I'm somewhat of a beginner of a student of ancient Rome but I've realized in my studies that I can't seem to find a general consensus on the way history views Caesar. Depending on who you talk to he was a vicious tyrant who deserved what he got and that his assassins were hero's. Others, however, praise all he did and believe him to be one of the greatest people to have come out of Rome and those who assassinated him were cold blooded murderers.
So, how do you people see it?
The issue with this question is that it is completely variant on a subjective viewpoint. Judging whether or not a person as famous as Caesar was "good" or "evil" is a truly impossible task, not only because of the differences in morality between the ancient era and the modern one, but also because of the different nuances of character that an individual has. Julius Caesar was undoubtedly a great man who left his mark on history. Whether or not "great" means "good" or "evil" is, again, up to individual interpretation.
Starting off that examination, I'll suggest you go ahead and read this excellent introduction to Life of a Colossus. Honestly, I recommend you read the whole book, but for our purposes here, the introduction answers your question perfectly, and far better than I can, myself. To know more about Caesar as a person, read the entire book - it's the best biography I've found of the man, and gives an excellent accounting with a neutral viewpoint on the person himself.
The long story short is that Caesar was as amoral as anyone else has ever been. He wasn't good or evil; he was simultaneously neither and both. He did great things for Rome, for the poor, and when it benefited him. He also was in charge of the hugely destructive Gallic War, which was incredibly popular with the Roman people, who considered it a good thing. The modern eye would consider it less so, with a (probably exaggerated) total of one million people killed and another million enslaved. Again, whether or not the Gallic Wars made Caesar a "good person" or "bad person" is entirely subjective. For the Romans, he offered civil peace and a pretty good deal for the common people, even if the aristocrats couldn't stand him. To our modern view, he made himself an autocrat in all but name. While he wasn't emperor, he consolidated power and kept people he didn't like from getting anywhere; but his reforms were good ones, and some of them lasted for centuries, despite Caesar's extremely short rule.
He was ruthless in his own way, but he also offered clemency when it suited him. He offered friendship when he saw it to be beneficial, but he also offered enmity when that was more in his favour. So the answer to your question, I suppose, would be "both and neither." He was a person, and no person is black or white - we're all shades of grey.
I actually examined a rather similar question to this one a bit ago; I'll paste what I wrote then in the comments below :)
Follow up question, would he, as a politician prior to the conquest of Gaul, be considered corrupt? Either by our current standards or by contemperary standards.