rather than rewriting the script.

Overall, despite some positive attributes, this is not a very good movie.

Unimpressive period drama.

[Achyut_Prashast_Singh · 2/10 · 8 June 2018]

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.