Watch Julius Caesar For Free

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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

Julius Caesar, the classic story of power corrupting and what happens when it's usurped, is the stuff of a near-masterpiece in 1950's Hollywood. The direction is elegant and timed just right to get the performers on their beats and delivering more and then some. Interesting to see the intensity so LARGE on the fronts of both fronts of British classical-trained theater (John Gielgud, as the most psychologically pathological character, Cassius, fully delivering the goods, plus James Mason being his Mason-iest) and the Method (Brando, seeming like he's always been in these robes - at least this week).It's Shakesepare on Golden-age Hollywood scale, but it's kept intimate when it counts, and the material is allowed to shine fully. This is the Godfather of political dramas, and so many, many lines have been taken into just everyday grammar; aside from the 'fault is not in our stars' line, listen for others like ' O pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth' or 'it was Greek to me'. And yet it's not simply that these actors get some of the meatiest-dramatic lines ever written, like in the history of all civilizations, but that this is all about what it means to have, take, live with, demolish and get back or keep protected Power, with a capital P.It's almost unfair to give a proper review to the film after seeing it once, as certain big set pieces - or even a couple of the conversations that Cassius has with Brutus or the other Roman senators plotting the death of their "beloved" Caesar - are quite dense with visual touches and details of performance. When Brando has his major set piece (he's not in as much of the film as you might expect, but his presence is felt more, which seems to be a thing with Brando character), addressing the crowd devastated over the loss of their ruler, it's a pinnacle of acting. He isn't just talking to no one, or to himself. He's making it very personal, all the more sad and that the revenge against the betrayers all the more stronger. How to sway a crowd is the name of the dramatic angle here, and it's the stuff of the best Hollywood dramatic acting, writing and direction (and art direction too, what sets) could offer.Is it perfect? Maybe not. The final battle is good but almost, to me, a little short, as if Mankiewicz steps up to make an epic conclusion, but decides to side-step it as if he isn't totally trusting in his capabilities (that would come later, one supposes, with Cleopatra as far as BIG epics went). And yet the final moments with Cassius and Brutus are so effective it makes one want to say nevermind. Especially Gielgud impresses here, with a role that requires a lot of forceful talking, bordering on yelling, with declarations and insinuations and other things - as big as his acting is, just as with Brando and Mason to an extent, though he kind of pulls it back when he can (see the tent scene between Brutus and Cassius before battle), there's subtleties there, little moments you can see the actor working through the emotional logic first, the dense Shakespeare poetry second.As with many Shakesepare movies, it may help being familiar with the play ahead of time to get all of the words and idiosyncracies of the Bard prose. But as far as just the core story goes, it's the stuff of legend. Surely one of those films of the 50's, along with On the Waterfront and Streetcar, where you can run it in an acting school and it might almost be enough to show the movie without any lecture to understand how to command attention from a partner, the audience, the whole world.

Julius Caesar was a good movie it was almost like the book Julius Caesar by Shakespeare. They used the same words and the movie was old but it was good.I really enjoyed reading this movie of the play. Each scene is preceded by a summary of the scene and followed by the scene, and As an student, I have been reading Shakespeare for quite awhile, and I still found this book very helpful. If you are new to reading Shakespeare, I particularly recommend this because you will find it very interesting and helpful. it will help u with the history and there really isn't a discussion about how good the play is...they are all fantastic and are. This was was very helpful to understand the book.

This drama suffers from the same problem that plagues many screen adaptations of Shakespeare: staginess. Although Mankiewicz adds a few outdoor scenes in an attempt to make it cinematic, it looks like a filmed stage play for the most part. The killing of Caeser and the battle scenes are poorly executed. Known for his mumbled delivery, Brando was an odd choice to play Marc Antony. However, he enunciates clearly and is quite effective. The highlight of the film is his "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" scene. Mason and Gielgud are also fine. Calhern is ridiculously miscast in the title role. Why did Garson and Kerr bother with roles of five minutes of screen time each?