Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar can be criticized for many things. The film strongly resembles ancient epic American movies from the 50s and 60s and overall corresponds to historical films made several decades ago. Whether it is the book dialogues and their naivety, the anachronistic evaluation of the customs of that time using today's moral standards, or the appearance of historical characters who were significantly younger in the film than in reality. However, such reservations will most likely be raised only by a small minority of history enthusiasts. Others will appreciate the romanticized story full of exciting war scenes, which are - and I can't resist expressing this - mostly highly unrealistic, because if the Romans fought the Gauls in this way, they would have completely failed. The scenes of man-to-man combat look magnificent on the screen, but the battles were fought from the Roman side in tight formations, where the Romans fully utilized their tactical advantage. But again, it is filmed splendidly for the layman and overall it appears more grand and impressive than it probably actually was. The casting is decent and the story grabs at your heartstrings. However, I would not recommend it to a historian. A comparison with the series Rome would obviously result in a significant disadvantage for this film, but despite all the reservations, it is an above-average achievement. Overall impression: 70%. (2008.04.08)