MGM's acclaimed production of William Shakespeare's Julius 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. Idus of March- and they murdered Caesar. 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.) 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. The picture happens after battles of Munda and Farsalia when Pompeyo is defeated by Julius Caesar (Louis Calhern) and once having conquered Gaul. This excellent and stagy adaptation of the Shakespeare play concerns greedy fighting power and epic-historical treatment in ancient Roman empire. Excepting those quibbles, this is a great film version of 'Julius Caesar'. The pace initially is a little deliberate. Only Louis Calhern disappoints as a rather bland Caesar.

Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr make the most of their small roles. John Gielgud was similarly born for Cassius, the envy boils but is not exaggerated and Gielgud has a clear command over the language. 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). The famous 'friends, romans, countrymen' speech is given one of the best and most nuanced interpretations here on film. It was a very bold move casting Marlon Brando as Marc Antony, he sears in the role with a lot of fire and dignity. Almost all of the performances are superb. The final scene is a problematic scene to get right, this is one of the better interpretations of it. 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 drama has intensity and emotional impact in the play, both of which brought out wonderfully. 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. Rozsa's score is typically lush and sweeping and has a real majesty about it.

The 'Quo Vadis'-like sets are grand and lavish, if the budget really wasn't huge that was not obvious here. 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. There is so much to love here in 'Julius Caesar'. 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. Which is quite a compliment considering that great Shakespeare film adaptations are many, whether traditional or not. 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. Found myself not disappointed in 1953's 'Julius Caesar' at all. Mankiewicz and that it was scored by one of the greatest film composers at the time Miklos Rozsa. Further interest points in seeing 1953's 'Julius Caesar' was its fine cast, that it was directed by Joseph L. 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. 'Julius Caesar' is not one of Shakespeare's best plays, neither is it one of his worst.

1953 julius caesar movie online