Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Good movie but grossly overrated

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

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

While the play is good, this particular movie, unfortunately, does not do it justice. When I first watched it I was put off by Jason Robard's all too noticeable American accent, but then, upon watching it a second time, unfortunately, so does Charlton Heston's accent. Personally, this is not Heston's best movie, and the only actor that actually does a decent job is John Geilgud (as one would expect from such a man). Another thing that just didn't seem to work is when Heston speaks the line 'friend's, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears'. He does it softly, and looking down, when I imagine it being said, as Mark Antony takes the stage after Brutus, and as the crowd beings to move off, loudly so as to immediately catch everybody's attention. A quick glance over the internet seems to suggest that I am not alone in this assessment of this movie.Julius Ceaser is a tragedy, but Ceaser is not the tragic hero, Brutus is. In fact, Brutus is the central character in this play, alongside Ceaser, and while the character of Ceaser bestrides the play as a colossus, and that every aspect of this play looks to Ceaser, with his death being the centerpiece upon which all of the action turns, it is to Brutus that our sympathy's lie, so let me talk a bit about the character of Brutus.First, while I may have said that Robard's accent undermines the movie, the way that he plays Brutus doesn't. He plays a character that moves through the entire play with a burden on his shoulder, and a deep sense of guilt at having to betray the man he loves. In fact, Mark Antony, the one who takes it on his shoulders to avenge Ceaser's murder, does not say one bad word against Brutus. I think Shakespeare does this on purpose, because Brutus has gone down in history, alongside Judas Iscariot, as the quintessential traitor. I don't think Shakespeare wants to demonise Brutus, not in the same sense that he demonises Richard III, or paints Cassius as the villain. Brutus is torn between his loyalty to his friend and his loyalty to the Republic. Therefore, in a sense, he is the reluctant conspirator.One can tell that this play is not going to be simple. While we are all familiar with how Ceaser was stabbed to death in the Roman Senate to protect the republic, the reasons behind his murder are complex. Cassius claims that Ceaser's ambition is his downfall, but Antony responds by saying not true. Three times Ceaser was handed the crown, and three times Ceaser refused to take it. However, when Ceaser is approached to be led to the senate, and he decides to stay with his wife, it is the crown that the conspirators use to lure him away.Then there is the triumph when Ceaser enters the play. A triumph was a celebration and festival to a man who had done great things for Rome, usually by defeating an enemy or adding territory to the empire. Ceaser had had a few of these. However, it is this latest one that raises the ire of Cassius because it is not a foreign enemy that Ceaser defeated, but one of their own – Pompey. Ceaser has ended the civil war and brought peace to Rome, but it is a peace that will not last as very quickly the empire is plunged back into war as the new triumvirate (Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus) march out to bring the conspirators to justice. Still, even when Antony stands over the corpse of Brutus, he does not have a bad thing to say about the man.

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.

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.