Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

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

red-95752 The book and the movie of Julius Caesar isn't my tastes. This is my opinion of the movie and I do respect others opinions. But this movie is a snooze a thon. I paid $5 for this movie on Amazon and thankfully I got my refund, but still waste of my time that now I cant get back. It was just terrible acting and very boring. Fell asleep on the couch after watching not even 10 minutes of it, I woke up to realize it was still on and the sooze a thon went on and on and it felt like the movie was on forever. I seriously don't recommend this movie. Please don't waste your hard earned money and time for this. For Christ sake its 2018, not the medieval times!

Wuchak Released in 1953 and based on William Shakespeare's play, "Julius Caesar" chronicles the last days of Julius Caesar (Louis Calhern) in mid-March, 44 BC. John Gielgud plays Cassius, the leader of a group of high-ranking Romans who seek to assassinate Julius while James Mason appears as reluctant accomplice, Brutus. Marlon Brando plays Mark Antony, a sympathizer of Caesar who condemns the murder. Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr are stunning as Calpurnia and Portia respectively. Douglass Watson plays Octavius, Caesar's nephew.Whether or not you'll like this B&W 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. Brando is captivating as usual, particularly in his extended funeral speech to the citizens, but he has greater performances playing more interesting characters in better movies, like "The Young Lions" (1958), "One-Eyed Jacks" (1961), "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962), "The Missouri Breaks" (1976) and "Apocalypse Now" (1979), to name a handful. If you like this one I encourage you to also check out the 1970 version, which is the same movie 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. Charlton Heston is just as effective as Brando in the same role, albeit in his unique manner. It's interesting comparing the two movies because each have their strong and weak points. The film runs 120 minutes and was shot in Culver City, California (studio) and nearby Iverson Ranch & Bronson Caves, Los Angeles. It was directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz. GRADE: C

punishmentpark It would have been quite helpful if I had read the play 'Julius Caesar' by William Shakespeare before seeing this film, but I am not an avid reader. I do enjoy this kind of majestic English though, but to really get every word of it, I'd need to see it again... and again, and again. So, perhaps this is a 'classic in the making' for me.The story is carefully set up (well, of course...), with some outstanding monologues that really... stand out, yes. For instance the one by Marlon Brando in the market place - with the body of Caesar (and the crowd) at his feet - it is simply captivating. All the other roles are as much enjoyable, with the particular mention of James Mason playing the quintessential Brutus.The battle scene at the end is also worth a separate mention. It is not the best action scene I've ever seen, but it has its own charm and you can just tell how much work must has gone into it. Sort of a cherry on top, if you will.'Julius Caesar' is a thoroughly enjoyable oldie, one which may get more points from me when I've seen it again (and again) and more of the dialogues and monologues have had their chance to bloom.

giovanna-valentin I really didn't like the movie even more then i hated the book. For starters the movie was in black and white , everyone looked the same and i was extremely not interested in this film. while reading the book i made pictures in my head of how i thought each character would look but when watching the movie all the characters looked alike to me. The language i think was the hardest thing for me to cope with because i am already not good with big words and having to watch a whole movie with nothing but huge words made me not interested at all. i didn't know who was who or what was going on in both the story and film. I didn't like the fact that the movie was in black and white.i think i didn't really like the movie because i already hated the book which made me not even care to pay much attention to the movie. i think if i payed more attention to the movie i could of understood it a little more but since i didn't ... thats why i was so lost. One thing i do like about the movie was that it was very close to the book we were reading which made me a tiny bit able to be focused. Now looking back i wish i had payed more attention to the story so that i wouldn't be so lost right now trying to write reviews and things on the book.