None of the social, political and historical context of the events in Caesear's life is explained at all. Brutus was Cato's son-in-law, Portia was Cato's daughter. It's a shame Richard Harris had to go out like this. There have been many greats to play Caesar Marlon Brando and Charlton Heston. With lies not made a good things, and good movies! Characters' way of being and acting still shows the way we think in the present. Walken is by far the best actor in this show? I believe that , a mans which make this movie a have a mission : Caesar humanization, but humanization not made with lies and omissions! Julius Caesar is an epic story set in magnificent, ancient Rome.
I have since become a huge fan of Jeremy's. Iulius Caesar its a very bad movie, Jeremy Sisto not believe in his role, he was good when play role of Jesus but Caesar is other type of personality, he was a conqueror, and this movie want believe that he was as awfully person, sweetly and good which made just pretty things. He really plays all his characters well. Epic look at Julius Caesar, Rome's last dictator, whose death also signaled the end of the Roman Republic. Pompeius and Cato Christopher Walken fear that Caesar will use the troops for ruling the empire and declare himself king and they flee to Greece and are defeated in Farsalia.
Mankiewicz 1953 with Brando and James Mason and by Sturat Burge 1970 with Charlton Heston and Jason Robards. I was expecting a lot from this movie and I regret to say that none of my expectations have been met. Endless conversations without any attempt to enlighten the viewer by clarifying the political situation. Cornelia's death almost destroys Caesar, and, for years to come, all his love is devoted to his daughter, Julia. Okay, it's made for entertainment, but it would be a lot more interesting if they wanted to give those characters the mentality and the way of being from that specific era.
Please, don't watch this movie if you know something about the Roman Empire. It will particularly tell of a man, of his early days, of his formation and assent to power, of his ambitions, anxieties, weaknesses and of the three great loves of his life. Now a mature man, Caesar's attitude towards power, towards Rome and towards the Roman Senate seems to have changed. The film says Brutus was Cato's nephew. There was so much more to Caesar's life. Of course also is developed the usual version of the Egyptian temptress'lust for Caesar,young royal,Cleopatra Samuela Sardo wants to rule Egypt and she seduces the conqueror to gain the kingdom and he helps her gain control of Egypt.
However, despite this, the script respects quite a lot the biography of Caesar, and the costumes and scenarios are in agreement with what the history advocates. Well, Caesar you might hate if you can't stand winners but he's nice to watch as too is his lovely wife Calpurnia who is the second best character in this series giving us so very wonderful scenes--especially her last scene with Portia and the dying Caesar. Brutus was Cato's son-in-law, Portia was Cato's daughter. There are several factual errors, like Pompey did not crush the slave rebellion Crassus and Cicero did , there was no law against armies south of the Rubicon - Caesar just transgressed his jurisdiction to do so. I did not expect a 4-hour drama on Rome to have such an interesting, winding plot - sometimes too winding such that I felt lost and wondered what motivated certain characters.
Everything is reduced to a personal costume melodrama, but the series is unconvincing even at that level. He just doesn't have the ability to play one of the most important men in history, especially surrounded by actors of the caliber that the others are. Unfortunately it's a washout of a film, with unconvincing acting and cheap-looking costumes. I've read and completely agree with a number of other reviews posted, and while I understand some of the 'glossings-over' and amalgamations of facts that are often done in the name of simplification and popularization, this movie was so historically inaccurate as to make it laughable. Synopsis Twenty year-old Julius Caeser flees Rome for his life during the reign of Sulla but through skill and ambition rises four decades later to become Rome's supreme dictator.
Jeremy Sisto's performance was okay, he changed believably from young father to older dictator. Pompeii and Brutas were my favorite characters and the parts were also well-acted. It is a stupid American interpretation of the historical events. With actors like Christopher Walken, Chris Noth, and Richard Harris, you'd expect something more from the lead, but unfortunately Sisto doesn't seem to have been a good casting choice. Well, I have to say, I didn't like the first part much until Vercingetorix showed up. They could have at least got someone good.
I hadn't cared much for the other characters, but the wild haired and heavily tattooed Gaul a big thank you to the make up department broke the ice. But Caesar conquers whole the Gaul. Well, I always maintain, as a historian, some healthy reservations about films and period miniseries because, by rule, what happens in this stuff is to see the story told with the eyes of the 21st century and not according to the mentality and the of those people. Now concentrating on his political career, Caesar champions popular causes and fights the corrupt aristocracy that dominates Roman politics. I cared for him, although I knew he would have to die in the end.