IMDb user comments for
Julius Caesar (1970)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

15 comments in total

---

10 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
What a dud!, 11 October 1999
Author: peacham from Wilkes-Barre

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.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the better movie versions of a Shakespeare play., 5 September 1999

Author: Curtis Crawford (curtiscrawford@juno.com) from Charlottesville VA, USA

Much better than the earlier Julius Caesar, which starred Marlon Brando as Mark Antony and James Mason as Brutus. In this version, Jason Robards as Brutus is admittedly an embarrassment, but the rest of the cast is quite strong. The delivery of Antony's funeral oration by Charlton Heston is brilliant, powerful, well-paced, the dramatic high point of the movie. Richard Johnson as Cassius, John Gielgud as Caesar, Robert Vaughn as Casca and Diana Rigg as Portia are fine actors, with full dramatic presence, at home in Shakespeare's language. Brief parts, like the soothsayer's and the cobbler's, are memorably played. The screenplay omits two short passages that are important to the plot: (1) Cassius' avowal in the first act, after his attempt to persuade Brutus to oppose Caesar, that if their positions were reversed and he, Cassius, stood as well with Caesar as Brutus does, and Brutus made a comparable appeal to him, he would certainly not listen. (2) Immediately after the assassination, a promise by Brutus to Antony's servant of safe conduct for Antony, who thus knows when he comes to the Capitol and weeps over Caesar's body, challenging the conspirators to kill him also, that there is no danger of their doing so.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Very Good Overall, 14 November 2002

Author: Tom-497

As others have noted, Jason Robards' performance as Brutus has real problems, particularly at the start. While playing the character as vague and distracted is certainly justified by the text, Robards often appears just this side of comatose. James Mason was far better in the older film version.

The biggest and best surprise is Heston's strength as Antony. He believably conveys an interesting mixture of loyalty, craftiness, and ambition. And his work in the funeral oration is well-paced and well-directed. Overall, this version has a lot going for it -- it's among the better Shakespeare adaptations that I know of.

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Eying Each Other, 6 April 2006

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

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.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Flawed, faithful and pierced by brilliance, 15 December 2003
Author: skoyles from Calgary AB Canada

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.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Shakespeare done correctly and brilliantly, 28 March 2005

Author: scumbagstyle from long island, ny

This is a film built entirely for fans of Shakespeare. If you want a truly cinematic version, try the Brando version. This version is as true to Shakespeare as any film I have seen. John Gielgud in his second Julius Caesar film role, this time as Caesar himself, is studied and brilliant. Brutus plays off of Antony well as the weaker of the generals. Surprisingly, Heston plays a brilliant Antony, strong and resilient, as Antony should be played, and showing a serious command of the language and supernatural world of Shakespeare's Caesar. I recommend this film for any true reader or scholar of Shakespeare as the definitive Julius Caesar film adaptation. If you want Hollywood-type entertainment, go for the earlier but flashier Brando version.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
O mighty Caesar! dost thou lie so low? Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils, shrunk to this little measure?, 27 May 2003

Author: John (mailboy@e-vision.com.au) from Melbourne, Australia

A magnificent adaptation of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, enhanced by the splendor of Rome at its full glory under Julius Caesar. Charlton Heston is at his best as Marc Anthony and makes you feel as if Shakespeare wrote the part for him. I have mixed feelings about the choice of John Gielgud as Caesar. There are times in the movie that he portrays Caesar well as the aloof dictator and others when he overacts as he does in most of his roles. Jason Robards is a fine actor, but not as Brutus, unless Stuart Burge intended to experiment with this role as a Spaghetti Western. Robard's dialogue is wooden. Robert Vaughn shines as Casca as does Richard Johnson as Cassius. Richard Chamberlain portrays well a self opinionated Octavius Caesar. The opening of the movie is a masterpiece of imagery and impact and one is plunged into the involvement of the triumphal entry of Julius Caesar into Rome and the aftermath. Why on earth there has been no DVD release of this movie beggar's belief.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
A Great Roman Adventure, 8 June 1999
Author: José Alexandre Lima Gazineo (alex@wbr.com.br)

This adaptation of Shakeaspeare's play is a really winner. The dialogues are precise, the cast is outstanding, with great performances by Heston, Gielgud and Richard Johnson.I think this film could be reprogrammed in all the theathers around the world to give a chance to the new generation appreciate a fine work based upon a play of one of the most important writers of the history.

---

JULIUS CAESAR (Stuart Burge, 1970) **1/2, 30 April 2008

Author: MARIO GAUCI (marrod@onvol.net) from Naxxar, Malta

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…

---

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Worthy Version that shouldn't be forgotten., 1 October 2001

Author: paeap

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history