I enjoyed this miniseries. I have some objections though. 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. Important characters and events like Catilina's revolt, Crassus, Octavian, the war in Spain, etc. are totally left out. The characters are very shallow. Caesar himself is to sympathetic - he was a shrewd and ruthless politician.
67 Reviews
History
dh18972 January 2007
My comments are mainly about the already existing comments which are nonsensical. Firstly, someone writes that it is a goof that Caesar claims to be a descendant of Venus, and that Venus is the Greek name, whereas the roman is Aphrodite. THAT is not the case: Venus is the roman name, and Aphrodite the Greek. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of mythology can tell you that.One should not write what one does not know about.
Secondly, there is a grave error in the summary: Brutus is NOT the nephew of Caesar but of Cato. Caesar had a very famous grand nephew named Gaius Octavian, aka Emperor Augustus, who is not depicted in the film but mentioned in the end credits.
I think it is OK for TV movie, but like most Roman films the "liberties" with historical facts annoys me. Still, it is far more correct than most of its ilk. A bit rushed at times, but fairly entertaining if you're into roman history.
Secondly, there is a grave error in the summary: Brutus is NOT the nephew of Caesar but of Cato. Caesar had a very famous grand nephew named Gaius Octavian, aka Emperor Augustus, who is not depicted in the film but mentioned in the end credits.
I think it is OK for TV movie, but like most Roman films the "liberties" with historical facts annoys me. Still, it is far more correct than most of its ilk. A bit rushed at times, but fairly entertaining if you're into roman history.
Not bad as TV biopics go, especially for history buffs.
fisherforrest9 August 2003
Covering the period from Sulla's occupation of Rome in 82 BC to Julius Caesar's murder in 44 BC, this is a fairly good biography. Some of the details of Caesar's career are touched on only briefly, and some relationships are inaccurate. E.G. Brutus was Cato's son-in-law, Portia was Cato's daughter. The film says Brutus was Cato's nephew. One may be disappointed not to get the dramatic aftermath of the murder, but that would take at least another hour. One might wish for better acting here and there, but you seldom get really great made-for-TV movies. As a lifelong history buff, I found the film entertaining, even instructive once in a while.
i feel insulted. (SPOILERS)
gaius-marius12 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
this movie hurt to watch, as a result i was not able to stomach watching all of it. once i reached the point of Pompey's return. i stopped watching, i could no longer take the woeful Historical inaccuracy of the piece. As such i can only point out the holes in the part i did see.
first a short explanation of the roman political climate just previous to the beginning of the movie (i've simplified it for ease of time): in 87 BC Sulla was sent by the Senate to Asia Minor (turkey) to deal with The King Of Pontus, who had invaded roman macedonia, and roman Asia, however Gaius Marius (non-blood Uncle to Caesar)the Greatest of Romes Generals to that date (though now rather old) connived to have the position transferred to him, after Sulla had already left. After hearing his command had been stripped of him, Sulla turned around and marched on Rome, Lacking an army to contend with, Marius fleed, eventually reaching Africa, where a large number of Veterans who had fought with Marius years earlier were now settled. when Sulla had finally left for good to the east, Marius landed just north of rome, where he gathered an army of slaves to join his veterans, he then marched on rome and his army proceeded to pillage the city, rampantly slaughtering Marius's enemies, soon afterwards Marius died of a stroke, and though he was evil at his end, he would be loved by the people as their greatest hero, until Caesar took his place. Rome then fell to Cinna, ally of Marius, who ruled for a time until his death, when he was replaced by Carbo, who ruled until Sulla's return to Italy.
now for the film.
starting with Sulla's arrival, the people of Rome seem surprised at his appearance, when in fact they had known he was coming for a long time, he had been fighting a civil war against Carbo's Rome for quite some time. Pompey was not with him when he reached Rome, as Sulla had sent him to Sicily to secure the grain supply. furthermore Pompey was in his early twenties at this time, and had golden hair, as opposed to the middle aged black haired figure of the movie. We see in the film Cato, as a middle-aged man, come out of the Senate House and make a comment against Sulla. in reality Cato was only 13 at the time, 5 years younger than Caesar, he was also Pro-Sulla. according to the film Marius used to make the same allegations of being descended from gods as Caesar did. Marius was not Caesar's uncle by blood, furthermore he had been raised in the countryside and was a Novus Homo, the first man in a family to reach the Senate. the degree to which Pompey was a close agent of Sulla is vastly overstated, Pompey was an arrogant pup, Sulla used him when he had to, and not anymore. when Caesar is bought before Sulla, Sulla does not recognise him, when in fact Sulla's first wife had been Caesar's aunt, and they had met many times. as stated Cinna was already dead when Sulla took Rome. In reality Caesar was not helped by Pompey, Pompey knew nothing of Caesar at the time, more to the point he did not flee to the east, but into the Italian countryside, where he hid until a delegation of noblemen convinced Sulla to recall the sentence of death upon him, Sulla was never tricked into thinking Caesar dead, as the movie would have you think.
Sulla is treated very harshly in the film, he was in reality not mad or evil. He reformed Rome in an effort to prevent the turmoil of recent years being repeated. He fought to maintain the Senate's position as the main body of government, and thus limited the powers of the assemblies, he reformed a corrupt court system. He served as Dictator for 3 years, before handing back sovereignty to the people and retiring to private life, none of this is passed on in the movie. When during his consulship (shared with Crassus, who is completely ignored in this film) Pompey repelled some of Sulla's laws, he did it only to his own selfish ends. furthermore the movie makes it look like Pompey was some big senate leader. in fact Pompey wasn't even in the senate! At the funeral oration of his wife (why this funeral and not the far more significant funeral of Julia wife of Marius is used int eh film i don't know) Caesar implies Marius died at Sulla's hand, he in fact died of a stroke, while Sulla was on the other end of the roman world. the film completely ignored the vast senatorial opposition to Pompey. When Pompey returns Caesar says he is Consul, in fact in the year of Pompeys return ( i assume the movie has amalgamated the campaigns against the pirates, and Pompeys conquest of the middle east, if they have not then things are even more inaccurate than i thought) Caesar was inly Praetor.and would not be consul for another 2 years.
this is were i stopped watching.
lastly the issue of Caesar in the east, Caesar did go to King Nicomedes Of Bythnia, but it was a military assignment of Caesar's own choosing, not as a refugee from Sulla. it was on a second trip to the east the Caesar was captured by pirates. pirates whose lair he later found and had them all crucified.
this movie an insult to the history of rome 0/10
first a short explanation of the roman political climate just previous to the beginning of the movie (i've simplified it for ease of time): in 87 BC Sulla was sent by the Senate to Asia Minor (turkey) to deal with The King Of Pontus, who had invaded roman macedonia, and roman Asia, however Gaius Marius (non-blood Uncle to Caesar)the Greatest of Romes Generals to that date (though now rather old) connived to have the position transferred to him, after Sulla had already left. After hearing his command had been stripped of him, Sulla turned around and marched on Rome, Lacking an army to contend with, Marius fleed, eventually reaching Africa, where a large number of Veterans who had fought with Marius years earlier were now settled. when Sulla had finally left for good to the east, Marius landed just north of rome, where he gathered an army of slaves to join his veterans, he then marched on rome and his army proceeded to pillage the city, rampantly slaughtering Marius's enemies, soon afterwards Marius died of a stroke, and though he was evil at his end, he would be loved by the people as their greatest hero, until Caesar took his place. Rome then fell to Cinna, ally of Marius, who ruled for a time until his death, when he was replaced by Carbo, who ruled until Sulla's return to Italy.
now for the film.
starting with Sulla's arrival, the people of Rome seem surprised at his appearance, when in fact they had known he was coming for a long time, he had been fighting a civil war against Carbo's Rome for quite some time. Pompey was not with him when he reached Rome, as Sulla had sent him to Sicily to secure the grain supply. furthermore Pompey was in his early twenties at this time, and had golden hair, as opposed to the middle aged black haired figure of the movie. We see in the film Cato, as a middle-aged man, come out of the Senate House and make a comment against Sulla. in reality Cato was only 13 at the time, 5 years younger than Caesar, he was also Pro-Sulla. according to the film Marius used to make the same allegations of being descended from gods as Caesar did. Marius was not Caesar's uncle by blood, furthermore he had been raised in the countryside and was a Novus Homo, the first man in a family to reach the Senate. the degree to which Pompey was a close agent of Sulla is vastly overstated, Pompey was an arrogant pup, Sulla used him when he had to, and not anymore. when Caesar is bought before Sulla, Sulla does not recognise him, when in fact Sulla's first wife had been Caesar's aunt, and they had met many times. as stated Cinna was already dead when Sulla took Rome. In reality Caesar was not helped by Pompey, Pompey knew nothing of Caesar at the time, more to the point he did not flee to the east, but into the Italian countryside, where he hid until a delegation of noblemen convinced Sulla to recall the sentence of death upon him, Sulla was never tricked into thinking Caesar dead, as the movie would have you think.
Sulla is treated very harshly in the film, he was in reality not mad or evil. He reformed Rome in an effort to prevent the turmoil of recent years being repeated. He fought to maintain the Senate's position as the main body of government, and thus limited the powers of the assemblies, he reformed a corrupt court system. He served as Dictator for 3 years, before handing back sovereignty to the people and retiring to private life, none of this is passed on in the movie. When during his consulship (shared with Crassus, who is completely ignored in this film) Pompey repelled some of Sulla's laws, he did it only to his own selfish ends. furthermore the movie makes it look like Pompey was some big senate leader. in fact Pompey wasn't even in the senate! At the funeral oration of his wife (why this funeral and not the far more significant funeral of Julia wife of Marius is used int eh film i don't know) Caesar implies Marius died at Sulla's hand, he in fact died of a stroke, while Sulla was on the other end of the roman world. the film completely ignored the vast senatorial opposition to Pompey. When Pompey returns Caesar says he is Consul, in fact in the year of Pompeys return ( i assume the movie has amalgamated the campaigns against the pirates, and Pompeys conquest of the middle east, if they have not then things are even more inaccurate than i thought) Caesar was inly Praetor.and would not be consul for another 2 years.
this is were i stopped watching.
lastly the issue of Caesar in the east, Caesar did go to King Nicomedes Of Bythnia, but it was a military assignment of Caesar's own choosing, not as a refugee from Sulla. it was on a second trip to the east the Caesar was captured by pirates. pirates whose lair he later found and had them all crucified.
this movie an insult to the history of rome 0/10
Good and spectacular version on Caesar life with excellent performances and sensational scenarios
ma-cortes4 April 2007
This vivid storytelling about the Caesar life is one of the greatest stories ever told.This Roman story told in impact form on a great scale with several spectacular scenes, though is a fairly standard for epic TV.Lavishly TV miniseries from Sulla government until death Caesar.It concerns about his infamous existence, feats,political greed,corruption,tragedies,wars and lovers.One of the last television's most prestigious production with electrifying performances,this is definitely the best TV version available about the famous historic character developed of the following way :
The tyrant Sulla(Richard Harris) defeated to Marius and conquers Rome ,Julius Caesar(100-44 BC),as nephew of Marius,is condemned to death,but helped by Pompeius(Chris North)flees towards Orient where is kidnapped by pirates asking a ransom.When is freed,he returns to Rome where is married with Calpurnia(Valeria Golino) and begins the political career.Meanwhile,his daughter Julia marries with Pompeius and Caesar asks him his army to fight against the barbarians.But Caesar conquers whole the Gaul.The final defeat takes place at Alesia where Vercingetorix(Heino Ferch) is definitely vanquished and coerced to handcuffed parade through the Rome streets.Julius Caesar is appointed as Consul for life and crossed the river Rubicon.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.Pompeyo escapes to Alejandria, Egypt where is beheaded by Tolomeo and Potino. 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.Later they return to Rome,but the thing don't turn out so well.An old man prevents him on the Ides of March.Caesar is murdered by his nephew Brutus(Ian Duncan) and Cassius(Tobias Moretti) and senators,starting the second triumvirate by Marc Anthony,Lepido and Octavius Augustus .The son of Caesar and Cleopatra -Caesarion- was assassinated by order of Augustus.
This stylish,visually stunning epic-scale Roman biography contains,drama,action,romance and overwhelming battles including the computer generator soldiers,though the crowd is most part by ordering ,in spite of it, still looks great.The movie displays a few top American stars in main characters somewhat at variance with an array of notable British acting talents.There are memorable performances from leading roles and the movie's wealth of expert personages-drawing extends rightly to the minor roles,one of which is played by Richard Harris,he seems terrific in his last performance.Harris whose memory the movie is dedicated but he died during the filming.Directed with imagination by Uli Edel,the picture proved that the public would go for epic series if the impact was strong and the performance attractive enough.Lovers of Sword and sandals genre and good acting will find much that is rewarding. Anothers versions about Caesar life are : The classical by Josep'h L. Mankiewicz(1953) with Brando and James Mason and by Sturat Burge(1970) with Charlton Heston and Jason Robards.
The tyrant Sulla(Richard Harris) defeated to Marius and conquers Rome ,Julius Caesar(100-44 BC),as nephew of Marius,is condemned to death,but helped by Pompeius(Chris North)flees towards Orient where is kidnapped by pirates asking a ransom.When is freed,he returns to Rome where is married with Calpurnia(Valeria Golino) and begins the political career.Meanwhile,his daughter Julia marries with Pompeius and Caesar asks him his army to fight against the barbarians.But Caesar conquers whole the Gaul.The final defeat takes place at Alesia where Vercingetorix(Heino Ferch) is definitely vanquished and coerced to handcuffed parade through the Rome streets.Julius Caesar is appointed as Consul for life and crossed the river Rubicon.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.Pompeyo escapes to Alejandria, Egypt where is beheaded by Tolomeo and Potino. 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.Later they return to Rome,but the thing don't turn out so well.An old man prevents him on the Ides of March.Caesar is murdered by his nephew Brutus(Ian Duncan) and Cassius(Tobias Moretti) and senators,starting the second triumvirate by Marc Anthony,Lepido and Octavius Augustus .The son of Caesar and Cleopatra -Caesarion- was assassinated by order of Augustus.
This stylish,visually stunning epic-scale Roman biography contains,drama,action,romance and overwhelming battles including the computer generator soldiers,though the crowd is most part by ordering ,in spite of it, still looks great.The movie displays a few top American stars in main characters somewhat at variance with an array of notable British acting talents.There are memorable performances from leading roles and the movie's wealth of expert personages-drawing extends rightly to the minor roles,one of which is played by Richard Harris,he seems terrific in his last performance.Harris whose memory the movie is dedicated but he died during the filming.Directed with imagination by Uli Edel,the picture proved that the public would go for epic series if the impact was strong and the performance attractive enough.Lovers of Sword and sandals genre and good acting will find much that is rewarding. Anothers versions about Caesar life are : The classical by Josep'h L. Mankiewicz(1953) with Brando and James Mason and by Sturat Burge(1970) with Charlton Heston and Jason Robards.
Decent enough, but could be better.
filipemanuelneto27 April 2017
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. 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. This case, unfortunately, is no different. Characters' way of being and acting still shows the way we think in the present. Historically, however,it's strict enough to be acceptable. It might be better, in some detail, and really show us some important moments in the life of this personality that we don't see, even if they're numbered. For example, everything that had to do with Caesar's military life was brutally softened, and we have never been able to grasp the military's worth of this man whose war strategies are still being studied in military academies. 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. Actors do, as a rule, a very competent job. The protagonist is Jeremy Sisto, an actor he had never seen and who seems quite young but talented. Richard Harris is an accomplished actor, a veteran who never leaves us disappointed. Christopher Walken also shone on your character.
Decent
mlynch518719 July 2021
Caesar did not become a god by being patriotic
rowmorg24 June 2005
Caesar was most infamous in his own ruling circles for seducing the wife of whomever he had dealings with, but this "reading" of his life has no room for such human truths. According to Uli Edel's version, Caesar's patriotism drove him to the top. How ludicrous. The man who paid the bills to get Caesar into the driving seat, Crassus, never even appears. Caesar is also presented as merciful to a fault. He may have been, on occasions, but as a young man he exercised murderous revenge on the impoverished pirates who understandably held him, a Roman aristo, to ransom. His ambition and vanity were vaulting. Imagine abandoning your wife and potential family for eight years, and then having your secretaries write your memoirs about it in the third person. This said, however, it was a pleasure to recognise the Roman Forum, rebuilt at huge expense, from the original ruins that I visited a few years back. The rest of the art direction was a delight, with the villas faithfully reproduced from the surviving examples in Pompeii. The barbarian Gauls all accurately wore trousers, while the Romans were comfortable in tunics and togas. No automobiles, no interrupting telephones, no television, it doesn't matter how awful the script is, as long as these deep truths are observed, any film that is half accurate about Roman life becomes a fascinating commentary on our age.
I'm a believer
HailSisto14 July 2003
With his performance in Caesar, Jeremy Sisto has a new fan.
He was a sexy, compassionate, yet brutal Caesar with a touch of insanity toward the end.
I wish they had made this a 6 hour series as the second half seemed rushed. There was so much more to Caesar's life. I think the audience needed to see more of what lead up to what happened on the Senate floor.
All in all though, I'm addicted to this mini-series.
He was a sexy, compassionate, yet brutal Caesar with a touch of insanity toward the end.
I wish they had made this a 6 hour series as the second half seemed rushed. There was so much more to Caesar's life. I think the audience needed to see more of what lead up to what happened on the Senate floor.
All in all though, I'm addicted to this mini-series.
Well made but inaccurate
ashwetherall129 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Julius Caesar is a slightly better than average TV movie. But I would not recommend it for history buffs as it dose take quite a few liberty's with its historical accuracy . For example all the costumes are very inaccurate from the army uniforms to the senators robes. Especially in the case of Cato. Cato was said to have lead a rather Spartan life style and never wore the robes of the senator plus Cato was younger than Caesar so why get Christopher Walken to play him. Also the character of Vercingetorix is seen being killed in his jail cell. This never happened as he was ritually garroted in public. Also I think Sulla died of a flesh eating disease, similar to syphilis. Plus Marcus Licinius Crassus, Caesars Mentor and Sponsor is not even mentioned. I'm a bit of a roman history buff and have read a number of books on the Caesar. But I must say I half expected the mini series to be ten time worse. What saves Julius Caesar is the fact that it is well acted by most of the cast and is the first movie that I have seen that try's and tackle the early life of Caesar. It dose this quite well. Although it tended to jump forward years and miss out some major events in Caesars life. In short it was a bit rushed, but you can't have it all. Special effects and the battles are bloodless but well handled Getting back to the cast. Jeremy Sisto is a very good Caesar, unfortunately he doesn't age well. Richard Harris in his last role adds weight to the small role of Sulla. Chris North is good but under used as Pompey, Samuela Sardo is way to sexy to be a realistic Cleopatra but as eye candy, she's great. Valeria Golino really isn't given enough to do as Calpurnia, but is always a pleasure to watch and Christopher Walken is good but miss cast. The plain fact is that you can't fit Julius Caesars life into 3hours. I think they would have done better to make a 10 hour mini series in the same vain as H B O's ROME. But don't be put off by my small moans. I love epic movies and these type of mini series and I hope that they continue to make them. Julius Caesar was on the whole a reasonable attempted and I do not regret watching it. I just wish they hadn't have rushed it.
historically a joke
csongor28 June 2008
more to entertain than to inform and, sadly it fails to do the former. in 82 BC when the film opens Caesar (born 100 BC) was 18, yet they would have you believe that he had an eight year old daughter. also seems to be an unknown which was not the case. as for Cato, he appears to be years older than Caesar in the film yet in reality was three years younger.
also to clarify another reviewer's comments; Cato was Brutus's uncle. he--Cato--shared a mother with Servillia, the mother of Brutus. she was the sister of Livius Drusus, the tribune of the plebeians who was assassinated around 108. her original husband, Caepio father of Servillia, was killed in the east. she then took up with M. Porcius Cato's father. according to Plutarch, Sulla died after having relinquished the office of dictator and retired to the countryside to spend the end of his days in total debauchery.
also missing from the film is Crassus and Cicero. to omit these characters is akin to omitting w.t. Sherman and Jefferson Davis from any story about the civil war. as a result the movie is careless in its regard for history. one of the early scenes in the movie involving the pirates is so ignorant of history as to make the viewer throw up their hands in disgust and say 'why was the primary text ignored?' the story of Caesar and the pirates is one of the best stories of his life and it was not given any justice. if one would be interested in roman history i strongly suggest reading up on the harrowing tale of Caesar and the pirates. in the end this movie was in terms of historical accuracy below even the HBO series Rome which was also fairly free in its interpretation of roman history but much more entertaining.
also to clarify another reviewer's comments; Cato was Brutus's uncle. he--Cato--shared a mother with Servillia, the mother of Brutus. she was the sister of Livius Drusus, the tribune of the plebeians who was assassinated around 108. her original husband, Caepio father of Servillia, was killed in the east. she then took up with M. Porcius Cato's father. according to Plutarch, Sulla died after having relinquished the office of dictator and retired to the countryside to spend the end of his days in total debauchery.
also missing from the film is Crassus and Cicero. to omit these characters is akin to omitting w.t. Sherman and Jefferson Davis from any story about the civil war. as a result the movie is careless in its regard for history. one of the early scenes in the movie involving the pirates is so ignorant of history as to make the viewer throw up their hands in disgust and say 'why was the primary text ignored?' the story of Caesar and the pirates is one of the best stories of his life and it was not given any justice. if one would be interested in roman history i strongly suggest reading up on the harrowing tale of Caesar and the pirates. in the end this movie was in terms of historical accuracy below even the HBO series Rome which was also fairly free in its interpretation of roman history but much more entertaining.
Worth it just to see Walken
sophie_lou2115 October 2006
Julius Caesar is a very good film and it is worth watching if you're a sucker for history--though it's not completely historically accurate, for example Cato being a member of the senate when Sulla was in charge when he was only a teenager and putting Julia, Portia, Brutus and Marcus' ages the same when Julia and Brutus were at least six years older then Portia and Marcus. It was also disappointing not to see Brutus' mother Servilia, who was the love of Caesar's life, missing out an extra tension between her brother Cato and Caesar as well as the crude rumours that Brutus was Caesar's bastard son...
But otherwise, it's a great show...
So, what about the characters, you ask? 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. As for everyone else, Pompey is such a big-headed dude who I wouldn't trust at all--good job Julia was there (who is nice but she's irritating.) Antony can be a bit annoying, Cassius' special subject is the obvious and he might get on your nerves (her certainly gets on Brutus') Marcus (Cato's son) is an overgrown baby but he is noble and very sweet--he gives us a lovely scene towards the end with Cato and he stands up to Caesar. Brutus is the sort of guy you want to pat on the head but it's hard to decide whether you like him or curse him, and then his wife/cousin Portia who admittedly spends most of her time standing next to him looking pretty, does a remarkable wordless scene when she stumbles across Brutus planning the murder of Caesar.
So who is the one you want to watch this for, well, partly Richard Harriswho plays the villain Sulla very well considering he spends most of his time playing friendly, old heroesbut mostly, you watch it so see Christopher Walken who plays the amazing and hypnotic Cato, father of Portia and uncle of Brutus. Walken is by far the best actor in this showhis way of grabbing your attention just with one sentence is remarkable and he pulls off the noble, stubborn and grumpy Cato perfectly making this film worth watching just to see his tear jerking death scene acted to perfection with the moving soundtrack this film has.
Overall, I advice to you watch this if you are one of those people who is a sucker for the Roman history.
But otherwise, it's a great show...
So, what about the characters, you ask? 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. As for everyone else, Pompey is such a big-headed dude who I wouldn't trust at all--good job Julia was there (who is nice but she's irritating.) Antony can be a bit annoying, Cassius' special subject is the obvious and he might get on your nerves (her certainly gets on Brutus') Marcus (Cato's son) is an overgrown baby but he is noble and very sweet--he gives us a lovely scene towards the end with Cato and he stands up to Caesar. Brutus is the sort of guy you want to pat on the head but it's hard to decide whether you like him or curse him, and then his wife/cousin Portia who admittedly spends most of her time standing next to him looking pretty, does a remarkable wordless scene when she stumbles across Brutus planning the murder of Caesar.
So who is the one you want to watch this for, well, partly Richard Harriswho plays the villain Sulla very well considering he spends most of his time playing friendly, old heroesbut mostly, you watch it so see Christopher Walken who plays the amazing and hypnotic Cato, father of Portia and uncle of Brutus. Walken is by far the best actor in this showhis way of grabbing your attention just with one sentence is remarkable and he pulls off the noble, stubborn and grumpy Cato perfectly making this film worth watching just to see his tear jerking death scene acted to perfection with the moving soundtrack this film has.
Overall, I advice to you watch this if you are one of those people who is a sucker for the Roman history.
Interesting but Over the Top and Confusing at Times
FilmLabRat6 July 2003
This mini-series was fascinating at times, but could get to be too much. 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. I didn't care for the melodramatic music throughout and thought the acting was often likewise emotionally manipulative rather than believable. However, Jeremy Sisto was good as Caesar, for the most part, a surprisingly versatile actor. Pompeii and Brutas were my favorite characters and the parts were also well-acted. On the whole, I felt it was too soap-like and thus hard to appreciate, in spite of the great setting and costumes, fine story and interesting characters.
Inaccurate and unforgivably boring!..
Adams590512 August 2016
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. I can't really see anybody sitting down to watch a three-hour biopic who hadn't already at least a passing knowledge of the subject, so wonder what demographic the producers were aiming at-it was always obvious that at least some of the dozens of mistakes were going to be pointed out... Although I've read elsewhere people criticizing the critics themselves by saying 'it's only a movie, and not a history lesson'-I disagree-the Romans were inveterate diarists and cataloguers, which is why we know so much of what happened during this period-It's true history is written by the victor, but there are so many contemporary sources to mine for facts that I can only assume the producers just couldn't be bothered... But my main gripe is that somehow this managed to contrive to be boring... It's a fascinating period of history, as any schoolboy will tell you, and yet the first hour seemed to drag and drag... In a period when murder was commonly used as a political tool, when great and wealthy individuals were willing and able to raise private armies to further their own wealth as well as enriching the republic, when political subterfuge and machination were commonplace, the first hour of this biopic was dry as dust... Endless conversations without any attempt to enlighten the viewer by clarifying the political situation. Due to budgetary constraints, only a single battle was shown in any detail (Alesia), but even that was unimpressive, as the relative numbers of Romans and Gaulish Celts were never shown, unforgivable in an age of CGI... So all in all, I've given this 3/10 for effort. It was a real opportunity wasted-thousands of amateur historians might well have been disappointed with this dull-as-ditchwater composition. To those, I recommend Adrian Goldsworthy's Caesar: Life of a Colossus... You won't be able to put it down!..
a sort of try
Kirpianuscus27 February 2021
The basic sin of this mini serie is to be too long and too short in same measure. You expect see Cicero and Crassus. You expect see a rich content about pirates . You expect see some historical accuracies. You expect see...
But the good point is the honest job of the actors. And the Ides of Mars . But nothing more or else or promising. Sure, I understand the desire of Udi Edel to meke a film about Julius Caesar. I do not understand the resulted massacre. Because the subject is real generouse. Because the death of Caesar seems a sort of punch in stomach. Too early, too forced. Because the make up, against good intentions, is awful. Because the actor deserve better dialogues and stronger roles. But , sure, it is a try. Not convincing, maybe reasonable for part of public.
But the good point is the honest job of the actors. And the Ides of Mars . But nothing more or else or promising. Sure, I understand the desire of Udi Edel to meke a film about Julius Caesar. I do not understand the resulted massacre. Because the subject is real generouse. Because the death of Caesar seems a sort of punch in stomach. Too early, too forced. Because the make up, against good intentions, is awful. Because the actor deserve better dialogues and stronger roles. But , sure, it is a try. Not convincing, maybe reasonable for part of public.
Shakespeare wept. Suetonius would commit suicide if her were alive.
gmcdouga-130 June 2003
Enjoyed the action, the history was way far off, and Why oh Why did Calpurnia. a noble roman lady, speak with such an accent - the actress didn't have one in her Ramada roles in Hot Shots - at least not so obvious a one.
A great Caesar!
ellieswhim30 June 2003
I watched this on two separate occasions, since I missed the first part of the first showing. I thought it was very good, very nicely done. We hadn't been watching long when I made the comment to my husband, "Man, this guy is a perfect Caesar!" So I found it interesting that the previous reviewer had the exact opposite opinion. I think it probably depends on your own preconceived notions of the real Julius Caesar, but I felt he was portrayed with a good mix of heroism and sometimes all too fallible humanity.
Slow start, but better finish
nightshade711 March 2006
Okay, I'll say that I enjoyed this film, at least from about halfway through until the end. The big names (Walken, Harris, Noth) piqued my interests, so I took a shot.
The directing, in my opinion, is what made this poorer than it could have been (I wasn't aware that it was a made-for-TV film either). I think that, though it took me a bit to warm up to him, Sisto did a good job. Both his voice and his facial expressions are commanding, though the director would have been smart to have him lift weights for a couple months (same with the actor who played Antony) to make it more believable. The pretty boy appearance for great warriors kinda takes away from the overall value.
On the up side, it's a wholesome film that kids can watch and actually learn something - a concept that's becoming more and more a rarity.
Walken's and Noth's roles were supportive enough to make it work. Again, though, I just remember sitting there saying to myself, "If this had a decent director, it could go somewhere." Too much of a newbie feel to it. Otherwise it was quite enjoyable, with the exception of the last scene of the film ending too abruptly.
7/10.
BV
The directing, in my opinion, is what made this poorer than it could have been (I wasn't aware that it was a made-for-TV film either). I think that, though it took me a bit to warm up to him, Sisto did a good job. Both his voice and his facial expressions are commanding, though the director would have been smart to have him lift weights for a couple months (same with the actor who played Antony) to make it more believable. The pretty boy appearance for great warriors kinda takes away from the overall value.
On the up side, it's a wholesome film that kids can watch and actually learn something - a concept that's becoming more and more a rarity.
Walken's and Noth's roles were supportive enough to make it work. Again, though, I just remember sitting there saying to myself, "If this had a decent director, it could go somewhere." Too much of a newbie feel to it. Otherwise it was quite enjoyable, with the exception of the last scene of the film ending too abruptly.
7/10.
BV
Half-way good
jlw961 July 2003
I was riveted to my seat during the first night's showing of Caesar on TNT. I had not known much about the young Caesar so that was an interesting discovery. I thought Jeremy Sisto did a great job with what he had to work with. I was thoroughly disappointed with the second night's showing. It seems like it was rushed through just to get the movie out in the allotted timeframe. I wanted more information about Caesar's time in Gaul, when he marched back to Rome, when he went after Cato and Pompey, when he was in Egypt, when he was back in Rome. They instead focused on his imminent assassination and skimmed over the rest. I found myself wondering why Caesar was so great because he sure was not presented as such in this production. What exactly did he accomplish for Rome besides bringing in more wealth from his conquests? I suppose a look in the history books would answer the question, but I was hoping to find my answer in the 3 plus hours of "Caesar."
I was especially disappointed with the battle between the Romans and the Gauls. It seemed like the Gauls had the advantage and all of a sudden they retreated when Caesar showed up with his horses. Why? I think the battle scene footage was horribly shot. Then there appeared to be an absence of bodies lying around in the aftermath. I find it hard to believe somebody would come in and clean up the field so quickly. You would have found it surprising there ever was a battle the way it was portrayed on film. Also, where did the Gauls who had been surrounded for months get all those healthy looking horses? If they were starving, wouldn't the horses be the first to go instead of the women and children? Did they save all of their food to feed the horses? It looked like every single man coming out of that fortress had his own horse. All in all, I only recommend this movie for when you have nothing better to watch.
I was especially disappointed with the battle between the Romans and the Gauls. It seemed like the Gauls had the advantage and all of a sudden they retreated when Caesar showed up with his horses. Why? I think the battle scene footage was horribly shot. Then there appeared to be an absence of bodies lying around in the aftermath. I find it hard to believe somebody would come in and clean up the field so quickly. You would have found it surprising there ever was a battle the way it was portrayed on film. Also, where did the Gauls who had been surrounded for months get all those healthy looking horses? If they were starving, wouldn't the horses be the first to go instead of the women and children? Did they save all of their food to feed the horses? It looked like every single man coming out of that fortress had his own horse. All in all, I only recommend this movie for when you have nothing better to watch.
Amazing
hailsistojeremysisto8 July 2004
I thought Jeremy was amazing as Caesar, When I watched Caesar I had never heard of Jeremy before. I thought to myself 'who the heck is this guy? They could have at least got someone good.' Little did I know I would be breathless by his performance. I could not keep my eyes off of him. His charisma was comparable to that of Caesar himself. There have been many greats to play Caesar Marlon Brando and Charlton Heston. Who would have thought someone who is not well know as Jeremy would play Caesar the best. I have since become a huge fan of Jeremy's. I have seen other movies of his and still I am blown away with Caesar. I see him in other films and I have a hard time believing he was Caesar. He really plays all his characters well. He is very believable as Caesar. I thought most of Caesar was accurate, as accurate as one can be in Hollywood. But as far as Jeremy goes playing Caesar, absolutely amazing. He is the best.
Okay, but no masterpiece...
Klotzinho29 December 2002
I watched this two part TV movie the past two evenings. It is okay, but it could have been a lot more, if it was not for the pretty poor acting. Jeremy Sisto (plays Caesar) is inconsistent in his performance. Sometimes he is pretty good, but usually his performance is disturbing. Even Christopher Walken, who I usually like to watch, is disappointing. He simply does not fit into his role. The rest of the cast is not that brilliant either. I do not want to say they are awful, but it is a sub par performance by most of the cast. The story is interesting (nevertheless partially not compatible with history) and keeps the movie interesting even when Sisto has one of his bad moments. I rate it 6 out of 10 because the story, the scenery and the music are fine. It could have been 8 with better acting.
A curiosity, but not much else
Paris-613 July 2005
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. 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. Anyone who has seen Rex Harrison as Caesar might ought to avoid this one altogether or risk cringe after cringe. Though Sisto does try, and gives a better performance than Klaus Maria Brandauer as Caesar in "Druids/Vercingetorix", the best parts about this movie are the sets and the supporting actors. The story is not that compellingly presented and often the dialogue is quite wooden. It's a shame Richard Harris had to go out like this.
Entertaining with a Caveat
mandagrammy10 May 2021
Naturally there are many liberties taken with the facts in this series, and yet there are a number of totally accurate moments included too, more than enough to keep this from being a complete fiction. Personally, I found the acting quite good overall. If you enjoy ancient Roman times, I think this is worth watching, but if you expect a documentary type film, turn elsewhere. It is a dramatization of a turbulent and fascinating time in history.
veni, vidi, indiligentiam veritus sum
dominiklipinski17 January 2023
Really good acting, but the historical inaccuracy does not allow a higher rating.
Especially the performance of Jeremy Sisto, Valeria Golino and Chris Noth is notable.
Sadly we don't see anything of Cicero or Ocatvian, the later Augustus, who will be the first Roman Emperor. Also the fact, that Caesar was well-read, interested in literature and a significant writer comes short. But it's understandable, that not every aspect of Caesars life, fits in 3-4 hours. What bothers me is the fact, that the movie gives the impression, that Caesar and Pompeius were consules together for like 20 years.
Also Christopher Walken plays Cato Minor, who was a teenager, when Sulla became a dictator. That's an interesting casting choice.
Especially the performance of Jeremy Sisto, Valeria Golino and Chris Noth is notable.
Sadly we don't see anything of Cicero or Ocatvian, the later Augustus, who will be the first Roman Emperor. Also the fact, that Caesar was well-read, interested in literature and a significant writer comes short. But it's understandable, that not every aspect of Caesars life, fits in 3-4 hours. What bothers me is the fact, that the movie gives the impression, that Caesar and Pompeius were consules together for like 20 years.
Also Christopher Walken plays Cato Minor, who was a teenager, when Sulla became a dictator. That's an interesting casting choice.
Pretty lame
Umberto8818 November 2016
A lame and dated costume drama that feels like it was filmed in 1952, not in 2002. None of the social, political and historical context of the events in Caesear's life is explained at all. The Roman Republic was already dying and on its last legs, and ultimately did not survive the birth of the Roman Empire. By watching this mini-series one essentially could not learn anything meaningful about Ceasar as a historical and a political figure. Everything is reduced to a personal costume melodrama, but the series is unconvincing even at that level. Anyone with any interest in Roman history should watch the HBO series 'Rome' instead. It was made just a few years later (2005- 2007), and while it at times goes overboard with sex and nudity, that series captures the historical essence of the events of Caesar's life infinitely better than the 'Julius Caesar' mini-series.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
