Well acted and very tense, Julius Caesar is a great ride that I would recommend to anyone looking for a good drama. This is what happens here, with Jason Robards having accepted a role he just wasn't cut out for, when the oft-elusive Orson Welles was unavailable. There is more attention paid to annunciating the words forcefully than to creating actual human characters. Indeed, many consider this film wildly erratic for various reasons, including one quixotic bit of casting that didn't come off. A magnificent adaptation of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, enhanced by the splendor of Rome at its full glory under Julius Caesar. The problem with most of the acting, particularly that of Charlton Heston, is that it seems to be more recitation than acting. Charlton Heston plays Mark Antony, a sympathizer of Caesar who condemns the murder.
A real good interpreter of the Bard who played Cassius back in 1954 plays Caesar here. 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. He conveys a lot of subtle emotions, as well as a great ability to express rage. The real role that justifies the price of admission is that of the Brit, Richard Johnson whose angry, sullen Cassius stands out against Robards's wooden Brutus. Robert Vaughn shines as Casca as does Richard JohnsonasCassius. Featuring a mixed cast of British and American actors, the result ismainly predictable but some surprises and disappointments also feature. More to the point, theeffete Gielgud lacked the masculine force to play this virileex-general whose battlefield victories were said to be matched only byhis conquests in the bedroom.
Jill Bennet is sympathetic as the prophetic wifeof Caesar but in the role of Brutus' wife the well-born Portia, DianaRigg at age thirty-two looks luscious and is simply superb--Shakespearein the finest style. Well, that's minor, but the thing is, this movie doesn't give you anything that unique. This version is astrue to Shakespeare as any film I have seen. Jason Robards is a fine actor, but not as Brutus, unless Stuart Burge intended to experiment with this role as a Spaghetti Western. By now in his late forties and sporting an obvious, bright redhairpiece, Charlton Heston seemed an odd Antony when first seen. Charlton Heston does a solid turn as Marc Antony although in his journals he admits that's not such a big trick, since, in his view, if you can't do Marc Antony, you probably shouldn't be doing The Bard in the first place.
In a few ways, it actually does improve over the 1953 version because the actual assassination of Caesar is depicted well. Vítima de uma conspiração por parte de alguns senadores romanos, o filme mostra o assassinato de Júlio César, nos idos de março, como um adivinho havia previsto. Robert Vaughn is a surprisingly good Casca, perhaps Cassius' closest supporter; Richard Chamberlain is Octavian, Antony's ally in routing the conspirators? John Gielgud exchanges Cassius's robes from the 1953 film for those of the titular figure? My dear wife maylove Hamlet, but for me it is Caesar; I have loved this play since I was inelementary school, and had the great joy of seeing it in 1966 at StratfordOntario with a brilliant young Bruno Gerussi as Antony: there was a livelyAntony to make Brando's look somnambulant. Brutus and Cassius plot to kill Roman Emperor Julius Caesar as a result of his growing arrogance of power. Still, the play is the thing, as the old saying goes.
Jason Robards plays Brutus like a wooden Indian for the first two acts. The acting could be better, but it's just fine overall. When I was in Hollywood, I had watched another Shakespearean film adaptation from the same director? Charlton Heston in his memoirs takes blame for casting Robards and Robards himself realized he was miscast. Remains surprisingly true to Shakespeare's adaptation and working directly from the original, unlike many other historical movies of the same era. Christopher Lee, who receives fairly prominent billing, has only a very negligible role? I guess the pacing is nice, but the battle scenes aren't that good. Julius Caeser was an enigmatic character historically, as well as in Shakespeare's portrayal of him.
Of course, the text is shortened, but all essential scenes are kept. 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. Another veteran Shakespearian, Richard Johnson, isnearly as good as the jealous, manipulative Cassius. Given my love for the play, Iawait the day that some computer genius releases this version having excisedpoor Jason Robarts and inserted James Mason from the Brando movie. 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! Christopher Lee and Robert Vaughn both execute their roles splendidly as do the ladies, Jill Bennett and the ever lovely Diana Rigg.
Aristocrat party prepares a conspiracy and March 15, 44 b. Oddly enough in that earlier version James Mason as Brutus was the best one in the film. He resembled nothing so much as a barrel with a head on top. The length was pretty good, but there's just nothing to really recommend it over any other Shakespeare movie. Antony and Brutus are each worried about their place in Caesar's affections and Brutus figures he's lost out to Antony.
. This good rendition of the Shakespeare playwright talks about tragedy, ambition, politics, corruption and wars. A magnificent adaptation of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, enhanced by thesplendor of Rome at its full glory under Julius Caesar. Diana Rigg as Portia has just one scene alongside her husband, Brutus, but the future Dame clearly outshines the miscast Robards! But given how hard it is to pull Shakespeare off cinematically, it is worth a 7 out of 10. While he does not asmuch look the part, his Marc Antony provides a sturdy center for thissecond filming of the Shakespeare tragedy. The thing, though, is that a lot of the focus of the play, and subsequently the film, is not so much on Caesar as much as it is on Marcus Brutus, the man torn between his allegiance to Caesar and a need to save the Roman Republic from Caesar's machinations. 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.
Why is it that the actors portraying Julius Caesar and Brutus look so similar? Had film been around in Shakespeare's time, I would imagine this being exactly how he would want the film to look, presented on a very grand scale, with dazzling set pieces, but always staying through to the relationship between characters and their dialogue. And you have, in the main, a great cast. John Gielgud as Caesar does his lines beautifully, as always, but does not quite convey the menace and power of Caesar. The growing ambition of Julius Caesar is a source of major concern to his close friend Brutus. . Also, Charlton Heston had ascholarly side unusual for a Hollywood actor. Sinopse Pt Br: A ascensão e a queda do grande general e ditador romano, o último Cônsul da República Romana.
This gripping flick will like to Shakespeare devotees but its spirit is intact in spite of are taken some liberties. In the third act however--that is, after Brutus and Cassius have fledRome--he seems to grow in the part and his acting gains conviction. He's a fine actor; he's just not the best fit for Shakespeare. John Gielgud is equally fine in both versions. 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.