IMDb user comments for
Julius Caesar (1953) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Index

54 reviews in total

---

27 out of 35 people found the following review useful:
"Ah, how you weep", 16 February 2005

Author: Michael Bo (michael.bo@pol.dk) from Copenhagen, Denmark

50 years after the fact, the most interesting angle on Mankiewicz' 'Julius Caesar' is perhaps the blend of acting styles that characterizes it. With Mankiewicz dialogue is all, and it is a source of endless fascination to me how he manages to make this a uniformly brilliantly acted film.

Mankiewicz doesn't strive to open up the play and make it naturalistic, but he does allow his camera to roam freely, creating space around his characters. But it is in his directing of the actors that he excels, the way that he shows the fragile dynamics in the crowd of conspirators before and after their stabbing of Caesar even more than in the famous monologues. Will history frown upon them? Or applaud their act? "That we shall die, we know", all else is uncertain.

Of course the key scene of the film and Shakespeare's play, takes place right after Caesar's assassination. The rabble has gathered at the Capitol to hear Brutus explain himself, and James Mason, in a refreshingly un-actorish way, beautifully defends Brutus the well-intentioned butcher, laying bare the dilemma of the noble assassin. It was "not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more", and he sways the crowd with his rhetoric.

Then Brando takes the floor, speaking up for his benefactor, the slain Caesar: "Friend, Romans and countrymen, lend me your ear", he says, having carried the bloodied corpse out in his arms. His speech gradually builds in momentum, and the sheer excitement of watching Brando's performance today is reason enough to watch the film. How elegantly, deftly he speaks treason against Brutus and the new would-be rulers. "They are honourable men", he says, and the discrete colouring of the adjective makes it obvious how Mark Anthony really feels about it. "If you have tears, prepare to shed them now" indeed. There are layers in Brando's performance that warrants more than one viewing, just the tolerant half-smile when he is playing the rabble for suckers. "Ah, how you weep". His unfathomable half-smile turns up again near the end, and it speaks volumes.

Of course, John Gielgud as Cassius is volatile and very rooted in the British thespian tradition which doesn't lend itself easily to film in my opinion. Film actor Edmond O'Brien is great as the ambitious and untrustworthy Casca, but unfortunately the women have little to do. Brutus' wife Portia is played by Deborah Kerr who never looked more stunning than here, and she delivers her few lines with conviction. Greer Garson is Caesar's wife, warning him against making an appearance at the Capitol on the fateful day, but she is hardly given any screen-time.

The film is not the last word in Shakespeare in any sense of the word, but it is entertaining and true to what it sets out to do. And the acting styles blend together wonderfully.

---

22 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
An excellent film, 18 May 1999

Author: Albert Sanchez Moreno from United States

This production stands as a shining example of how a big Hollywood studio, in this case M-G-M, can make a great Shakespeare film, cast it intelligently, and still end up with box-office names. No less than five Hollywood stars - Marlon Brando, James Mason, Deborah Kerr, Greer Garson, and Edmond O'Brien, are in this film (although two of them have barely five minutes of screen time) and the entire cast gives fine performances.

James Mason, who actually has the leading role of Brutus (despite the fact that Brando gets top billing) is excellent, giving a conscience-stricken, restrained performance--he even LOOKS the way one likes to imagine that Brutus must have looked. Marlon Brando reminds us of what a brilliant actor he once was--for an actor who deliberately stayed away from Shakespeare, his performance is remarkable--and every word he says is understandable. This film was the great John Gielgud's first chance to immortalize one of his great roles on film and to show movie audiences what made him such a renowned Shakespearean actor---his Cassius is full of envy that seems about to boil over any minute. Louis Calhern, a rather hammy villain in other films, is subtly unsympathetic, yet vulnerable as Julius Caesar. The photography is fine and completely unobtrusive---as is the music; director Mankiewicz has filmed the play without resorting to any gimmicks or cheap "Hollywoody" stunts,and the adaptation is so faithful that no one gets on screen credit for it.

Who cares about historical inaccuracies when you can see a great play as well acted as this one?

---

16 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
Definitely not "The Ten Commandments"!, 26 January 2004

Author: Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) from Deming, New Mexico

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A lot of people don't like Shakespeare much. Maybe they're intimidated by the language or the complicated plots. It's understandable. The Bard came up with some real clunkers: "Comedy of Errors," "Love's Labour Lost." And it's hard to read the plays in the raw because you're liable to understand one word out of every three, and lose most of the topical references. If anybody's going to read the things, they ought to use the Signet paperbacks that have footnotes on every page explaining the more arcane content.

But good performances of the better plays are different, and this is a good performance of a better play. The dialog itself is sometimes lifted wholesale from Plutarch's "Lives..." but WS put them together well. Caesar is full of lines that have entered our everyday vocabularies, even if often corrupted. "Beware the Ides of March." "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves." "The coward dies a thousand deaths, the valiant die but once." "Et tu, Brute?" "The most unkindest cut of all." "It was all Greek to me." And (fanfare here, please), the famous, "Friends, Romans, countrymen -- lend me your ears." Reminds me of the story of the woman who left a performance of "Hamlet" unimpressed, saying, "I don't know what's supposed to be so good about it. It's all made up of old quotations."

At that, this version of "Julius Caesar" is chopped down a bit to make it shorter and eliminate some redundancies and other infelicities. In the play, Brutus hears the clocks chime, whereas all the Romans had for clocks were water wheels. And Brutus is twice told of his wife Portia's death, and each time reacts with surprise and Stoicism. (He really WAS a stoic, which is a nice philosophy if you can actually believe it.)

The performances are uniformly delightful for one reason or another. John Guilgud, of course, is superb, born for the part of Cassius. In fact all the UK actors come across as fitting the roles very comfortably. Something about those impressive Brit accents. Even Greer Garson, who hams it up shamelessly as Calpurnia. What makes this film such a fascinating experience is that the cast list is filled with people from the MGM stable whom we would never associate with Shakespeare. Okay, George MacReady is there, but he always sounded vaguely British anyway. But Edmund O'Brien as Casca? And doing a good job too? Tom Powers as one of the assassins? (He's the old grouch who got murdered in "Double Indemnity.") And the Senator who talks Caesar into going forth and then stabs him? He played in a Twilight Zone episode, "Will the Real Martian Please Stand Up?" He was the Martian with THREE ARMS. Yet he's good too. And the guy who acts as Mark Antony's messenger to the assassins? He's the stupid hillbilly from Tennessee who helps snare Robert Ryan in "Crossfire." Even Ned Glass is in here as a cobbler. And Michael Pate and Michael Ansara who played gangsters or Indians. Brando is in a league of his own. His Brit accent comes and goes but he's never less than wily and impressive, as opposed to James Mason's rational and honorable Brutus. The key to the plot lies in Mason's and Brando's speeches to the crowd after the murder. Mason is apologetic, logical. Brando, on the other hand, is a really phony and manipulative SOB. What a rabble rouser. He fakes tears, appeals to the mob's greed instead of their brains, and every time he refers to Brutus as "an honorable man" his voice grows more sarcastic and angry. What an admirable piece of work.

It's well mounted too, on stylized sets, not pretending to much realism. If they did it today it would cost four hundred billion dollars. This is probably one of the two or three easiest and best-paced versions of a Shakespeare play I've ever seen, and the one I enjoy the most. Yeah, it's a curiosity (Douglas Dumbrille, the black-hatted Western villain, in Julius Caesar?) but it's gripping and it's a grown-up story in the sense that nobody is truly evil or entirely good. This isn't on TV very often, but if you have a chance, do catch it. Highly recommended.

---

17 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
Mankiewicz fills the screen with vitality on the plains of Shakespeare's imagination..., 22 October 2000

Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico

William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the greatest writer of all time... His plays, written in the 16th and early 17th centuries for a small repertory theater, are today performed more often and in more countries than ever before...

"Julius Caesar" is rich in its insights, the struggle for political power, the embellishment of the mind, and the characters of men...

Joseph L. Mankiewicz captures Shakespeare's characters in elegant visuals projecting the beauty of the language, producing civilized entertainment... Its message fills the screen with vitality on the plains of Shakespeare's imagination...

The film is set in Rome 44 B.C. The city is rich with the privileges of its empire, much of it caused by the pretentious Caesar (Louis Calhern) appointing himself dictator... Caesar's greater character flaw, thinking that he is far above others and somehow invincible...

Loyal to Caesar is Mark Antony (Marlon Brando), a brave, intelligent, pleasure-loving cunning man - a character with many hidden traits, misunderstood by all...

Mark Anthony looks at life as a game in which he had a signified part to play... He seems slow to emerge, until he is forced to show his true potential... He is devoted and prefers to be dependent upon Caesar... He wants the crown of emperor to be given to him, so all conflicts could be avoided...

But Brutus (James Mason), an old friend of Caesar, is torn between his personal feelings and his integrity and idealism where the Romans would possess peace, liberty and freedom...

The scrupulous, unselfish Brutus resents Caesar's ambition as absolute ruler... Being very honorable, but very naive, he underestimates Mark Antony, perceiving him as a person who didn't always take life seriously and therefore - he is not a cautious thinker...

The story begins on a festival day as Caesar and his entourage make their way to the stadium... On the way, a blind beggar warns Caesar of 'The Ides of March' (On the middle of the month, the daggers came from every side...) but he is ignored...

In the stadium, the sarcastic Cassius (John Gielgud) sees Brutus as the influential Roman able to unite the nobles in the conspiracy... He implores him to join his cause... For him, Caesar has become too powerful and too popular... He must be removed from power...

Cassius is the most significant character for his ability to perceive the true motives of the characters... He thinks the nobility of Rome is responsible for the government of Rome... Brutus, the back-bone of the plan, agrees to the plot, but refuses Cassius's proposal to slain Mark Antony...

After the conspirators have left, Brutus' wife Portia (Deborah Kerr) asks to know what it is that worries him...

Caesar's wife, Calpurnia (Greer Garson) begs her husband to stay home and not to go to the Senate, for fear of danger... As a superstitious woman she was convinced that some falling meteors are warnings of her husband's death... But Caesar believes his friends have assembled to offer him the crown of emperor... So he moves forward, leaving unopened letter which lists the conspirators...

---

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Roman Plots, Acting Hotshots and an Excellent Shakespeare Adaptation, 21 April 2007

Author: jimmy-chopsocky from Bolton, England

Well if you're going to bring the Bard to the big-screen you may as well do it properly. Bring in some of the best actors of the day, build some impressive sets, back it with a Miklós Rózsa score and don't diminish the dialogue: voilà! A victorious adaptation of Shakespeare for all to see on the silver screen. Joseph L. Mankiewicz's take on the play Julius Caesar is one such winner.

Louis Calhern is the legendary Roman rex in this retelling of the incidents leading up to and after the Ides of March assassination. The key players however are James Mason as Brutus, Marlon Brando as Marc Anthony and a frighteningly great John Gielgud as Cassius. Throughout, the acting, so crucial in any stage-drama, is superb. All on show exhibit their thespian technique and theatre training to a tremendous degree in order to make an adaptation of both interest and enjoyment. As an exhibition of the excellence on offer, see Marlon Brando's speech to the crowds after Caesar's killing and the gradual fearing up of Mason to readiness to murder. Shakespeare would certainly be satisfied.

The set design and style convincingly recreate a world of stone columns and togas, serving to further enhance the play's power. The revered writer's words aren't weakened at all by any half-hearted attempts to make the work more accessible; it's this kind of performance that school-children need to take on board the brilliant innovation of William Shakespeare. Incredible acting, intriguing and enjoyable throughout in its plotting and ancient setting, Julius Caesar serves both the original play and the audience well.

---

14 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
A must for Shakespeare fans, but..., 8 January 2001

Author: quin1974 (quin@hideout.demon.nl) from Den Haag, The Netherlands

I am certainly a fan of the bard's work. Therefor I was pleasantly surprised to see this movie and hear that it was almost the complete original text they used for the dialogue. Without subtitles it was a chore to keep up with, but when you do you are in for a treat.

This classic tale of politics, treachery, love and death was performed to perfection by people such as Marlon Brando (Marc Antony), John Gielgud (Cassius, delivering a powerhouse performance as usual), James Mason (Brutus). I was thrilled by the fact that this movie was produced so lavishly and yet so humble. It never made the mistake, like Cleopatra, to depict the scenes too grand. It all stayed very natural and believable. Of course there must be historical inaccuracies in this story, but was Braveheart so accurate. I think when you start watching a movie written by the Shakespeare you shouldn't expect a documentary on the life of Julius Caesar but a lyrical tale about ancient political Rome.

The photography was great, with its glorious Black and White footage.

Although the text can be offputting for some who are not at the least a bit interested in the language the Bard wrote in.

A must for Shakespeare fans.

8/10

---

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
They Did the Bard Proud, 20 April 2006

Author: LomzaLady from United States

I think this is the best filming of a Shakespeare play, in terms of overall success. The filming is straightforward, with a minimum of distractions, cuts were made to the script to keep things moving, the dialog is clearly spoken, and the performances are terrific all around.

As just about every other comment here notes, if you only know Brando from The Godfather and some of his later, and sorrier films, you will be amazed and impressed by his Marc Antony. This is the Brando that I remember, buff, gorgeous and so talented that we were sure he could play just about any part and blow us away. His performance of the famous "Friends, Romans, countrymen" speech is a marvel of clarity, and is the linchpin that makes all of the other action of the play make sense.

James Mason is, I think, perfect as Brutus. He is very much like Shakespeare's Hamlet - mulling over every possible facet of every problem he faces, and agonizing to reach a decision. He was a master at portraying a person's ability, or inability, to reach a painful decision. The awesomeness of his responsibility and the consequences of his actions (after all, they are plotting to kill a king) are beautifully shown in his performance.

John Gielgud is my favorite Shakepearean actor. If you had ever had the privilege of seeing him on stage, you would have gotten the full force of his ability to control the character, the language, and to reach out and hold the audience all at the same time. It doesn't quite come across in this film, but I still think he shows that underneath Cassius' treason there is definitely an element of self-doubt and possibly shame at what he is about to do.

I have to disagree with most of the comments about Louis Calhern's Caesar. Several people have said that he didn't capture the majesty and military bearing that Julius Caesar would have had, but we have to remember that Shakespeare intended this as drama, not history. The whole point of the Roman senators' wish to get rid of Caesar is that he is no longer the Caesar they remember: he has become a smug, self-satisfied politician who thinks he is a king, while Rome is still a republic. I think Calhern captures this smarmy, oily, arrogant quality very well. Rome wanted a general, and this Caesar gave them a high-priced car salesman.

I own a copy of this film, and I watch it often. I think it would serve perfectly as an introduction to Shakespeare. By the way, I remember an anecdote related in the memoirs of John Houseman (the producer of this film). He said someone of importance in British theater (I now forget who - possibly it was Geilgud) had observed Brando's performance in the making of the film, and asked him to come to London to star in a Shakespeare festival. Brando said sorry, I can't. I have to get back to Nebraska to help my father get the crop in. Imagine if he had said yes.

---

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
All-Star Cast in Faithful Adaptation..., 15 September 2003
Author: Ben Burgraff (cariart) from Las Vegas, Nevada

1953's JULIUS CAESAR was a milestone in it's time, and still is, perhaps, the finest American production of a Shakespeare play ever recorded on film. Until Joseph L. Mankiewicz's production, only Laurence Olivier's British versions of HAMLET and HENRY V had truly displayed the power and poetry of the Bard's work. Hollywood seemed content to either truncate it in miscast all-star extravaganzas (A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, and ROMEO AND JULIET) or turn it into a weird kind of carnival sideshow (Orson Welles' MACBETH, performed with incomprehensible Scottish accents). Perhaps American film makers were afraid audiences would be put off by Shakespeare's text, with its archaic words, or felt that a British cast and the confines of a stage were 'required' to do a 'proper' rendition. For whatever reason, the British seemed to have a 'lock' on filmed versions of the Bard.

But Mankiewicz understood that Shakespeare was both universal and timeless, and in his capacity of director and (uncredited) screenwriter, he 'opened up' JULIUS CAESAR, eliminating the 'studio' feel of key scenes, and, with producer John Houseman, gathered together an impressive array of talent, with British actors John Gielgud as Cassius, James Mason as Brutus, Greer Garson as Calpurnia, and Deborah Kerr as Portia, and stage-trained American actors such as Oscar winner Edmond O'Brien in supporting roles.

Where the greatest gamble, and payoff, came was in the casting of Marlon Brando as Marc Antony. While Brando was already being hailed as the finest American actor of his generation, there were critics, prior to the film's release, who called his acceptance of the role an ego trip, and expected him to fall on his face. Were they ever WRONG! Brando gave the role a power, a physicality, and charisma that stunned critics and audiences alike. With a flawless British accent, he easily held his own with the veteran cast, and displayed a magnetism that is still enthralling, over 50 years later. His performance became the keystone of the film's success.

Not that JULIUS CAESAR is without faults; it is, occasionally, stagy and artificial, the pacing is a bit too slow and deliberate at times, and, as the title character, Louis Calhern is woefully miscast (he looks and sounds more like a jaded grandfather than the charismatic despot who both enthralled and frightened the Roman world). Still, the film is so strong and dynamic that subsequent versions (such as Charlton Heston's ambitious 1970 production) pale in comparison.

Hollywood finally got it 'right', and we can be grateful that a truly unforgettable presentation of JULIUS CAESAR is available for us, and future generations, to enjoy!

---

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
The Fickle Finger of Public Opinion, 31 October 2005
Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've always thought that Bill Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar as a kind of contrast between the society he lived in and the Roman society of Julius Caesar and his contemporaries. With all their problems Elizabethan England was struggling to be a society of laws and not men. Julius Caesar is the story of the death of a tyrant, a benevolent tyrant to be sure in some eyes, but a tyrant nonetheless. And Caesar was a tyrant with several good virtues in his character.

But the society he got to the top in, involved him creating a private army and coming out on top of a bunch of other guys. Actually George MacReady sets the tone for the play in his minor role of Marullus. The play opens with the populace of Rome hailing the return of the all wise and beneficent Caesar. MacReady reminds them that at one time they had hailed Caesar's last rival Pompey in just such a fashion. Public opinion is indeed fickle back then as well as today.

Caesar played by Louis Calhern is back in triumph, but there's a group of conspirators who have a variety of motives for wanting him dead. Chiefly they include John Gielgud as Cassius, Edmond O'Brien as Casca, and James Mason as Caesar's trusted aide Marcus Brutus. They plot to kill Caesar in the Senate on the infamous Ides of March.

The deed having been done, the conspirators have to deal with public opinion of the Roman citizenry. We don't have any courts as we know them or as they even knew them in Elizabethan England to deal with these people. They bid for the favor of the mob as does Mark Antony, another of Caesar's trusted aides. Of course with that famous 'Friends, Romans, Countrymen' introduction it is Antony who sways the populace.

Marlon Brando got an Oscar nomination for Best Actor and this is a different Marlon Brando. He's talking in a clear and concise English which you could hear at the Old Vic, instead of from the scratch and mumble school of acting. Our man Brando was one versatile dude. Antony is so much different a part than either Stanley Kowalski or Don Vito Corleone.

Brando got the only nomination in the acting category, but my favorite in this production has always been James Mason. He's moved by a genuine concern for the fate of the Roman Republic with Caesar being granted this dictatorial power. He's a worldly sophisticated sort and I think he borrowed a bit from Leo Genn in Quo Vadis and Mason reprised a bit of the Brutus character in The Fall of the Roman Empire as Timonides. It's a consummate portrait, Mason should have gotten Oscar consideration as well.

I don't have any information to prove it, but I would bet that after the fall of Cromwell's Lord Protectorate with Oliver Cromwell as a 17th century would be Caesar, this play was very popular during Restoration Great Britain. I have no doubt the Stuarts wanted to drive home the message of the evils of military dictatorships. And of course the theater was forbidden during the Puritan rule there.

---

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Marlon Brando was the film..., 20 April 2006

Author: dglova519 from United States

A solid film. Well executed, good actors, good script (obviously), but yes it is slow. Marlon Brando, who played Julius Caesar's right-hand man, excelled as character Marc Antony. The most notable part scene of this film was very after Julius was murdered by Brutus and the conspirators. Marc Antony's "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech was perfectly executed, and it is my favorite Marlon Brando moment (behind Godfather). Rent this film, and even if this film was a flawless gem, I would still suggest the work on paper by Shakespeare first. I also suggest James Mason, who stars as Brutus in the film. He played the role of Brutus extremely well and my hat's off to him. You need patience for a film like Julius Caesar, one of my favorite's of 1953.

---

---

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another review

---

Related Links

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