That was an excellent one.

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

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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

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

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.

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.