SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Purely Joyful Movie!

Gripping story with well-crafted characters

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Look, I hate to sound nasty, but this production was not good. The acting was crappy. Really execrable in cases. The dialogue was so awful. Historical accuracy -- not that I expect perfection, but what is the point of doing history if they make half of it up? And look, Jeremy Sisto, I despised him. What is up with him throwing away his lines, like the words or decisions are being forced out of him against his will? I see what he's trying to do, but not only does it seem inapproriate for the character, he does it really badly. He's playing the most dynamic leader of the mightiest empire in history. I saw very little of any charisma or take-charge personality that would inspire devotion in his legions. Sean Pertwee standing beside him makes him look like a muppet.And Christopher Walken. Shuffling around the Senate looking like he's really constipated. And it made no sense that for most of the movie, he looked like an ineffectual, finicky effeminate person, but when he goes to war he grows long hair and a beard and is suddenly virile and studly. Plus I thought his acting was bad. Except when he fell on his sword. I wish some other characters had done the same. All right -- maybe it's just that as an American, I was embarrassed that our actors are so inferior. Apollonius was excellent. Richard Harris was really good even though he was obviously so unwell. Vercingetorix -- liked him a a lot, though I must note that it looked like he got his trousers at a flea-market in Santa Cruz. Was Marc Antony American? Because I did think he was good. Oh, and Chris Noth -- he was not awful. He was pretty okay. Certainly looked the part.I'm sure no one cares, but if anyone liked Sean Pertwee in Cadfael, this is the role most similar to Hugh Beringar. In fact I thought his expressions looked like Hugh Beringar all grown up.

Time constraints did not permit all of the details to get into this film, but what was there was worth watching. Jeremy Sisto's Caesar was an excellent performance. For once in a historical feature about Caesar they started back early enough in history to bring Sulla into the picture.For historical accuracy: Marius, seven times Consul of Rome tried to break the back of the aristocracy. Sulla, representing that group finally got Marius banished and was declared Dictator of Rome for life, at which time he started to eliminate anyone opposed to him. Caeser, although a patrician was not very wealthy, and in order to work his way up in power had to become a man of the people. Which he remained to the end. After Sulla's death Gnaeus Magnaus Pompey tried to become the big name in Rome but was unable to accomplish it by himself, ultimately having to share power with Marcus Crassus (of the Spartacus Revolt fame) and Gaius Julius Caesar. Crassus did not last long being too old, but Caesar went on with his campaigns. This leads pretty much into the story presented here. This film presents all of this fairly well, even if it does take a few short cuts. Caesar's major failing was his predilection for pardoning his opponents and letting them into his favor, like the brutish Brutus who was nothing like the noble assassin in Shakespeare's play.A good feature, well worth the watching.

Julius Caesar is a very good film and it is worth watching if you're a sucker for history--though it's not completely historically accurate, for example Cato being a member of the senate when Sulla was in charge when he was only a teenager and putting Julia, Portia, Brutus and Marcus' ages the same when Julia and Brutus were at least six years older then Portia and Marcus. It was also disappointing not to see Brutus' mother Servilia, who was the love of Caesar's life, missing out an extra tension between her brother Cato and Caesar as well as the crude rumours that Brutus was Caesar's bastard son...But otherwise, it's a great show...So, what about the characters, you ask? Well, Caesar you might hate if you can't stand winners but he's nice to watch as too is his lovely wife Calpurnia who is the second best character in this series giving us so very wonderful scenes--especially her last scene with Portia and the dying Caesar. As for everyone else, Pompey is such a big-headed dude who I wouldn't trust at all--good job Julia was there (who is nice but she's irritating.) Antony can be a bit annoying, Cassius' special subject is the obvious and he might get on your nerves (her certainly gets on Brutus') Marcus (Cato's son) is an overgrown baby but he is noble and very sweet--he gives us a lovely scene towards the end with Cato and he stands up to Caesar. Brutus is the sort of guy you want to pat on the head but it's hard to decide whether you like him or curse him, and then his wife/cousin Portia who admittedly spends most of her time standing next to him looking pretty, does a remarkable wordless scene when she stumbles across Brutus planning the murder of Caesar.So who is the one you want to watch this for, well, partly Richard Harris—who plays the villain Sulla very well considering he spends most of his time playing friendly, old heroes—but mostly, you watch it so see Christopher Walken who plays the amazing and hypnotic Cato, father of Portia and uncle of Brutus. Walken is by far the best actor in this show—his way of grabbing your attention just with one sentence is remarkable and he pulls off the noble, stubborn and grumpy Cato perfectly making this film worth watching just to see his tear jerking death scene acted to perfection with the moving soundtrack this film has.Overall, I advice to you watch this if you are one of those people who is a sucker for the Roman history.

Just as I expected, the film contains tons of factual errors but I won't go into all that. I just want to get past that and fast.The biggest problem (and the reason I'm writing this) is the main leading actor. First of all, he doesn't physically look like the man he is supposed to. Secondly, his behavior is very timid and cautious. This guy doesn't have the elegance and determination that the dictator had. No sign of the genius. Why for the love of coffee was he cast?! Also, he is being portrayed as modern man with modern values so that the modern audience could relate to him easily.I guess it's because the movie makers need the money and audience is money. The other possibility is that they simply have not known what they were dealing with here. As this is a movie about one particular man, the main character is the single most important thing. I just can't recognize him from this product. These historical movies offer false history and many many people will live in lies because of these. It's a pity.