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.

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.

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.

I am reading Conn Iggulden's books at the moment. and although he changed a little bit of the real story in favor of the book, the books are close to the real live of Caesar.The movie is bad cause it does not do justice to the man Caesar was...The acting was not good, only Richard Harris was really good as Sulla, he will be missed...I really hope that a man like for instance Peter Jackson is willing to pick up the story of Conn Iggulden's Caesar. It has CLASSIC written all over it...But this movie...I'm sorry..