How does this one compare to the 1970 version?

In my humble opinion the 1970 film doesn't hold a candle to the 1953 production which was widely hailed as one of the best transfers of Shakespeare to the screen up until that time. This version doesn't come out on DVD until early November.

[deleted]

The 1970s doesn't hold a candle to the 1953 adaptation. The actors were just names and no talent. The 1953 version is just great with a capital "G".

-

Shooting Stars [HMC Site] - http://sophie-lou.tripod.com/

My comments--
CAST:
BRUTUS--James Mason was born to play Brutus. His bearing, voice, and warmth fulfill the "here lies the noblest Roman of them all" speech. His performance pulls several scenes, such as Antony facing the conspiraters after the assassination, ahead of the 1970 version. His one drawback was a stentorian and poorly modulated delivery of the big speech to the mob. Jason Robards in the 1970 version underacts to the point of glacial immobility in many of the early scenes. In fairness, he rises to the occasion for Brutus' speech and for the big confrontation with Cassius in the next scene. It doesn't make up for his overall lackadaisical performance--HUGE EDGE TO 1953
CASSIUS--John Gielgud was wonderful in 1953 as Cassius. Richard Johnson was wonderful in 1970 as Cassius--EVEN
MARK ANTONY--Brando was striking in 1953 and because of his overall career, this is a performance all his fans will want to see, but Charlton Heston gives the performance of his life in the 1970 version. Both deliveries of the famous speech are of the highest order--EVEN
JULIUS CAESAR--Neither Louis Calhern in 1953 nor John Gielgud in 1970 were perhaps well cast as Caesar, but Calhern comes across as small potatoes in his reading of the lines. Gielgud might have been miscast, but he was simply a far greater talent--EDGE TO 1970
MAJOR SUPPORTING ROLES--1953 has the edge in the leads, but 1970 has the depth. The 1953 performances are always okay, but never inspired. The largely British cast does better in 1970. Robert Vaughn edged Edmund O'Brien as Casca. Diana Rigg has it over Deborah Kerr as Portia. Jill Bennett is far more moving than a regal Greer Garson as Calpurnia. Critically, the role of Octavian is severely cut in 1953 and Douglas Watson is a cipher in the part. In contrast, Richard Chamberlain lends stature to the role in 1970 and shows us a young man who will mature into the ruler of the world--SOLID EDGE TO 1970
SMALLER ROLES--Whether ranging from Hammer horror stars Christopher Lee and Michael Gough to actors I have seen in nothing else, the smaller parts in the 1970 movie are generally better done and more momorable--EDGE 1970.
OVERALL PRODUCTION--Both versions streamlined the play to a degree, but I give the edge to 1970 mainly on the basis of keeping Octavian a major figure. The 1953 version comes across as a rather typical MGM product, tasteful, well-cast, especially in the leads, blessed with an ace score by Miklos Rozsa, but with an unimaginative direction which adds nothing to a basic reading of the play. The movie runs a bit out of gas in the last 15 minutes or so. The battlefield scene is flat, filmed largely on a soundstage, and Cassius' death is cut down and unimpressive. The 1970 version is ragged in parts with a major continuity gaffe which you will notice in the assassination scene, but it also shows directorial creativity. The introduction at Munda is one of the most atmospheric I have ever seen. Calpunia's dream is used for a visually striking scene, and the rioting after Antony's speech and the final battle add movement and excitement missing from the 1953 version.

Bottom line--I like the 1970 version better, but I am in a minority. Both are worth seeing, the 1953 version for Mason, Brando, and Gielgud, and the 1970 version for its imagination and solid top to bottom presentation of the play, flawed only by Robards, but this is a grevious flaw, to quote the play.

While Jason Robards is very strong in the role of Brutus, Heston hardly comes close to matching Brando as Marc Antony. Sir John Gielgud, exceptional as Cassius in the 1953, offers his usual Shakespearean expertise as the titular ruler. I remember seeing the Brando-Mason version while reading Julius Caesar in high school, and just loving the whole thing. But then, when we finished the play, our teacher treated us to a movie. She chose the Heston version over the Brando version. God bless her, I remember thinking, "Why the hell did she pick this one?" I think she thought because it was a color version, we'd be more entertained. At least she tried something kind and friendly.

May peculiarity tame the norm.
--Anonymous.