Save your money for something good and enjoyable

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

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.

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.

made for TV movies are generally looked down upon, and rightly so, many of them are not as finely crafted as this one. I was quite pleasantly surprised by this film, it has a few inaccuracies, such as the non-existent Crasus who was a part of the triumvirate, however, other than this, i found it quite delightful. Sulla was perhaps one of the best villains i have ever seen, and Julius Caesar was not just the caricature he was a living breathing human. Jeremy Sisto seems to have something, though i confess i am not sure what it was. there was a great deal of vibrance and energy in the project. kudos to the fantastic director and the way he pulled together a string of events to create such a lavish and lovable movie. this sounds silly but i did cry at the end, it was so sad to see Caesar with all his good intentions killed in cold blood. if only they had added the final speech by Antony....

Just as I expected, the film contains tons of factual errors but I won't go into all that. I just want to get past that and fast.The biggest problem (and the reason I'm writing this) is the main leading actor. First of all, he doesn't physically look like the man he is supposed to. Secondly, his behavior is very timid and cautious. This guy doesn't have the elegance and determination that the dictator had. No sign of the genius. Why for the love of coffee was he cast?! Also, he is being portrayed as modern man with modern values so that the modern audience could relate to him easily.I guess it's because the movie makers need the money and audience is money. The other possibility is that they simply have not known what they were dealing with here. As this is a movie about one particular man, the main character is the single most important thing. I just can't recognize him from this product. These historical movies offer false history and many many people will live in lies because of these. It's a pity.