6.0 = NO WAY!
this movie is pure fun - i loved every minute of it. dammit, people are just impossible to please. gielgud was never better (on screen at least) =)
shareGielgud was good in this film, but he had a relatively small role (as Caesar). Are you sure you aren't confusing this with the 50's version where he played Cassius? I think the latter was Gielgud's finest film part.
On the other hand, just about everyone else in this version (1970), including Jason Robards, Charlton Heston, and Richard Chamberlain, are terribly miscast (Robards was wooden and clearly out of his element, Heston and Chamberlain were over the top to the point of being ridiculous). Richard Johnson was OK, but he was nothing spectacular either.
Julius Caesar is my favorite play and my favorite of all the works of classic literature. I think the sustained high level of the poetry is the best in the English language.
And the 1953 movie is certainly an interpretation for the ages. It has three must see performances in the major roles, in interestingly contrasting styles. James Mason was born to play Brutus. He shows the old Hollywood "don't act, react" style at its best, with one of those wonderful old-time voices. All in all, he totally fulfills the "noblest Roman of them all" closing speech. John Gielgud brings a stagy but precise interpretion of Cassius, giving the modern viewer an opportunity to see a great Shakespearean actor in one of his greatest roles. Brando is nothing short of electric. These three great performances certainly carry the movie, but it has weaknesses. Louis Calhern is simply not on the same level and I think the movie would have been much stronger with a more commanding actor, let's say Raymond Massey or Basil Rathbone, playing Caesar. The production has the MGM gloss in its sets and custuming, but the battlefield scenes I found something of an embarressment. There are obviously filmed on a soundstage in front of a painted sky. Critics comment on the movie running out of gas after Antony's speech and blame the play, but as the 1970 movie shows, the fault lies at least somewhat in pruning Octavius' scenes, thus amputating the growing tension between Antony and Octavius which fuels the last two acts. Octavius, after all, is the successor to Caesar, not Antony. There also are some hard to understand cuts concerning the changing tides of the battle and Cassius' decision to kill himself, and of Brutus' beautiful speech over Cassius' body. These are weaknesses of the 1953 movie, not necessarily of the play.
The 1970 movie does a better job or presenting the play. Jason Robards is miscast as Brutus and gives an often sleepy reading. He does come alive for the big speech and his confrontation with Cassius when sparks really fly. The rest of the cast I found good to excellent, with Heston best, and Chamberlain giving real stature to Octavius. Chamberlain's performance, along with the later scenes being convincingly filmed outdoors, along with presenting more of the last act text, lifts the 1970 version quite a bit.
I agree that the 1970 version is solid all the way. To paraphrase Shakespeare, it is not that I like the 1953 version less, it is that I like the 1970 version more. Watch them both if you like the play.