Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

arnoudwokke 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.

Adams5905 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!..

decroissance 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.

dh1897 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.