Julius Caesar (2002) Online

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.

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

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 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.

Julius Caesar is another mini series by the DeAngelis Group. Like some of their other Producions one sees a few well know actors, such as Richard Harris and Christopher Walken , as well as some local actors of Germany and Italy(Heino Ferch, Tobias Moretti).

The picture itself, even not indepth to the real Caesar story, gives an nice picture of the times of the roman empire. Nice acting, as well as a well combined cast, give a nice viewing pleasure.

Jeremy Sisto gives a new angel to a few on Caesar,Chris Noth (Sex & the City) gives a very good performance and Harris plays a Sulla, which you enjoy dying.

All in all, the about 3 hour mini series is a nice evening view for the family, bringing love, war/action as well as history into your living room.

I was looking forward to this mini series since I had read it was being filmed. Julius Caesar is a magnificent historical person, a film like this was long overdue.

Well, I have to say, I didn't like the first part much until Vercingetorix showed up. The historical facts were severely mutilated, although the costumes and scenery looked fine and the actors did good jobs. Then came the Gaul's leader. In my opinion Vercingetorix was the best part in the script, well written and impressively acted by Heino Ferch. I hadn't cared much for the other characters, but the wild haired and heavily tattooed Gaul (a big thank you to the make up department) broke the ice. When he appeared, the story suddenly got some interesting action. I cared for him, although I knew he would have to die in the end.

The second part then was better, there was more tension building up and the Ides of March were dawning. The inevitable murder of Caesar was well choreographed, I only missed Marc Anthony's speech at Caesar's funeral. Jeremy Sisto's performance was okay, he changed believably from young father to older dictator. The supporting cast, consisting of excellent actors from different countries, worked together as a convincing ensemble, yet some actors (Sean Pertwee for instance) hadn't enough screen time to show their normal acting talent. Pity.

I can recommend this mini series to everybody who loves action scenes with lots of Roman soldiers and definitely to fans of Heino Ferch. My rate: 8 out of 10.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Harris—who plays the villain Sulla very well considering he spends most of his time playing friendly, old heroes—but 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 show—his 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.

I'm glad I watched this because my knowledge of Roman history is so spotty that I learned something from it. I knew Caesar crossed the Rubicon but didn't know when, or why it was important. I knew Caesar was assassinated, and that Cato fell on his sword, and Cleopatra seduced Caesar and all that, but that's common knowledge. I didn't know that Cato falling on his sword had anything to do with Caesar's triumphant return to Rome after defeating the Roman army under Pompey. I'd never been entirely clear who Pompey was, for that matter, except that it was the name of a Roman general and a slave who accompanied Lewis and Clark on their vacation and also the name of John Wayne's assistant in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence".

So this pulled a lot of things together for me, as history. If I had a problem with it, it was that I had a tough time keeping the characters straight. They weren't frequently enough called by name. And since most of the faces were unfamiliar the problem was even more acute.

I did recognize Richard Harris, looking absolutely GREAT in his last film role, all white and withered and glowing with inner strength and with nastiness. And Chris Noth I recognized from the early episodes of "Law and Order." He did pretty well as Pompeii, although his speech had a Brit accent that tended to come and go. Christopher Walken was both recognizable and rememberable as Cato. He's a surprisingly versatile actor. Valeria Golena was also a familiar face as Calpurnia, Caesar's second wife. (I never knew he had a first one. See what I mean?) And -- triumph of all triumphs -- I finally learned how to pronounce the name of Vercingetorix, the Arverni chieftain who led the Gauls. Speaking of him -- VercinGETorix, that is -- the actor who plays him, and whose name I don't have the opportunity to look up at the moment, gives what is for me the best performance in the movie. He is a brave, self-sacrificing, and dignified man (for a Barbarian) and the actor captures all these attributes, and has a sympatico face to boot, though by no means a handsome one. As portrayed here, if he had just been born in Gaul two millenia later, I could visualize him in an inexpensive suit dining on medallions of beef in some unpretentious bistro, with a glass of Château Neuf du Pape, using the continental knife and fork technique. As it is, he gets his head lopped off.

The story is a little confusing though. I suppose you can't stuff all of Caesar's life story into a few hours. But I missed the final confrontation between Caesar's outnumbered army and Pompey's in Egypt. We see Caesar leaving Rome with a determined expression, and the next thing we know he and his men are in Pompey's tent at Pharsalus. We are also told that Pompey's head was chopped off by the Egyptians at Alexandria, whereas some sources claim it was done by traitors among Pompey's men. It is also not entirely clear to me why some of these guys are considered military geniuses. We only get to see a single map. Pompey leaves Rome early in Part I and returns a hero. Okay. What did he do that was so hot? And we see Caesar defeat a horde of Gauls. He must have done more than that, but what? A few more maps, or exposition in some other form, however clumsy, might have helped.

It's also not made clear enough that Caesar committed an illegal act, a surprise for a guy who is shown to be so fair and compassionate and, if not exactly self-effacing, at least no egomaniac. Rome was a Republic, ruled by the Senate. It was governed by laws. The Senate ordered Caesar to disband his army and return to Rome or else be declared a traitor. By Roman law no general could bring his forces into Italy proper without the consent of the Senate. The border of Italy was the Rubicon and Caesar took his legions across it in defiance of the Senate, saying, "The die is cast." Hearing this, Pompey and some of the Senate took off for friendlier climes because Caesar by this time had a huge force with him. When he entered Rome, what was left of the Senate appointed him dictator. End of the Republic. That wasn't very nice, was it?

Oh, and another thing -- I always thought that when a Roman general returned from a victory, trailing prisoners and booty, a slave stood beside him in the chariot whispering to him, "Remember, thou art mortal," just so he didn't get any ideas like Caesar did.

I wish some of the performances had been better. Many of them are pretty weak, Mark Antony in particular. And Brutus seems too young for the part, and he's the one who looks "sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought." In fact, he really IS pale and sweaty and a nervous wreck.

The Roman Empire finally fell apart, as everyone knows, but as it split up, there were still a lot of leaders or would-be leaders claiming direct descent from Gaius Julius Caesar. They were with us until just recently. The Tsar (or Czar) of Russia bore the title of Caesar, which is where the Russian word comes from. In Germany, "Caesar" became Kaiser, as in Kaiser Wilhelm.

Too bad we didn't get more of Caesar's accomplishments, or a better look at his weaknesses -- after all, he allowed himself to be appointed dictator without trying to reconstitute the Senate -- and there was that business with Cleopatra, a political opportunist if there ever was one. Still, it's worth watching. It's an interesting historical tale.

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.

There is a problem with the Roman army's uniforms: in this movie (like in many others about the Roman Empire), the Roman soldiers are not properly equipped; I mean especially the helmets: they have Imperial Italic helmets, but these helmets appeared 40 years after Caesar's death, during the reign of Augustus! In this period (82 – 44 BC), the Roman army used Montefortino and Coolus A-B helmets. Also, in the movie there are some Praetorian soldiers, but these troops were created by Augustus. There are many books and data bases about the Roman army! The Montefortino helmets are much simplier than the helmets used in the movie; so, I think it's easier to "produce" such helmets. If a movie cannot show me the real uniforms, how could it show me the real facts?!

Caesar is a television mini-series about the life of Julius Caesar. It is a dramatization of the life of Julius Caesar through 82 BC to his death in 44 BC. The film stars Jeremy Sisto in the title role of Caesar together with Richard Harris,Christopher Walken,Valeria Golino,Chris Noth and Pamela Bowen.It is mostly historically accurate and being one of the last two films of the legendary actor,Richard Harris being released in the year of his death.It was directed by Uli Edel, and written by Peter Pruce and Craig Warner.

Caesar is an ambitious, four-hour miniseries of TNT that tells the story of the Roman general-turned-emperor Julius Caesar.It traces his rise to prominence as a brilliant military tactician; his complex relationships with his mentor General Pompey and his second wife Calpurnia; his ideological battles with Senator Cato, who advocates democracy over Caesar's dictatorial ambitions; and his bloody and inevitable murder at the hands of former friends and allies. Taking some dramatic license with the facts, it is basically sympathetic to its subject, although Caesar is depicted as a flawed man, both physically and morally. Giving Caesar points for being fundamentally honorable, in full possession of his faculties, and possessing the "common touch" with the Roman citizenry, the TV movie does not shrink away from the man's violent epileptic seizures, his megalomania, his casually calculated cruelties, and his bigamous relationship with Egyptian queen Cleopatra.However, the miniseries downplays his notorious bisexuality.

Caesar is a delight from beginning to end.It tells one man's story with energy and vitality.Also,it was obviously a big budget TV production that the battle scenes were shot with remarkable accuracy.Aside from the scenes mentioned,the it tries to be accurate to detail as it covers many aspects in the life of the Roman dictator.The cast was also brilliant in this TV movie as well.

Overall,it was a pleasure to view Caesar as it was both entertaining and informative.

I'm a big fan of Roman history. I'm also a big fan of Richard Harris, Christopher Walken, Chris Noth, and any number of the interesting actors in this production. But that fandom was not enough to make me really love this uneven, choppy, and incredibly inaccurate portrayal of Julian Rome. Was this *supposed* to be "Julius Caesar, the Good Parts Version* (*with just enough bad left in to make him seem human and not perfect)" ?

It felt like the writers desperately wanted to make Caesar a good guy and not deserving of the murder plot ultimately hatched against him on the Ides of March. Don't get me wrong -- Julius Caesar had many good points and did a lot for history. But he was also a womanizer, despotic at times, and many other sins too numerable to mention in this review, any of which make more sense as to why the Senate would want to murder him than the reasons shown in this miniseries.

That is the worst crime in this series, I fear -- it makes no sense as to why so many would hate him enough to murder him. What they showed was he was doing many *good* things for Rome, with a few mistakes (like his affair and child with Cleopatra) thrown in to make him look a bit more human.

Anyway. I enjoyed parts of this mini-series. Ultimately, I was disappointed on both a historical level and a dramatic level. The second part felt extremely choppy, and the last 45 minutes were extremely rushed -- they HAD to get Caesar to the Senate so they could stab him, after all, of course they had to rush. IMHO, better to have taken an extra hour or two to tell the tale properly than to try to fit it into the time they allowed.

Hmmm...and thinking on it, this miniseries was decidedly written by someone who adored Caesar, and preferred to praise him, not to bury him.

Julius Caesar is an epic story set in magnificent, ancient Rome. It will bring to life one of history's greatest figures. The miniseries will not only show Caesar as one of the greatest politicians, generals and orators to have ever lived. It will particularly tell of a man, of his early days, of his formation and assent to power, of his ambitions, anxieties, weaknesses and of the three great loves of his life. As Caesar rises to fame, his life is constantly at risk for high political reasons, and he is forced to flee Rome when Sulla, the malevolent Roman dictator, threatens to execute him. Returning to the capital, with his citizenship restored for bravery in battle, Caesar becomes famous for his amazing gift of public speaking. He also becomes entwined in a great and ill-fated love story. In defiance of Sulla's wishes, he marries his true love Cornelia, who later dies tragically. Cornelia's death almost destroys Caesar, and, for years to come, all his love is devoted to his daughter, Julia.

Now concentrating on his political career, Caesar champions popular causes and fights the corrupt aristocracy that dominates Roman politics. He declares that, for the Empire to have real meaning, all of its subjects - of whatever race, creed or color - should be offered Roman citizenship. His populist politics and unprecedented military victories raise Caesar to Roman Emperor. It is towards the premature end of his life that Caesar, isolated at the pinnacle of power, finds love in his relationship with another of history's great leaders - Cleopatra. But, yet again, lasting happiness eludes his grasp, and Roman politics lure Caesar away from Egypt. Now a mature man, Caesar's attitude towards power, towards Rome and towards the Roman Senate seems to have changed. Back in the capital city, powerful men begin to fear the most powerful man amongst them.

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.

Look, I hate to sound nasty, but this production was not good. The acting was crappy. Really execrable in cases. The dialogue was so awful. Historical accuracy -- not that I expect perfection, but what is the point of doing history if they make half of it up? And look, Jeremy Sisto, I despised him. What is up with him throwing away his lines, like the words or decisions are being forced out of him against his will? I see what he's trying to do, but not only does it seem inapproriate for the character, he does it really badly. He's playing the most dynamic leader of the mightiest empire in history. I saw very little of any charisma or take-charge personality that would inspire devotion in his legions. Sean Pertwee standing beside him makes him look like a muppet.

And Christopher Walken. Shuffling around the Senate looking like he's really constipated. And it made no sense that for most of the movie, he looked like an ineffectual, finicky effeminate person, but when he goes to war he grows long hair and a beard and is suddenly virile and studly. Plus I thought his acting was bad. Except when he fell on his sword. I wish some other characters had done the same.

All right -- maybe it's just that as an American, I was embarrassed that our actors are so inferior. Apollonius was excellent. Richard Harris was really good even though he was obviously so unwell. Vercingetorix -- liked him a a lot, though I must note that it looked like he got his trousers at a flea-market in Santa Cruz. Was Marc Antony American? Because I did think he was good. Oh, and Chris Noth -- he was not awful. He was pretty okay. Certainly looked the part.

I'm sure no one cares, but if anyone liked Sean Pertwee in Cadfael, this is the role most similar to Hugh Beringar. In fact I thought his expressions looked like Hugh Beringar all grown up.

It doesn't claim historical accuracy. Anywhere. By anyone.

Often a movie will forego from historical accuracy to have a wider range of artistic freedom since striving historical accuracy in some cases can act as restraints.

First of all: the trailer IMDB is showing on top of this page is not a right one; it's one from a very old movie instead. This is a great movie/miniseries on Julius Caesar. The facts are not way off - just a little bit for drama effect, but it's fictionalized after all. Most of the basic points are spot on. Most of all: the acting in this is great and the writing is amazing as well. The lines are memorable. It's long to watch - over 2,5 hours - but it's well worth it.

Too bad they have the wrong video with this movie. You'd think they'd fix it.

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.

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.

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!..