Julius Caesar

1971 "No grander Caesar... No greater cast!"
6.1| 1h57m| G| en| More Info
Released: 03 February 1971 Released
Producted By: Commonwealth United Entertainment
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

All-star cast glamorizes this lavish 1970 remake of the classic William Shakespeare play, which portrays the assassination of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March, and the resulting war between the faction led by the assassins and the faction led by Mark Anthony.

Genre

Drama, History, War

Watch Online

Julius Caesar (1971) is currently not available on any services.

Director

Stuart Burge

Production Companies

Commonwealth United Entertainment

Julius Caesar Videos and Images
View All
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Julius Caesar Audience Reviews

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life
HottWwjdIam There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.
ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.
Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
aramis-112-804880 "Julius Caesar" is perhaps the most accessible of Shakespeare's plays. Short, direct, pithy. It's a cautionary play about the error of assassination. With a cast of wonderful actors down to the smallest roles, this should have been a classic for the ages.Charlton Heston is a great Marc Antony. Richard Chamberlain is a feisty Octavian. Diana Rigg is perhaps the loveliest ever Portia; and talented as she was as the "Avengers" action star, she does Shakespeare like she was born to it. The real prize of this flick, however, was Robert Vaughn's sly, humorous Casca. It's a shame Shakespeare didn't give him more screen time.Not only is the major cast full of headline stars, aficionados of English actors will recognize the names Preston Lockwood, Andrew Morell, Ron Pember, Michael Gough and others in very minor parts.Unfortunately, what sinks this movie like the Titanic is possibly the worse casting decision in human history, Jason Robards as Brutus. In case you don't know, the star of "Julius Caesar" isn't John Gielgud's Caesar or Heston's powerful Antony. It's Brutus, the man who tries to usher in a republic but who, assassinating an old friend who looks to become a tyrant, inadvertently brings forth the Roman Empire.Robards is TERRIBLE. He walks zombie-like through the early part of the flick. An actor known for his greatness in Eugene O'Neill, Robards seems to have never heard of Shakespeare. His leaden delivery (if one can call it that) of lines shows no distinction between one word and the next. It's not like he thinks every word is as important as the next, but that none of them matter a whit. He might be a foreign actor reading the words phonetically off cue cards.Toward the end Robards shows a bit of life, but by that time we're all asleep. And he's still giving the lines like he never considered what they meant. Robards makes the whole thing look like a high school production put on for extra credit.Another bad casting decision is Richard Johnson as Cassius. A good actor in normal circumstances, Johnson was probably a poor choice as he was not well known to American audiences. The scenes between Cassius and Brutus should be subtle, often delivered with a wry wit. But with Robards seeming to feel he's done his bit by showing up at all, in their mutual scenes Johnson gives the feeling he's a lone reindeer dragging the sleigh by main force.Johnson should have studied Diana Rigg, who gives a subtle and touching performance as Portia, apparently deciding it was best to pretend Robards wasn't in the room.I don't know if this was a period when Robards was hitting the bottle, but he sunk what might have been a masterpiece. One wonders, where was the director? Director Stuart Burge is not well-known. His work consisted mostly of television stuff; but he had done great plays before, juggling temperamental actors like Olivier, Redgrave, Michael Hordern and Jeremy Brett, amongst others. Why was he MIA, instead of telling Robards to snap out of it or he'd hire a real actor? Since Brutus is the central character of the play (which should have been called "The Tragedy of Brutus" . . . well, Robards alone turns the whole enterprise into a disaster. It's like watching a train wreck. You can see the tragedy coming but there's not a darn thing you can do to stop it.It's not a total waste of talent. Johnson and Chamberlain try to take too much upon themselves, but some of the stars are worth watching, including Heston, Vaughn and Rigg. If you must watch this sluggish mess, keep your thumb on the fast forward.
judithnelson07 I've seen plenty bum Shakespeare, but Jason Robards as Brutus he takes me the cake. He resembled nothing so much as a barrel with a head on top. The rest of the cast was pretty good, however, especially Richard Johnson as Cassius (why wasn't HE Brutus), Diana Rigg as Portia and Charlton Heston as Antony. John Gielgud as Caesar does his lines beautifully, as always, but does not quite convey the menace and power of Caesar. (He was better as Cassius in the 1953 version.) Interesting here is the contrast in line delivery between Johnson and Robards; it makes you wonder why Cassius isn't the leader and hope of the conspiracy. Production values are sometimes dubious; but battle scenes are better than the cowboys-and-Indians fight in the 1953 version. Of course, the text is shortened, but all essential scenes are kept.
tfrizzell Unintentionally hilarious working of Shakespeare's musings loses its way early with a prodding pace, an under-achieving screenplay and corn-filled acting from some admittedly good performers. Charlton Heston chews up the screen as Marc Antony while Jason Robards ends up being wasted as Brutus. A major problem is Caesar's (John Gielgud) departure very early with little explanation. This will leave most unfamiliar with Shakespeare in a total daze. The production values are not too high and honestly the whole thing has that PBS Masterpiece Theater feel to it rather than that wide-spread movie-house aspect that it desperately had to have. Really though a cinematic miracle was needed here as the movie feels stale and dry. 2.5 out of 5 stars.
skoyles 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.