Julius Caesar
|
Our Price: $49.94 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $33.84 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Julius Caesar
Movie Review: "I too can shelter myself under the favor and friendship of Caesar."
Summary: 1 Stars
... and I don't need shallow films regarding Caesar's facinating life to bring me nearer to him. TNT's production of this mini-series on the life of Julius Caesar leaves much to be desired. This movie is essentially nothing more than a quasi-fictional novela of Caesar and therefore has little substance or historical accuracy. In addition to a contrived screenplay, terrible script, and literally countless historical inaccuracies, the mediocre acting of Jeremy Sisto as Caesar leaves nothing of worth to watch other than good but sparing performances by Richard Harris as Sulla and Christopher Walken as Cato.
The character of Caesar is portrayed as oversympathetic because it ommits his lesser known actions that show how his sinister ambitions started at an early age. The film portrays him as a blameless champion of the Roman proles when he was in fact, above all, a shameless opportunist and exhibitionist whose ancient noble family had lapsed into obscurity and poverty. An outcast in the patrician/noble circles, Caesar was anxious to attain political office by demaguoguery and populism if he had to. He chose to affiliate himself with the popular but questionable politics of his uncle Marius and his father-in-law Cinna. Marius was a commoner and populist who had been exiled as a public enemy after attempting several violent but unsuccessful plebiscites in Rome. In an effort to recall Marius, Cinna attempted a failed coup d'etat in Rome and also fled as a public enemy. Cinna and Marius later joined in besieging Rome to overthrow the senatorial majority and so legitimize their impeachment of Sulla from his proconsular command in Asia Minor. Having completed their siege, they proceeded to massacre their political opponents and fellow countrymen with impunity: killing the consul Octavius and placing his head on a pike on the Rostra. Undisturbed by the methods used by his relatives to attain political power, Caesar sought to profit from them instead by taking the office of High Priest made vacant by the suicide of its previous holder who wanted to avoid a sham trial. Julius Caesar was a shrude oppportunist who always appeared to be cordial and generous because it served his interests more than anything else. Despite being one of the greatest military geniuses in history as well as a generous patron to the poor, Caesar was a narcissist who loved to indulge himself in outrageous luxury. Caesar was also considered to be immorally promiscuous even by the Romans themselves (i.e. Brutus' mother)! Caesar was known by his contemporaries for stooping to virtually any form of lechery to get what he wanted. The kingdom of Bythnia was interestingly devised to Rome upon the death of Nicomedes who shortly before had enjoyed numerous and scandalous encounters with Caesar on various nights in his bed chambers. Another example is him later preferring to continue collaborating with the sleazy tribune Publius Clodius Pulcher whom he knew to have been courting his second wife Pompeia. He only divorced his wife to protect his public image with which he was even more obsessed than Pompey The Great. Both he and Pompey needed vast wealth as each loved to display great lavishness in order to surround himself with useful sycophants. Even Sulla himself was said to have read Caesar's dark motives early in 80 B.C. and to have been somewhat frightened of what he saw. After Caesar daringly confronted him with grievences as to the political restrictions being imposed on him for his family's associations with the chief instigators of the civil war, Sulla was said to have exclaimed, "Beware! I see the faces of one thousand Mariuses in this one boy!" In short, Caesar was an overly ambitious political opportunist even by the liberal standards of his contemporaries who were intoxicated with political ambition already. He was a man who had few mores or ethics he was unwilling to part with if it could get him what he wanted even if the methods to be used were to the detriment of the--albeit imperfect--democratic institutions of his nation.
As for the supporting cast, Sulla played by Richard Harris was also falsely portrayed. Although Sulla was the arch-enemy of Marius, his proconsular post in Asia Minor against Mithridates was illegally removed from him by Marius who coveted the command for himself despite his being old, decrepid, and senile. Sulla eventually returned with his own army and entered Rome to restore order: the supporters of Marius and Cinna were in turn proscribed. Unlike Caesar who eventually bribed his way to permanent dictatorship, Sulla was appointed dictator due to real emergencies that he didn't really bring about. Caesar's relatives Cinna and Marius had clearly started and lost the civil war and died with most of their supporters in full flight, dead, or under siege. Sulla reorganized Rome's political institutions along more conservative lines to prevent the demagoguery of populists like Marius and Cinna from occurring again. He also undertook legal reforms to limit corruption and the power of the tribunes in carrying out plebiscites to circumvent the Senate. Sulla was not the mad dictator as shown in the film lusting only for power and he wasn't murdered by his opponents. Sulla honorably resigned his post as dictator after one year in 81 B.C. and died in 77 B.C. from a terminal illess and a wound he received while killing one of his creditors. The funniest character distortion in this film is that of Cato played by Christopher Walken. The film makes Cato Uticensis a major political player as early as Sulla's dictatorship and that is quite comical since, when Sulla returned to Rome in 82 B.C. , Cato would have been a very young and unusual member of the Senate at only 13 years of age and not even wearing his toga virilis! The real Cato only became a power in Rome and the Senate over twenty years later as an outspoken opponent of the First Triumvirate and Caesar. The film instead makes him an opponent to Sulla and later Caesar played by 60+ year old Christopher Walken who never seems to age one bit despite the passage of over 30 years until Cato's stoically defiant suicide in Utica.
One of the strangest choices in this film was to completely omit the existence of Marcus Licinius Crassus. This was unfortunate because Crassus' presence and eventual absence from Caesar's life is what brought him power and eventually forced him towards a final clash with Pompey and his supporters. Crassus was the single biggest power broker in Rome who was continuously trying to outwit Pompey The Great's ambitions. Caesar was a clever manipulator and often played Crassus against Pompey knowing of their animosities for one another. Caesar was often the convenient mediator between the two and would help them make amends to suit his ends. A good part of Caesar's safety and political advancements upon returning to Rome were due to Crassus probably even more than Pompey. Caesar was considered an enemy of the state after Sulla's dictatorship because of his family connections to Cinna and Marius and so most Roman aristocrats refused to associate with him or sponsor his political ambitions. Unlike Pompey whose recent noble lineage made him fear the scorn of the optimates and the nobility, Crassus was from the Licinii clan that had been well established since the Early Republic. As with Pompey, Crassus had populist agendas opposed by the nobility's conservative elements but, unlike Pompey, he didn't fear the nobility's disapproval and backlash as much: he therefore had less problems than Pompey in parting with the optimates and supporting Caesar's populist agendas. Crassus was indeed a huge political and financial backer for Caesar. Plutarch notes that Caesar was about to find himself in dire straits with his creditors prior to going to his Spanish governorship and that it was Crassus who paid for a huge balance of 800 talents/19,200,000 sesterces. To put this amount into perspective, both Cicero and Caesar bought luxurious villas from Crassus on the Palantine (Rome's Beverly Hills so to speak) for no more than 2 million sesterces. Caeasar was in serious need of cash and would probably have been barred from his governorship if not his senatorial station had not Crassus quickly payed this vast sum. Crassus had many mines and clients in Spain that seemed to be in jeopardy there due to Pompey having encroached himself there while fighting Sertorius. Caesar needed cash that Crassus had conveniently available as he had problems in Spain where Caesar was to govern. Caesar needed Crassus as a sponsor to appear more respectable in the Senate given his shady background. Caesar's fortune was therefore really a product of his collaboration with Crassus more than anything else. Caesar's importance in Roman affairs was rather minimal until Pompey and Crassus sponsored him. It was primarily Crassus who was the power behind the First Triumvirate and it was mainly he who promoted Caesar's command in Gaul. Both he and Crassus were the ones who sought to enfranchize Northern Italy. The film also attributes the victory against Spartacus to Pompey when it was unquestionably Crassus who ended the Slave Revolt: Pompey arrived with Lucullus at the last minute and did some mopping up. It was Crassus who had 6000 slaves from the revolt crucified from Capua to Rome along the Appian way and it was he who received an ovation for ending the Servile War, not Pompey: Pompey was simultaneously celebrating a full triumph for his defeat of Sertorius and Perperna in Spain which had nothing to do with the Servile War. Caesar later provided Crassus with over 4000 Gallic horsemen to help him in his disastrous Parthian campaign. Most important of all, the direct reason the Civil War erupted between the Pompeian and Caesarian factions was Crassus' untimely death in Parthia which completely dismantled his entire political clientelle and power base in Rome leaving a huge power vacuum in its mafiaesque republican system of clan patronage and syndication. This is important because all classical sources on Crassus, even as negative as they are, agree that Crassus had by far the most influence and power in Rome even after Pompey and Caesar had surpassed him in actual liquidity. This means that Crassus had the vastest and most solid investments in the Republic and, most importantly, the most solid connections with persons of influence amongst the commercial equestrian and plebeian classes as well as the individually silent but politically numerous lower nobility in the Senate. Upon his death, his youngest son Marcus was too young to take the reigns of his vast clientelle network and just fell in the ranks by joining Caesar along with most of his father's clients. Had Crassus not died unexpectedly with his eldest son Publius at Carrhae, the radical political alignments by his dependents mainly to the Caesarian faction would probably not have happened and civil war with the Pompeians would have almost certainly been avoided. The irony then of choosing to exclude Crassus as a character is that the film essentially shoots itself in the foot. The film redacted the single most important cataclysm towards what amounts to be the climax of both the film and history: the clash between Caesar and Pompey's republican supporters. What is comical is that the rushed and vacuous plot inserted in place of the history of Caesar and Crassus was not only historically ludicrous but was so poorly written that it simply failed to build up or accentuate any of the tensions it it had hoped to portray by making the redaction in the first place.
The true political intrigue between the shady Caesar and his fellow triumvirs along with the tragic consequences for each of them is interesting enough as it is to make a great movie: I don't see how some historically illiterate low-ranked Hollywood TV writer could make it more interesting than that. A film that would truly capture the 'Spirit of Late Republican Rome' and Caesar as one previous reviewer commented would not have excluded Crassus, beautified Caesar's sinister character, or reduced Roman history to an infantile depiction showing purely the settling of a personal grudge between Pompey and Caesar. The film wouldn't try to fit the characters of real and fascinating historical figures into trite 2-dimensional television characters that are crudely drafted to meet the limited needs of its infantile screenplay. A true film on the subject would instead take the challenge of the real Caesar and, with some reasonable liberties permitted, make a film that is accurate, interesting, revealing, and moving to watch concerning the life of one of the single most important founders of modern Europe and Western civilization. Boiling his character and deeds down to the form of a contrived and almost purely fictional novela is beyond my comprehension. The only reason I can see for doing something so reductive is that it was done to match the talent collectively possessed by all of those who were involved in devising the screenplay and in charge of the direction in this film. This movie drowns in its anachronisms and historical inaccuracies that are not merely pardonable omissions or alterations but simply absurd distortions in events, situations, and characters. Even the equally absurd distortions in Kubrick's 'Spartacus' are pardonable simply on the outstanding script, acting, and direction of which this film has none to boast of. In terms of acting here, the only performances that stand out are those by Richard Harris as Sulla and Christopher Walken as Cato and their cameos are simply too brief to make a real positive impact on this worthless pile of reel. Jeremy Sisto seemed too uncertain and shy to come across as a Caesar. Sisto doesn't even look anything like Caesar anyway as Caesar was described by ancient sources as having blonde hair. Caesar was said to be of generally frail health and certainly not Herculean in physique but he wasn't the worn out coat depicted in this film either. For these reasons, I wouldn't recommend this mini-series for a good film on Caesar. This production is even less faithful to Roman history than Howard Fast's 'Spartacus' and that's pretty bad: at least Fast had enough literary acumen to properly include Crassus in his story even though, at least by the poor standards of the writers in this film, he didn't really have to either I suppose.
Movie Review: They "deleted" Crassus!
Summary: 1 Stars
Don't waste your time in this film, it is one of the most innacurate historical films I ever saw. Suffice to mention the fact that during his lifetime, Caesar's best friend was Crassus, the richest man in Rome, who was SO IMPORTANT that when Caesar had to share the supreme power, before going to Gaul, he formed a Triumvirate, composed of himself, Pompeii and Crassus. The latter also was Caesar's major financing means until Caesar got back from Gaul as a rich man. Well, this film just "deletes" Crassus from History, and he doesn't appear at all. The screenplay is so confused, trying for some reason to avoid mentioning Crassus, that when they show briefly the revolt of the slaves - led by Spartacus, but also no mention of Spartacus' name - the man who crushed the rebellion was...you guessed it, Crassus. During the campaign against Spartacus, one of Crassus' Legions fled scared from combat with Spartacus' troops, and he is one of the major examples of a Roman General who "Decimated" the Legion. The punishment of Decimare, or Decimate, in English, consisted in dividing the Legion in groups of ten men (Decimus=Ten in Latin) and in each group of ten one was randomly picked to be killed by the other nine. After Crassus did this, none of his legions ever again fled from combat, and he crushed the rebellion, and crucified all the survivors, planting the crosses along the 100 miles of the Via Apia, one cross every few feet, from Rome to Ostia.
In this awful film, the victor of the rebellion of the slaves is shown to be Pompeii - who NEVER fought Spartacus.
The old Dictator Sulla is shown as a half crazy old man, despotic, having died during a bath, when in reality he was ruthless, yes, but not mad or power-crazy. In reality he made all the necessary changes in the Roman Senate and Government - during the process proscribing and allowing many people to be killed, yes, but then abdicated, returned to being a private citizen, retired to his villa away from Rome, where he enjoyed his last years among young boys and books, and died of old age.
The film shows Caesar being arrested by Sulla, which NEVER happened. Romans had no prisons as punishment for crimes. Either they killed and crucified the culprit, or sent him for life away from Rome, or he was considered innocent.
If you want to understand Sulla, Crassus, Pompeei, Caesar, Cleopatra, don't waste your time in this badly made film, better read the whole series of THE FIRST MAN IN ROME, by Coleen MacCoulough, which is the best series of historical novels I ever read
Movie Review: A review on JC:HTHC
Summary: 1 Stars
Here's some good advice: don't waste your money on this DVD or VHS !!!
If you've read Plutarch or Caesar's military memoirs, you will be very gravely dissapointed at this film. For some odd reason, Hollywood makes better ROMAN EMPIRE movies than they do make ROMAN REPUBLICAN movies even though there are great stories that occured during the times of the Republic: like stories concerning Judas Maccabeus in the Apocrypha or the war with Hannibal written in 10 books by Livy.
These four movies are unparalled for historical understanding and emotional detail: The Passion of the Christ (starring Jim Caviezel), Gladiator (starring Russel Crowe), and Attila (starring Gerard Butler). And let's not forget Ben Hur (starring Charletan Heston)--although I didn't see this last movie yet, but I've heard that it is a first rate movie. There is a great deal of historical drama in all of these wonderfully made movies; however, I strongly caution parents about letting their young children watching Gladiator and Attila--especially since the latter has quite a bit of lewd scenes in it. Attila shows two large battle scenes that are better than anything in Julius Caesar or the new Spartacus film. Attila is better than JC or Spartacus in terms of acting and scenery and action--it's seems so pointless that I wasted my time and money on Julius Caesar and the new Spartacus.
Although I don't want to overly criticize the performance of Jeremy Sisto, it takes more than a cool and determined looking demeanor to walk in the shoes of Julius Caesar, or atleast to put on a good show of trying to be like Caesar. The battles in Gaul (if you call those battles) were basically a joke and a half. If your looking for the real Julius Caesar in this film, you will be sadly let down. It's better to just watch the four great movies on the Roman times that I have just mentioned above. By the way, Powers Boothe makes a far better Roman general than Jeremy Sisto.
Movie Review: one star for effort
Summary: 1 Stars
This film is so egregiously historically inacurrate. They have taken the world's greatest Roman and convoluted his history, and his dignitas. I am disgusted with the screenwriters. However, Hollywood will be Hollywood. The will continue to screw things up so bad just for the sake of entertainment. They nearly forty years of history and cram it all into a mere ten. They made an effort to make it look like Rome, but far too many things were off. The true story of Gaius Julius Caesar's rise to power and his assasination will take SIX films, all of which, two and half to three hours a piece. This is truly a piece of crap. For starters, Gauis Julius Caesar was blonde. If you can't get that right, why even try?Movie Review: Garbage
Summary: 1 Stars
While it has a high production value, the historical inaccuracies are painful to watch. However you might feel about Caesar, the facts show us a man capable of both great and horrible things. This movie tries to make him out to be the consummate good guy, the Dudley Do-Right of Rome. I watched it hoping to show it to my 6th grade class, but I would never subject them to such a laughable take on history. Watch it if you're a fan of the actors or for a good laugh, but don't expect any historical value from it.