Julius Caesar (1953) User Reviews

"Ah, how you weep"

[mik-19 · 7/10 · 16 February 2005]

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.

Beware the Ides of March

[oOoBarracuda · 7/10 · 16 March 2016]

Joseph L. Mankiewicz's 1953 film exploring the life and death of larger than life Julius Caesar wastes no time engaging the audience. With Louis Calhern in the titular role and Marlon Brando as his faithful friend Mark Antony, the film goes into great detail about what gets Caesar killed by associates of his, and even greater detail of the thirst for power after his death. Julius Caesar, the film, goes down a dark road proving Nietzsche's Will to Power lives within even the most trusted of our allies.

Caesar is enjoying more praise than ever when he returns to Rome after defeating Pompey. During a victory celebration Caesar attends with his most trusted allies Cassius (John Gielgud) and Brutus (James Mason) he is warned by a Soothsayer to beware the Ides of March. Caesar ignores the warning and goes about the celebration unknowing that conversations are taking place regarding his rise to power. They believe Caesar to be untrustworthy and think he will become a tyrant. Fueled by lies and anger, a plot is masterminded to murder Caesar. On the 15th day of March, Caesar prepares to go to the senate, his wife Calpurnia (Greer Garson) begs him not to go due to a vivid dream she had in which Caesar was murdered. Caesar scoffs and goes anyway, being warned by another Soothsayer along the way. Ignoring this second warning, Caesar makes his way to the senate where the conspirators circle him and begin to stab him one by one. Upon seeing his dear friend Brutus among the murderers, Caesar succumbs to his wounds and dies. Mark Antony (Marlon Brando), who was led away from Caesar on the fateful day under false pretenses, joins with Caesar's adopted son and successor, Octavius (Douglass Watson) to avenge his death. They achieve their goal with Cassius and Titinius (John Parrish) being killed in the war that ensues, leaving only Brutus left alive of the conspirators. Seeing death as inevitable, Brutus kills himself and is pardoned by Octavius as acting, in what he believed, to be the best course of action for Rome.

Audiences are immediately engaged in the film from the very beginning. A gripping speech in the opening scene catapults the audience to ancient Rome, bringing it alive through the production design mimicking Roman architecture and language. For one, Caesar dies at almost exactly halfway through the film. I personally love a movie that will throw the audience for a loop by killing off its main character. Of course, being familiar with the play Julius Caesar, I knew he would be killed, but I did not know he would be killed so early on, leaving half the film to deal with the aftermath of his murder. Likewise, Marlon Brando's Mark Antony was hardly in the first half of the movie; being a fan of Brando's I was initially disappointed about this, however, he more than makes up for his absence with a strong second act. The costumes and production designs were an absolute treat, recreating ancient Rome, and making me feel like I had gladiator sandals on. The film was more than deserving of the Oscar it received that year for Art Direction (encompassing set decoration). I am shocked however that it wasn't even nominated for a statuette in the Costume Design category. The ghost Caesar that haunted Brutus was a directorial feat considering the time in which the picture was filmed. Its looming presence agonized Brutus, leading him to believe that Caesar was not at rest. The film was a stunning achievement of its time and one that I recommend be enjoyed by all. Personally, I have a yearly tradition of watching this film every year on the Ides of March and it has yet to get old.

Memorable and classic version based on Shakespeare tragedy with full of fine performances

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 20 April 2009]

This excellent and stagy adaptation of the Shakespeare play concerns greedy fighting power and epic-historical treatment in ancient Roman empire . The picture happens after battles of Munda and Farsalia when Pompeyo is defeated by Julius Caesar (Louis Calhern) and once having conquered Gaul . Caesar (100-40 B. C.) goes back to Rome and crosses the river Rubicon with attempt to do himself sole governor of the empire , a purpose resented by those who still had hopes of retaining the centuries-old Republican form of ruling . Then the aristocratic party , including Brutus (James Mason) , supposedly Caesar's illegitimate son, and Cassius (John Gielgud) prepare a conspiracy at March 15 , 44 B. C. -Idus of March- and they murdered Caesar. The filming developed an intent at historic realism , retelling various facts , finishing in the battle of Philippi , where the second triumvirate (Marc Anthony , Lepido and Octavius Augustus: Caesar's grandnephew and his heir) defeated Caesar's assassins and subsequently splitting the Empire among them . MGM's acclaimed production of William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar !.

Julius Caesar(1953) displays outstanding performances from James Mason as Brutus , Louis Calhern as unforgettable Caesar , Deborah Kerr as Brutus's wife, and Greer Garson as Calpurnia , Caesar's first wife, the second one was Cleopatra who is left out of the action entirely . And , of course , an electrifying Marlon Brando as Mark Anthony , who makes a terrific acting using Stanislawski method and extraordinary soliloquy over Caesar's body . Acting enjoyable enough spread correctly to the secondaries roles as Ian Wolfe , George McReady ,Michael Pate , Edmund Purdom , Douglas Drumbull and Alain Napier as Cicero . Remains surprisingly faithful to Shakespeare playwright and writing directly from original , unlike many other historic movies at the time . Caesar assassination is well staged and a spectacular final regarding the battle of Philippi was added by film production , though Mankiewicz to be opposed because he wished a movie completely theatrical . Deservedly won Academy Award for art direction and production design by Cedric Gibbons . Efficiently produced by actor John Houseman and directed with professionalism and imagination by Joseph L Mankiewicz . This gripping movie will appeal to Shakespeare devotees but its spirit is intact , despite being taken brief liberties in its adaptation . Shakespeare would have admired this classic film. It's followed by an inferior remake , being the original much better version , and directed in 1970 by Stuart Burge with Charlton Heston (Marlon Brando's role) , Jason Robards (James Mason-lookalike) , Robert Vaughn (Edmond O'Brien,Casca role-alike), Jill Bennet (Greer Garson) , Diana Rigg (Deborak Kerr's character) and repeating acting by John Gielgud as Julius Caesar role replacing his phenomenal previous character as Cassius .

All-Star Cast in Faithful Adaptation...

[cariart · 15 September 2003]

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!

MGM Does Shakespeare

[jem132 · 7/10 · 30 May 2008]

This is an admirable attempt by MGM to do Shakespeare. The studio cast a range of great actors to fill the roles, and the result is generally very agreeable. Great production values, set design and costuming set off a quite fine Shakespeare production.

The film is probably most memorable to today's audiences because it features Marlon Brando in a rather atypical role. Proving his astounding acting talent, Brando mastered the language of the Bard and is truly excellent as Marc Antony. Yet James Mason, as the quiet, thoughtful Brutus, is even better. Mason's subtely and underplaying perhaps makes audiences forget how great he truly was. As someone one said, he could suggest a whole range of emotions in his relatively passive, calm face. Mason is a brilliant Brutus, and it is a performance that ranks amongst his best.

John Gielgud brings his classical English stage training to Cassius, and Gielgud is as fine as ever. Louis Calhern at first seems an unusual choice for Julius Caesar, yet he brings a great sense of dignity to his role. Edmond O'Brien shows what a great actor he really was in playing Casca, and although Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr are wasted in sub-ordinate roles, they are a welcome presence. I also liked George Macready as Marullus. Macready's sinister Ballin Mundson from GILDA is forever burned into my brain, and he is again memorable here.

Overall I liked the film, Mankiewicz was a very able director and he handles Shakespeare well. The only problems I have with it is, although the MGM sound stage looks as fantastic as ever, it is perhaps too glossy. It also very moves slowly, and I think part of the blame lies in Shakespeare's play itself. JULIUS CAESAR is not a perfect play, and it does have one big flaw- it loses dramatic tension after Marc Antony's big speech. So I think many of the film's faults are attributed to MGM and Mankiewicz trying to film the play verbatim. Unlike the Olivier films, the play here is not really adapted for the film medium, different from the stage, and a few different techniques could have been used to bring the themes across. Nevertheless, its still very worthwhile.

They Did the Bard Proud

[LomzaLady · 10/10 · 20 April 2006]

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.

Julius Caesar on blu-ray

[jucsetmai · 7/10 · 2 November 2020]

Good movie not see yes coming soon on Warner Archive Blu-ray release February 2021

An excellent film

[critic-2 · 10/10 · 18 May 1999]

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?

Beware the Ides of March, Caesar.

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 15 March 2013]

Well, the Ides of March has come to General Julius Caesar (Louis Calhern) in Joseph Mankiewicz's 1953 film version of William Shakespeare's play based on the real life Roman figure. The movie is the story of how Julius Caesar met his fate with the Senators whom fears the worst can come to Rome as his dictatorship come into play. Brutus (James Mason) is a man stuck in the middle between his beliefs of being loyal to Caesar and the peer pressures of the Senators lead by Cassius (John Gielgud) whom wants to get rid of Caesar. Brutus emerges as the most complex character in the film and is also the play's tragic hero. In his soliloquies, the audience gains insight into the complexities of his motives. He is a powerful public figure, but he appears also as a husband, a master to his servants, a dignified military leader, and a loving friend. Brutus's rigid idealism is both his greatest virtue and his biggest flaw. Public Self versus Private Self term plays in Brutus's mindset. Much of the play's tragedy stems from the characters' neglect of private feelings and loyalties in favor of what they believe to be the public good. Similarly, characters confuse their private selves with their public selves, hardening and dehumanizing themselves or transforming themselves into ruthless political machines. He wants to do what is good for the people, but questions himself if it means getting rid of the man that help him on the way to power. John Gielgud is magnificent as Cassius, and James Mason is a fine Brutus. But Marlon Brando, more than anyone or anything else, compels attention. Brando's casting was met with some skepticism when it was announced, as he had acquired the nickname of "The Mumbler" following his performance in A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), but he prove them wrong with his role as Mark Antony. Just watch his two speeches. One is the 'Cry Havoc! Let slip the dogs of War' and the other is the speech to the public. Brando had little or no experience with verse, and there are points in this speech where more such experience would have served him well. But his fierce passion transcends all that. Brando's passion surpasses any rules he misses with this piece, this is the type of acting that can excuse the rules of Shakespeare. He is so alive and real you know he created some great circumstances to get through those lines! Antony's rhetoric and delivery is over 9000. Now I see why Marlon Brando was legendary. He is a powerful speaker. There are certain things that the film does do right. Julius Caesar gives detailed consideration to the relationship between rhetoric and power. The ability to make things happen by words alone is the most powerful type of authority. Words also serve to move hearts and minds, as Act III proofs. The movie is powerful, but it's does have faults. One of the biggest things I wish the movie had was color rather than black and white. It's not like they couldn't do it at the time, as many movies were in color. Don't get me wrong, I like Black and white movies, but this movie has an epic Roman Era theme that could have work better than Director Henry Koster's Biblical sword-and-sandal epic The Robe that also came out that year. The Roman Empire in this film seem lost in black and white with its bland look. Technicolor could have the sets, props and costumes and production values would have been shown off to much greater advantage in color, like its predecessor, Quo Vadis (1951). The movie also suffers from a lot of misinterpretations and misreadings that confused the audience with its text. It's really hard to understand what they are saying if one does not read a lot of Shakespeare. Shakespeare did this on purpose, so that confused the characters in the story speaking to each other, but also cause a lot of people to shake their heads wondering what does he mean with that? At less in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, it manage to avoid any cheap good or evil scheme like in Richard III but does justice to all the characters and their motives. I would give it a watch for any Shakespeare fan, but it's not for everybody. Movies like this are acquired taste. No way was it better than Orson Welles's Macbeth, but it's still a great watch.

Well worth praising and not something to bury

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 1 January 2021]

'Julius Caesar' is not one of Shakespeare's best plays, neither is it one of his worst. The final scene is rarely nailed and the supporting characters are a lot more interesting than the titular character, but much of the characterisation is very well rounded, is intriguing thematically and has some of the bard's most famous speeches and lines. Further interest points in seeing 1953's 'Julius Caesar' was its fine cast, that it was directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and that it was scored by one of the greatest film composers at the time Miklos Rozsa.

Found myself not disappointed in 1953's 'Julius Caesar' at all. It may not be a perfect film, but it is one of the better adaptations of the play out there on its own merits and to me one of the best film adaptations of any Shakespeare play. Which is quite a compliment considering that great Shakespeare film adaptations are many, whether traditional or not. Adaptation-wise, there are changes and things left out but the spirit of the play is here and ambience wise and emotionally it's faithful.

There is so much to love here in 'Julius Caesar'. It is exquisitely photographed, though if it were in colour there would have been an even grander look, never trying to do too much while not being too constricted. The 'Quo Vadis'-like sets are grand and lavish, if the budget really wasn't huge that was not obvious here. Rozsa's score is typically lush and sweeping and has a real majesty about it.

Mankiewicz directs beautifully and it was appreciated that he went for drama rather than spectacle, which to me was the right approach that it would make the text resonate more and it lessened the risk of the characterisation being swamped. The drama has intensity and emotional impact in the play, both of which brought out wonderfully. The text does not sound stilted and is poetic and thoughtful, though like all Shakespeare it is talk heavy as a word of warning. The final scene is a problematic scene to get right, this is one of the better interpretations of it. The action excites and moves.

Almost all of the performances are superb. It was a very bold move casting Marlon Brando as Marc Antony, he sears in the role with a lot of fire and dignity. The famous "friends, romans, countrymen" speech is given one of the best and most nuanced interpretations here on film. James Mason is a similarly powerful Brutus, he brings out the character's conflicted feelings with sensitivity and a noble quality (despite what Brutus does, one cannot hate him). John Gielgud was similarly born for Cassius, the envy boils but is not exaggerated and Gielgud has a clear command over the language. Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr make the most of their small roles.

Only Louis Calhern disappoints as a rather bland Caesar. The pace initially is a little deliberate.

Excepting those quibbles, this is a great film version of 'Julius Caesar'. 9/10

Some nice scenes with Brando, but difficult to translate from the stage

[gbill-74877 · 7/10 · 14 October 2017]

In this movie, you have the world's greatest playwright (Shakespeare) combined with one of the world's greatest actors (Brando), two other fantastic talents (Mason and Gielgud), and a compelling historical tale (the assassination of Julius Caesar and resulting civil war). On paper, this should be an extraordinary film. And I have to say, the scenes with Brando right after the assassination are compelling (the one in private ending with him raging "Cry 'Havoc!'", and of course the address to the crowd), even if he slips on a word or two. Watch it primarily for those, because the rest of the film, while erudite and worth watching, just doesn't translate as well. I disliked Louis Calhern as Caesar as he didn't have the right bearing or presence. Director Mankiewicz is faithful, perhaps too faithful, to the original, though adapting the play may have been a damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation. Regardless, there are elements that shine with Shakespeare's beautiful words, and there are other elements that fall flat.

"the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves as underlings"

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 9 August 2015]

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.

All-star cast

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 2 April 2018]

I don't know why Marlon Brando was cast in a Shakespearian tragedy, but if you can make it through his "Lend me your ears" speech without laughing, you'll be one-up on me. Despite him, this version of Julius Caesar is pretty good. Any time John Gielgud is in a period piece, you know you're in for a well-acted interpretation. Joseph Mankiewicz directed the film, and rather than weakening it with a Technicolor distraction, he filmed it in black-and-white, which was very smart. There were enough colorized period piece epics that came out of the 1950s; by keeping it simple, he let the acting shine through and made the bleak tone of the film more evident.

With Louis Calhern as Caesar, James Mason as Brutus, Marlon Brando as Mark Antony, John Gielgud as Cassius, Deborah Kerr as Portia, and Greer Garson as Calpurnia, this is an all-star classic you don't want to miss! Unless, of course, you don't really like Shakespeare, or black-and-white movies bore you to tears, or you were forced to read the play in high school and can't really stomach any more of it. If that's the case, you can skip it. I won't tell anyone.

Saucy knaves shall loathe it, highbred nobles shall love it, moderates betwixt

[Wuchakk · 5/10 · 17 March 2017]

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

Caesar, by Shakespeare, by Mankiewicz.

[punishmentpark · 7/10 · 2 July 2013]

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.

Rare Excellence

[charmedgood · 10/10 · 4 July 2007]

Watching Julius Caesar in 2007, I still think it is a work of art. Being a Shakespeare student myself, I know that his plays are very demanding and on that Joseph L. Mankiewicz has stood up to my expectations.

While reading , we form a picture in our mind of the setting ,the dialog, the expressions,how the characters would look and how they would move on stage and I found that the same were portrayed on screen. The director truly made his vision come to life!

All the actors were great, again kudos to the director. Marlon Brando was just superb as Antony. His funeral oration was an indescribable masterpiece. I didn't expect it to be that good! Among the others,James Mason did quite a good job as Brutus. Louis Calhern, though had a small bit, didn't fail to leave an impact as the great and mighty (and ambitious) Julius Caesar. I also liked Greer Garson as Calpurnia.

Coming to the actors Octavius Caesar was a disappointment, I blame the editor of the script for this. Octavius was supposed to be brought out as the heir of Ceasar. The prevalence of Caesarism, which was not properly brought out in the movie.

The dialog is picked up directly from the play, but quite a bit has been cut off.....which was the only other disappointing thing in the movie. Shakespearean language is not all that difficult to understand in the movie mainly because we can see it being enacted out. All that you simply fail to understand is simply not all that important.

Overall the movie was great and I will not forget to watch it a day before my tests! Julius Caesar was a great feat in the history of cinema.

Solid If Not Groundbreaking Shakespeare Adaptation

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 6 July 2006]

As film adaptations of Shakespeare go, Joseph L. Mankiewicz's "Julius Caesar" is a pretty good one. In general, the stunt casting approach works, even in some of the most dubious cases (Marlon Brando? Greer Garson? Louis Calhern?).

Brando, against all odds, makes a fine Marc Antony. I had expected to find his high-pitched mumble sound ridiculous reciting Shakespeare, but his is quite a compelling performance. However, the actor who shines the most, and who I never hear anyone talk about in relation to this film, is James Mason, giving a superbly effective performance as Brutus. He is completely at ease with the language, but unlike many of the other cast members, does not let the stately poetry do his work for him, and invests Brutus with a great deal of emotional depth.

The film looks marvelous; director Mankiewicz sends his camera prowling around sumptuously designed sets, and sheds a chilly black and white glow on the action.

However, despite the mostly strong acting and terrific production design, I never really warmed to the movie, just as I rarely do to any filmed version of a Shakespeare work. There are so many wonderful stories to tell cinematically, that I just don't get the point of rehashing over and over properties that so clearly belong on the stage. Give me Mankiewicz's "All About Eve" over yet one more filmed Shakespeare play any day.

Grade: B

A must for Shakespeare fans, but...

[quin1974 · 8/10 · 8 January 2001]

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

Holywwod's Shakespeare

[SixtusXLIV · 6/10 · 19 November 2006]

I carried throughout the years a certain emotional , mark the word, admiration for this movie. I've first seen it in 1962-63 certainly in a bad copy and most probably with horribly translated sub-titles. My English was then rudimentary, to say the least.

Two or three years after I saw real Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" by the "Old Vic" with then Ralph Richardson, later "Sir" in the title role.

This was possible because Queen Elisabeth was then visiting my country and decided to offer "petty men, that since 1383, walked under the huge legs of the Lencaster House and since 1803 under the ones of the Duke of Wellington, to find a temporary Glory that lasted 200 years" and decadence which lasts to this day...(I beg your pardon, William Shakespeare)...

Now, some 40 years after, I find this a minor work...

Fist of all, bear with me. Theatre is the Art of the Word, Cinema is the Art of the Moving Image.

Transferring one to the other is simply not possible... Either you film the play, and it is a (probably worthy) documentary, or you make a movie with some quotations of the Play . Zeffirelli did that with the then couple (Elisabeth Taylor/Richard Burton) and I believe it is still watchable...

Joseph L. Mankiewicz, an American of probable Slavic/Jewish origins, worked for UFA as a translator of German Films in America. In 1929 he went to Hollywood, in 1934, Louis B. Mayer made him a producer.

He made some masterpieces, mostly Bette Davis's "All about Eve", but the "Old Rome" was almost fatal to him. Caesar, above all. Cleopatra almost sank FOX financially, some 20 years after...

Back to "Julius Caeser" (1953). The text is respected, almost to the letter, but the intonation of the words is almost Tex-Mex, mostly that of Marlon Brando, a complete miscast. Louis Calhern portrays a credible Ceasar for the worst of reasons : He is very tall but his voice does not fit it's stature..

Even the British actors fail. James Mason, studied architecture, before he went, briefly into the English scene "Having expressed dissatisfaction with the British film industry" according to the Encyclopoedia Britannica, went to Hollywood. To me he just fled certain failure in Britain to mild success in Hollywood. Let us say he was a precursor...

Even Hitchcock had problems with him in "North by NorthWest". Hitch knew very well why...

For reasons of profound respect I will not comment upon the work of Sir John Gielgud. I will just say he was slightly too young to play the role of Cassius, but he is the most accurate...

So, this is a FAILED MOVIE. Get your Shakespeare from other sources..

Moving, captivating!

[flawless-1 · 10/10 · 7 August 2001]

If you know about Shakespeare, then I strongly suggest you rent/buy this movie. Many people, as well as I, think it's the best version of 'Julius Caesarfor many reasons. It goes along with the events very accurately, and if you've read Shakespeare's book, you'll see it's like having the very thing acted out on screen. I also might add that the acting is excellent, especially Gielgud, who was my personal favorite. However, all the actors were wonderful, from Ceasar to Lucius. Even the battle scene reminded me a bit of some of the scenes in Spartacus...

There's just something about this movie that is very appealing. The powerful (and sometimes funny) Cassius is the most captivating character. A lot of the times I could just feel his anger- Brutus, of course, is a very melancholy character, but for him I didn't feel as much as I did for some of the others. Marc Antony was superb, and his presentation of near insanity (Okay, so he's crazy!) that builds up throughout the movie is breathtaking.

You must read the book, or else you probably won't be able to follow this movie. Really all you need to do is go through it with someone who knows how to translate it into easier terms, and then it's like learning a language, and you'll know exactly what the people are talking about, and feel very smart! Lol, this is a classic. A must see!

[And may Cassius, Brutus, Caesar, Calpurnia, Casca, and all the other actors who portrayed these characters, rest in peace!]

JULIUS CAESAR (DIDIER BECU)

[Didier-Becu · 6/10 · 2 November 2003]

Pardon me for saying but I think William Shakespeare is the most overrated cultural icon ever so this adaption of one of his works looked more than a nightmare instead of a joyful event and yet I kept on watching till the end nontheless and there is only man responsible for it : Marlon Brando, an acting so good that you even tend to forget James Mason is giving a great performance as well. The story is known I suppose : the great emperor Julius Caesar isn't as popular by his surrounding politicians and so it happened one day that he got killed by a gang led by Brutus and Cassius, while his guardian angel Marc Anthony (Marlon Brando) can't shut up about it and think the noble people of Rome must know the truth... Very difficult movie as this is Shakespeare to the bone (you don't see a movie but a filmed theatreplay) and I might be a cultural barbarian but I am not longing to hear the lyric English they spoke in the Middle Ages. And still a sort of must see as there are some scenes (the speechscene from Brando) that are legendary, almost too good to be included in a most of the times extremely boring movie.

"Men at some times are masters of their fates."

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 17 February 2019]

The thing that impresses me most about works based on Shakespeare is the dialog. I have to wonder how long it took the famous bard to compose those exquisite lines of dialog that the actors deliver so effortlessly. At the same time, I question how it is that every character in a Shakespearean play or movie based on one of his works manages to express themselves in the same effusive manner. It's the same thing with Edgar Allen Poe. From the lowly street sweeper to the titled nobleman, every character speaks like they had a world class education in the English language. It's not realistic, but it does sound good.

Be that as it may, this is a well directed effort with a stellar cast that brings 44 B.C. Rome to life with it's palace intrigue and treachery directed at the figure of emperor Julius Caesar. One might be forgiven for thinking that Marlon Brando had the title role if all you had to go by was the movie's theatrical poster or the image on the movie sleeve. His presence as Marc Antony is not as intimidating in the story as one might expect, though when he shows up, he carries enormous influence. I found it rather comical actually, that the citizens of Rome were swayed so easily from one position to another by virtue of the last orator that spoke to them. The herd mentality is on obvious display here over the assassination of Caesar, at once reviled by the conspirators, driven to consider that Caesar's murder was a good thing, and then brought back to riotous indignation by Antony's speech praising the dead ruler. All rather fascinating.

Brando's a different Brando in this film compared to most of his method work. He speaks with clarity and vision, not hampered so much by trying to get inside the head and heart of an ancient Roman senator. The aftermath of his revenge results in the virtual suicide deaths of the principal conspirators, senators Cassius (John Gielgud) and Brutus (James Mason). If you had never read Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar', you'll marvel at the number of quotable lines you'll recall as the story proceeds, and in my case, I was finally able to determine the origin of that oft repeated line by Clark Kent's boss at the Dailey Planet, each and every time Perry White exclaimed, 'Great Caesar's Ghost!'

Stagy

[kenjha · 6/10 · 30 December 2011]

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?

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears... I don't think Shakespeare adapts well to screen

[PudgyPandaMan · 5/10 · 3 February 2009]

I have never felt that Shakespeare transfers very well to film. It comes across as too staged and melodramatic. Well, I will give credit to this film, that of all the adaptations I've seen, this one does the best it can with the material.

I think they did a fine job of casting. All the players are fairly convincing in their interpretations. But again, I don't think anyone can overcome the "staginess" of the material. Everything sounds recited. And true to the play, the actors often appear statue like in their body posturing. I think all the men must have been required to stand with their left arm grasping their sash at chest height, and their right arm hanging at their side. It just all looked so stiff and staged. But alas, that is Shakespeare.

I do have to say that Brando's delivery of Marc Anthony's fiery speech after Ceasar's death was amazing. He can emote like no else I know.

If you want to SEE Shakespeare (I prefer to READ it), then by all means, go see a play. Don't waste your time on film adaptations.

Taut, intelligent, definitive movie rendition of this particular Shakespeare play.

[lonnien · 21 March 2001]

It is very easy, in this day and age of seemingly rote-like movie renditions of the works of Jane Austin, Henry James, and, of course, the Bard, to produce a film that just goes through the motions - without anything much to say, no interesting "spin" on the subject matter, and with dull, pretty-boy and girl ham-handed actors, speaking their lines, or some other catch, like state of the art FX, or some other gimmick (like the infamous "Nude Macbeth" version of the play that was filmed back in 1969) being the offering.

To my mind, however, this particular rendition of Shakespeare's Juliuys Casear is THE defintive one ever filmed. Frankly, I just read the comments by "Signet" posted on March 20th - and I don't really know what on earth he is talking about. "Dull?" If he has on his mind Bruce Willis and the Die Hard films (as by his own comments it is clear that he does), well, yes than anything that does not have to do with rocket ships, or blazing machine guns, or steriod-laden super heroes rescuing scantily clad well-endowed women might seem "dull." But frankly, Signet, such being your defintion of what is exciting and interesting, I really don't know why you would even bother checking this film out, or any work of Shakespeare, for that matter, in the first place!

This JC film plays out like a taut, well-placed political thriller - showing the machinations of scheming politicians, of their egos and jealousies, and a quite simply SUPERB Mark Antony funeral oration scene. Now, to me, brando has never seemed to be the most subtle of actors in his performances, but the way he plays it here is perfect! He shows the absolute mastery of reverse psychology, of how sharp demagogues from him to Hitler are able to sway the masses to do their bidding. It is simply an amaziug scene, to my mind one of the very best scenes ever put on film.

The acting, from Mason to Geilgood to O'Brien is first-rate throughout.

Again, if you are looking for a classic (and to me, definitive version of this particular Shakesplay), watch and tape/buy this film. And if you're more interested in WWF-style rock 'em sock 'em action, lpease don't.

And if you are in the later thrill-seeking camp, just don't watch a Shakespeare film, and then post your juvenile comments to this web site. It merely serves to embarrass you. Becuase you obviously just don't "get" the Bard. And you never will.