I'll tell you why so serious

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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

Julius Caesar, the classic story of power corrupting and what happens when it's usurped, is the stuff of a near-masterpiece in 1950's Hollywood. The direction is elegant and timed just right to get the performers on their beats and delivering more and then some. Interesting to see the intensity so LARGE on the fronts of both fronts of British classical-trained theater (John Gielgud, as the most psychologically pathological character, Cassius, fully delivering the goods, plus James Mason being his Mason-iest) and the Method (Brando, seeming like he's always been in these robes - at least this week).It's Shakesepare on Golden-age Hollywood scale, but it's kept intimate when it counts, and the material is allowed to shine fully. This is the Godfather of political dramas, and so many, many lines have been taken into just everyday grammar; aside from the 'fault is not in our stars' line, listen for others like ' O pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth' or 'it was Greek to me'. And yet it's not simply that these actors get some of the meatiest-dramatic lines ever written, like in the history of all civilizations, but that this is all about what it means to have, take, live with, demolish and get back or keep protected Power, with a capital P.It's almost unfair to give a proper review to the film after seeing it once, as certain big set pieces - or even a couple of the conversations that Cassius has with Brutus or the other Roman senators plotting the death of their "beloved" Caesar - are quite dense with visual touches and details of performance. When Brando has his major set piece (he's not in as much of the film as you might expect, but his presence is felt more, which seems to be a thing with Brando character), addressing the crowd devastated over the loss of their ruler, it's a pinnacle of acting. He isn't just talking to no one, or to himself. He's making it very personal, all the more sad and that the revenge against the betrayers all the more stronger. How to sway a crowd is the name of the dramatic angle here, and it's the stuff of the best Hollywood dramatic acting, writing and direction (and art direction too, what sets) could offer.Is it perfect? Maybe not. The final battle is good but almost, to me, a little short, as if Mankiewicz steps up to make an epic conclusion, but decides to side-step it as if he isn't totally trusting in his capabilities (that would come later, one supposes, with Cleopatra as far as BIG epics went). And yet the final moments with Cassius and Brutus are so effective it makes one want to say nevermind. Especially Gielgud impresses here, with a role that requires a lot of forceful talking, bordering on yelling, with declarations and insinuations and other things - as big as his acting is, just as with Brando and Mason to an extent, though he kind of pulls it back when he can (see the tent scene between Brutus and Cassius before battle), there's subtleties there, little moments you can see the actor working through the emotional logic first, the dense Shakespeare poetry second.As with many Shakesepare movies, it may help being familiar with the play ahead of time to get all of the words and idiosyncracies of the Bard prose. But as far as just the core story goes, it's the stuff of legend. Surely one of those films of the 50's, along with On the Waterfront and Streetcar, where you can run it in an acting school and it might almost be enough to show the movie without any lecture to understand how to command attention from a partner, the audience, the whole world.

In contrast to the last two Shakespearean films that I watched, namely the 1968 versions of "Romeo and Juliet" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream", this is an adaptation of a play with which I was already familiar, though not to the same extent as some of his other works. A brilliant psychological drama which is very well adapted for the silver screen, the play 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. The direction of Joseph L. Mankiewicz is superb. Incidentally, he later directed "Cleopatra", in which Caesar and Mark Antony are likewise important characters.Brutus is one of the most complex characters that I have come across in a Shakespearean play. He is played wonderfully by James Mason, who reprised the role from a 1940s production at the Abbey Theatre in Dublin. Brutus 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 think that Brutus is an essentially good but misguided man who is so idealistic that it blinds him to Antony's machinations until it is too late. Mason plays the role with a great sense of quiet dignity. We also see the warmer sides of the character. He is a loving husband to his wife Portia, played extremely well in her one scene by Deborah Kerr, and a kind master to his young slave Lucius. I think that Mason deserved a Best Actor nomination for the role.Without a doubt, however, the best performance of the film comes from Marlon Brando as Mark Antony in his only on screen Shakespearean role. I have to admit that I have never been a huge fan of Brando and, like some people at the time, I was a little apprehensive before watching the film as his mumbling style of acting certainly would not fit into the world of Shakespeare. However, I need not have worried as not only does he enunciate his lines as clearly as possible but he is never less than absolutely engrossing and compelling. He truly excels in the extremely long funeral oration scene. I have never seen him give a better performance, to be honest. In spite of the fact that he has only about 30 to 35 minutes screen time, he was nominated for Best Actor for the third of four consecutive times. As strong as his performance was, he should probably have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor. 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. With the exception of Brando and Mason, the strongest performer is the great Sir John Gielgud - who later played Caesar himself in the 1970 version - as Cassius, another extremely compelling character. Like Mason, Gielgud was reprising his role from a stage production. Cassius' 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. Louis Calhern is very strong as Caesar, who 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. Greer Garson - no longer the box office draw that she once was by 1953 - is good as Caesar's wife Calpurnia but she's nowhere near as natural as in some of her earlier films, particularly "Goodbye, Mr. Chips". The film has a very strong cast overall, though some of them only have small roles: Edmond O'Brien as Casca, Alan Napier (later the Alfred to Adam West's Batman) as Cicero, George Macready as Marullus, John Hoyt as Decius Brutus, Richard Hale as the Soothsayer, Ian Wolfe as Ligarius and a young Michael Ansara - with that fantastic voice of his - as Pindarus. Funnily enough, many of those actors turned up in the original "Star Trek" years later. The only real weak link is William Cottrell as Cinna but his role is small too.Overall, this is an excellent adaptation of one of Shakespeare's best tragedies.

Of course the most talked about actor of this movie is Marlon Brando but what about James Mason? He deserves just as much recognition and appreciation for his role in this movie and in my opinion he's also being the actor in the movie and perhaps also plays the biggest role in it.This is a very old fashioned movie and I'm not talking 1953 old but Shakespeare kind of old. The movie is filled with long and difficult to follow dialog, like only Shakespeare could had wrote it. You obviously need to be able to appreciate Shakespeare in order to enjoy this movie, otherwise you'll probably have difficulties finish watching it.Best things about a Shakespeare movie, next to its writing, are always the acting performances. A good Shakespeare-performance can make or break a movie. No risks were taking with this movie, as the movie its cast is being filled with some big name actors. Besides Brando and Mason the movie also stars the likes of John Gielgud, Edmond O'Brien, Deborah Kerr and many other actors that had already made name at the time of this production, both in theater and in movies.The movie is one about betrayal, loyalty and idealistic motives. It focuses on the assassination of Julius Caesar and its conspirators who committed it. One the one side we have the senators who are afraid of Ceasar's growing power and idealistic motives, while on the other we have Mark Antony, loyal to his leader and friend Caesar. After the assassination both become opponents. The movie and its story are mostly being based on historical facts, as they got documented during and after the first Caesar's reign.Of course the movie foremost is being a stage-play, brought to the silver-screen. This means that the acting is very stagy and also the movie its sets often look like they come straight out of the theater. This however very rarely matters for a Shakespeare movie, fore the movies are all about its writing and acting performances from the leading actors.Simply a great Shakespeare adaptation, with a first rate cast.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/