Brutus vs César

Sure, its no master piece, but it was fun to watch.

Fx? Almost nothing music good actors playing good story have many twists and turns good enough to spend some time watching) better then many many things in primevideo*)

I expected so much more from a very talented Kheiron. The script is really poor.. Ramzy Bedia as Julius Cesar was an enormous mistake. Too many references to spoof movies and fun cinema in general just didn't work in this film.. I was also bothered by too many guests invited in the cast.. some didn't have any purpose at all, some overplayed their role.. none had any depth in presence or script. Gerard Darmon is the only one that stood out.. it seems like here wrote and directed own parts.. I still like Kheiron on stage, in one man shows and in his personal and "dramatic" scenarios.. this type of humour should he left to others .. No that is said: ! congratulations to him on his third movie.. the two first ones were excellent so let's hope for more

If I'd have met the director in person, then I'll slap him harder as I could. Why did he make this? Don't have a level to rating this garbage.

I was expecting for something else. I really like Kheiron and his two first movies but this one is a deception. He try to be human and sensitive with his tipical kind of humor but the ancient rome is not a place for that kind of situations.

There's a French expression I'm afraid will be lost in translation, it's a branch of comedy that goes through the designation of "potache humor", a term of reference englobing schoolboy pranks humor or the kind of unsophisticated inside jokes a few 'enlightened' minds can get... it's fair to say that "Brutus vs. Caesar", the highly anticipated and advertised swords-sandals-and-sneakers film from Amazon Prime is a monumental chunk of that humor. And here's a sample: Brutus (played by comedian Kheiron) mistakes a 'complot' reunion for one where they serve 'compote', after all, there are 'raclette' parties, aren't there?

I suspect Kheiron has enough common sense to figure out that no half-brain will command laughter from such a stupid joke, but the film aims low, it aims at the chuckle, the little one you almost accidentally exude when a joke is so lame that you laugh at the guts it took to put it in the final cut. That joke made me chuckle or smile but the more such jokes where used, the lower the film sunk in comedic abysses I didn't think were possible. Even Michael Youn's films didn't bother with quality plots but he had standards, even the dreadful "RRRrrrrr!" had the merit to set a realistic design of the prehistoric era, even "The Daltons" ventured into fantasy with a meager but still edible narrative... "Brutus vs. Caesar" had no story, it's a barbecue of little shish kebab jokes up the skewer of lousy vignettes where Rome is set in Morocco and Gauls seems as accessible as the next bus station.

After a round of heartfelt albeit not successful films, I figured Kheiron's priority wasn't into convincing the viewer that this was the real Rome -I'm telling you, the film aims low- he doesn't try to emulate "Life of Brian" or classic French peplum spoofs like "A Quarter to Two B. C." or "Mission Cleopatra" because at least these movies put us in a semblance of realism to better detach us from it, constructing before deconstructing, but "Brutus vs. Caesar" sets the tone pretty quickly, this is a variation of Rome that only exists for the sake of benign chuckles, it's a sketchy cheap Carthage-looking Rome begging us to suspend our disbelief because... it's only a joke, but the jokes aren't even funny to begin with.

Kheiron is an intelligent person all right and I guess he didn't have the right budget and one could appreciate that the film subverted so many tropes and featured a revisionist take on Roman history with Black soldiers, where Vercingetorix is played by an Arab and so was Caesar - at least Ramzy Bedia is having fun playing the megalomaniac dictator- and Spartacus is a geek who went too hard on Chips and sodas and women are part of the Senate. These anachronistic touches are like the barbed wire preventing any critic to go hard on the film, because if you ever criticize it, you might be labeled a reactionary... but what are these changes for? What do they provide? Are these characters interesting?

If you make a woman senator, give her a substantial thing to do. If you have a TV star on your cast, don't just take them for granted and do something about it. No, it's all an exercice in style and nothing else with a bland character who's got nothing to offer, except falling after running. That's the kind of running gag the film can desperately rely on: Brutus can't run. And it doesn't get any better. In one scene a rich plebeian tells his female slave that she's got no brain, the right pay-off is ruined by her explaining the situation to Spartacus who keeps comically missing the point. The film sabotages its own jokes.

And the romance that grows between Kheiron and Lina El Arabi Is played straight as if we were supposed to root for these characters because they were the heroes... it didn't make any sense at all and it's a shame that French cinema should fund such duds while many struggling writers try to come up with elaborate screenplays ; today, the goofiest adaptation of any kiddies comic-book with a bankable face is worth more than whatever efforts some decent creative minds with no connections can pull.

"Brutus vs. Caesar" is a disaster that can't get away with the the so-called second degree, there are a few jokes here and there but the gags are like the setting: cheap, lowbrow and phony, with a tedious story and an editing that can't save the film from its atrocious look and idiotic directing, the characters are bland and the film is obviously designed to elicit some strong responses from some fans of Kheiron who don't regard the real history of France or Rome as their own, it's a sort of appropriation of French history and geography by a minority (to which I happen to belong by the way) which is okay in my book if it was funny but would have the opposite been accepted? I don't think so.

I don't want to get into that turf but there's something very unpleasant in that mocking of classic history that makes me wonder how Lhermitte, Darmon or (et tu?) Pierre Richard ended up in this mess.. even Kheiron who strikes me as a comedian worthy enough of our attention not to try to be a poor man's Youn or Debbouze.

... oh and yes, the film had the guts to end on that cliffhanger, well, let me tell you something, the only thing that should hang over a cliff is any script containing the sequel and who ever holds it should just drop it and say "Scriptum delenda est". (yes and that I'm a Latinist made me hate the film even more).