Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.
GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.
Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.
crayonzero The only reason it is I Claudius, and not The Caesars, that people and fawn over today is The Caesars is in black and white and did not get nearly as much hype in its day.It is a damn shame, as The Caesars is a superior show to I Claudius, from the acting to the choice of actors, to the portrayal of the main characters, it is simply far better. Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus, Claudius and Caligula are excellently portrayed here as believable human beings, with human motives, not like the tiresome 2d grotesques and borderline psychotics in I Claudius. Tiberius's character especially moved me.If only it had been made in colour, it would be vastly more known and have the respect that is due to this wonderful show.Instead of remaking, I Claudius, THIS should be remade with the same script. It is miles ahead.Buy it or steal it, you are missing out.
kaaber-2 It was interesting to watch – in my case, almost at one sitting – what can be regarded the blueprint of the "I, Claudius" series that propelled Derek Jacobi and John Hurt to instant fame in 1976. Having seen that series numerous times, its black-and-white predecessor at first struck me as a rip-off, which of course isn't entirely true, since the old series was made in 1968, but then again: Philip Mackie's script does seem to borrow more than a little from Robert Graves' 1934 novel on which the Claudius series was loyally based. Both series deal with the Julio-Augustan dynasty of ancient Rome, and although the later series of course covers Claudius' reign as well (his accession is where the older series leaves off), they depict the same events and relate the same historical events, and even the same not-quite-historical events. Once you get over the truly hideous cinematography of "The Caesars" (the camera seems to change angles without observing any rules at all, and the angles chosen are often ludicrous and entirely undramatic), you must ire Philip Mackie's script. It is downright brilliant – but seems more like the script of a play than a film script. It consists of very long though riveting dialogues in despairingly few locations, and action is a rare bird in the ancient Rome of "The Caesars".To dwell on the differences between the two series: Tiberius (André Morell) is praised throughout four episodes as a man of peace, a reluctant emperor who tries to make it without blood on his hands. He seems more to typify Marcus Aurelius than Tiberius. Caligula (Ralph Bates) is not as overtly psychopathic as John Hurt, but grows slower into his infamous lunacy. Claudius (Freddie Jones) is excellent, perhaps even suring Jacobi. But when all is said and done, "I, Claudius" is better. It has all that "The Caesars" has, and colour, too. I "I. Claudius" as the last big series before television came of age, aesthetically speaking, with "Brideshead Revisited" in 1981. Back in 1976, we still had the main focus on actors speaking their lines and acting their pants off, before a camera crew called in from the Eurovision Song Contest or some game show. Not much in the way of cinematography, I mean.But the greatest drawback of "The Caesars" – they didn't have the star of the show – Sian Philips as Livia.
drslop Having seen "The Caesars" when I was at school, I could not understand the swooning praise heaped on "I Claudius" which is comparatively superficial, inaccurate and a travesty.To take just one example, the real Augustus was physically slight, intellectually subtle and personally formidable so casting Brian Blessed as Augustus in "I Claudius" was grotesquely wrong. Roland Culver was an infinitely better choice.This was a series about the realities of power in any period - and rather closely followed the surviving record of the sophisticated and lurid Roman historian Suetonius.The DVD was released in April 2006 - PAL/Region 2 - and is available from Amazon in the UK - but IMDb does not seem to have heard of this yet. The picture is sometimes rather dodgy but it is probably as good as we will get - and TV production was pretty rough in 1968 (compared to today's digitalised everything).The writing and acting are still superb.
peter-842 Unseen for many years (probably because it was made in B&W) The Caesars was every bit the equal of the BBC's celebrated "I Claudius". A remarkable array of character actors, lead by the inimitable Freddie Jones as Claudius himself, made this peerless entertainment. In one respect at least it exceeded "I Claudius" and that is in the performance of the late and much missed Ralph Bates as Caligula. He gave a brilliant and chilling performance as the insane emperor, easily beating John Hurt's outrageously camp and excessive performance (just this side of pantomime in its overacting) for the BBC. Bates' performance, is nothing short of superb. B&W or not, this is one series that deserves rediscovery and a DVD release.
