Improvements
Added 11/23/2009
I read the book, and then watched the movie. The movie was good, with a good portrayal of the book. Older movies often do, more so than more modern ones. In some cases this movie gave a more realistic portrayal than the book - an improvement. This was by not having anachronisms, like a clock striking, and wearing not hats but hoods. So, the movie gives one a good visual of the book's contents.
This movie has been colorized. There has been dislike and controversy about that. With broadmindedness and not being conservative about it, I don't see what's wrong with that. It's also an improvement on the old movies. (Just not of silent movies.) That's like the improvements on e.g. the 3 original Star Wars movies. I'd prefer to watch the colorized version of a movie. I did actually watch that version of this movie, which I have. It also looked like it was originally filmed in color. This DVD should also contain that version of the movie. The individual viewers could then decide for themselves which they want to watch.
I also read the book in modern English. These have been done by 'Shakespeare made easy' and 'Shakespeare 2000', of some of his plays. This is also an improvement, so that the plays e.g. can be enjoyed just as much today. The modern English is next to the original. The readers can again decide for themselves which to read. There could be this movie in modern English, if it was filmed recently. The original English makes me lose concerntration very easily.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Stagey and poorly-paced
Added 10/27/2009
The Bottom Line:
This 1953 version of Julius Caesar can boast a terrific rendering of Marc Antony's famous speech (and Brutus is an honorable man!) but that's the natural high point of the film which unfortunately continues on for another 40 minutes or so; it's tempting to recommend the film on the basis of that one speech alone but I can't, what with the lacking performance by James Mason as Brutus (who, despite the title, is the main character of the film) and pitiful sets which seem like they were put together an hour before shooting.
2.5/4
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Julius Caesar (Mason,Gilgud, Brando etc)
Added 9/12/2009
As a 20th century classic it is excellent, in the 21st century ... more so !!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
NOT for Deborah Kerr Fans
Added 9/4/2009
I'm posting this as a cautionary note for Deborah Kerr fans. She only has a bit part in this film. Less than 10 min total; maybe only 5. In fact, all women have only bit parts here. If you want to see Deborah in a classic Roman drama, I highly recommend Quo Vadis.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Better than the Charlton Heston Version
Added 8/2/2009
I watched the 1953 Marlon Brando version last weekend, and I just finished watching the 1970 Charlton Heston version today. Even though the 1970 version is in color with better production quality, the black and white 1953 Marlon Brando version with antiquated scenery is a better movie. The 1953 version also had much better casting. This includes the roles of Mark Antony, Brutus, and Cassius. The only actor in the 1970 version that was better than the 1953 version was Sir John Gielgud's Caesar. Ironically, John Gielgud played Cassius in the 1953 version and Caesar in the 1970 version. He was superb in both roles. I was disappointed with Lewis Calhern's Caesar in the 1953 version. The 1953 version of Julius Caesar was superior in almost every way that matters.
There is a reason the Brando version costs $13.99 and the Heston version costs $8.99. If you have to choose between the two, buy the $13.99 version.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Improvements
Added 11/23/2009
I read the book, and then watched the movie. The movie was good, with a good portrayal of the book. Older movies often do, more so than more modern ones. In some cases this movie gave a more realistic portrayal than the book - an improvement. This was by not having anachronisms, like a clock striking, and wearing not hats but hoods. So, the movie gives one a good visual of the book's contents.
This movie has been colorized. There has been dislike and controversy about that. With broadmindedness and not being conservative about it, I don't see what's wrong with that. It's also an improvement on the old movies. (Just not of silent movies.) That's like the improvements on e.g. the 3 original Star Wars movies. I'd prefer to watch the colorized version of a movie. I did actually watch that version of this movie, which I have. It also looked like it was originally filmed in color. This DVD should also contain that version of the movie. The individual viewers could then decide for themselves which they want to watch.
I also read the book in modern English. These have been done by 'Shakespeare made easy' and 'Shakespeare 2000', of some of his plays. This is also an improvement, so that the plays e.g. can be enjoyed just as much today. The modern English is next to the original. The readers can again decide for themselves which to read. There could be this movie in modern English, if it was filmed recently. The original English makes me lose concerntration very easily.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Stagey and poorly-paced
Added 10/27/2009
The Bottom Line:
This 1953 version of Julius Caesar can boast a terrific rendering of Marc Antony's famous speech (and Brutus is an honorable man!) but that's the natural high point of the film which unfortunately continues on for another 40 minutes or so; it's tempting to recommend the film on the basis of that one speech alone but I can't, what with the lacking performance by James Mason as Brutus (who, despite the title, is the main character of the film) and pitiful sets which seem like they were put together an hour before shooting.
2.5/4
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Julius Caesar (Mason,Gilgud, Brando etc)
Added 9/12/2009
As a 20th century classic it is excellent, in the 21st century ... more so !!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
