Rating: 
Summary: Olivier's Master performance
Review: This old classic has netted so many sterling tributes on the net review site - it seems pointless trying to cap them with more superlatives, much as the film - and Olivier's acting deserve them. Olivier's performance in this film absolutely electrified me as a young boy, and it still does.It turned me on to Shakespeare - and what a great thing acting can be, as a way of exploring the multi-faceted mysteries of human nature.
The only thing I would wish to add - to what other reviewer's have had to say, concerns Olivier's adaption of Shakespeare to the screen/film medium. Some feel that Olivier's Richard III is a bit 'stagey' - that Olivier failed to make maximum use of the camera, technically. It is surely obvious that Olivier expressly intended the film to look 'stagey' - to convey the feeling of theatre. The make-up is purely 'Stratfordian' and traditional. Admittedly, it comes over different - on film, but satisfying, because it still feels 'Stratfordian' (you can almost smell the grease-paint, and imagine nose extensions being applied in the dressing room). In key respects, Olivier made intelligent use of the camera - bringing a greater intimacy between the audience - and Richard's scheming soliliquies - than would otherwise have been the case - watching the play in a theatre. Otto Heller's camera-work and lighting has generally been praised, satisfying the requirements of Olivier's instincts - as a director. This film dates back to 1956 - and yes, it was a 'low budget' movie, compared to Hollywood productions, past or present. Britain wasn't that wealthy in the 1950's (t.v. had barely arrived, for most people). Buying tickets for the theatre in Stratford would have made a large hole in most pockets, so the advent Henry Vth and Richard III - at the cinema, was the first chance many had to see Shakespeare's 'plays' in action. What with the addition of William Walton's music, the extra pageantry afforded by the use of film - this was a real treat to watch, and it still is!
Rating:
Summary: Laurence Olivier brings his Richard Crookback to the screen
Review: "Richard III" was the third film I ever saw based on a play by William Shakespeare. The first two were Franco Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" and "The Taming of the Shrew." Watching Laurence Olivier's Richard approach the camera, hold his hunchbacked body at an odd angle, and declaim "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York." By the time Richard's opening monologue, with additionally dialogue pulled from a similar speech in "Henry VI, Part III," I was totally convinced me that if I ever played Shakespeare on stage it was this part that I wanted to play (for lead parts that remains true, although I have a great affection for John of Gaunt in "Richard II"). Now I know that Olivier's portrayal of Richard Crookback is an extension of the interpretation he first brought to the stage in 1944. At the time all I knew was that the tradition was that an actor performed Richard before he tackled Hamlet. I was not sure why this should be the case at the time, but I have a sense of it now for whereas the Prince of Denmark is doomed by his failure to act, Richard, Duke of Glouster and thereafter King of England, is relentless in his pursuit of the crown. The idea of Olivier's Richard as a malevolent spider is apt, for he is beyond the stereotype of the power-hungry politician. He is a ruthless, dominant, and unforgettable figure, who consumes everything in his way and ultimately himself. The cast of this 1956 film includes John Geilgud, Ralph Richardson, and Cedric Hardwicke, but these actors have no more chance of standing up against Olivier's performance than their characters do of stopping Richard. For me the most memorable scene ends up being when Richard seduces the Lady Anne (Claire Bloom) over her husband's coffin, probably because that is the point at which Richard's ascension is assured as well as where he goes over the line. The job by Olivier and Alan Dent, his text advisor, of making Shakespeare's play accessible to the masses who attend the movies is rather brilliant, not only in terms of the cuts (e.g., the character of Queen Margaret) but also the choice additions as well (the coronation of King Edward IV). The use of the crown motif is made clear without being forced, providing a cinematic way of reinforcing the power struggle, and we also have the overly bright Technicolor photography of Otto Heller giving a sense of pageantry to the proceedings. But we keep coming back to Olivier's performance and his dramatic appearance: the long black hair, the thin lips, the deformed left hand, the elongated nose, the crooked back and the sidling walk. It is no wonder that during the dark days of Watergate the idea of Richard Nixon as the American modern version of Richard Crookback took such a hold in my imagination. However, since I have seen this film there is only one other character whose evil has been as overwhelmingly charismatic, and that would be Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter. This is only a minority opinion because very few people have seen both films. But if you have, then I would think you be inclined to agree.
Rating:
Summary: Laurence Olivier brings his Richard Crookback to the screen
Review: "Richard III" was the third film I ever saw based on a play by William Shakespeare. The first two were Franco Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" and "The Taming of the Shrew." Watching Laurence Olivier's Richard approach the camera, hold his hunchbacked body at an odd angle, and declaim "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York." By the time Richard's opening monologue, with additionally dialogue pulled from a similar speech in "Henry VI, Part III," I was totally convinced me that if I ever played Shakespeare on stage it was this part that I wanted to play (for lead parts that remains true, although I have a great affection for John of Gaunt in "Richard II"). Now I know that Olivier's portrayal of Richard Crookback is an extension of the interpretation he first brought to the stage in 1944. At the time all I knew was that the tradition was that an actor performed Richard before he tackled Hamlet. I was not sure why this should be the case at the time, but I have a sense of it now for whereas the Prince of Denmark is doomed by his failure to act, Richard, Duke of Glouster and thereafter King of England, is relentless in his pursuit of the crown. The idea of Olivier's Richard as a malevolent spider is apt, for he is beyond the stereotype of the power-hungry politician. He is a ruthless, dominant, and unforgettable figure, who consumes everything in his way and ultimately himself. The cast of this 1956 film includes John Geilgud, Ralph Richardson, and Cedric Hardwicke, but these actors have no more chance of standing up against Olivier's performance than their characters do of stopping Richard. For me the most memorable scene ends up being when Richard seduces the Lady Anne (Claire Bloom) over her husband's coffin, probably because that is the point at which Richard's ascension is assured as well as where he goes over the line. The job by Olivier and Alan Dent, his text advisor, of making Shakespeare's play accessible to the masses who attend the movies is rather brilliant, not only in terms of the cuts (e.g., the character of Queen Margaret) but also the choice additions as well (the coronation of King Edward IV). The use of the crown motif is made clear without being forced, providing a cinematic way of reinforcing the power struggle, and we also have the overly bright Technicolor photography of Otto Heller giving a sense of pageantry to the proceedings. But we keep coming back to Olivier's performance and his dramatic appearance: the long black hair, the thin lips, the deformed left hand, the elongated nose, the crooked back and the sidling walk. It is no wonder that during the dark days of Watergate the idea of Richard Nixon as the American modern version of Richard Crookback took such a hold in my imagination. However, since I have seen this film there is only one other character whose evil has been as overwhelmingly charismatic, and that would be Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter. This is only a minority opinion because very few people have seen both films. But if you have, then I would think you be inclined to agree.
Rating:
Summary: A new perspective.
Review: A masterpiece! This contains most of it's actors finest performances of their career. Ralph Richardson, is far from his usual cuddly, highly comical performance (which is a little bit too mean on a fine very capable actor), we really get a sense of what Ralph must have been like at Shakespeare. John gielgud also delivers a fine performance, it is one of his best for this period in his career although i felt he was much better in his later years. I think the thorn in the film is undoubtedly the performance from Claire Bloom, I found her unconvincing as the seduced Lady Anne. Olivier's direction and tweaking was lthough not as original as Mckellen's Richard, was nevertheless inspired!
Well i have left the best till last and that was Olivier's performance itself, The man is a genius, the very way he coaxes you in is magic, it feels like he is takng your hand and making you a part of his conspiracy. It feels like he is right there with you sniggering. It is hard to believe that the man is 50 years behind you. You are on his side right the way through the film, it is a rare experiance to b so truly enraptured, in love with such a villain. His Death scene is history making, it is so tragic, you feel so sorry for him which is certainly not what you are suppose to feel for a man who has supposedly killed his brother and 2 nephews and has basically murdered his way to the top, but nevertheless Olivier has once again put a new perspective on the bard's work.
Rating:
Summary: Technicolor Heaven!
Review: After seeing this film, it is quite obvious why Olivier was nominated for an Academy Award. He sketches his character in pure Shakespearean splendor. And in addition to Olivier's outstanding perf, the supporting cast is topnotch. I highly recommend this film.
Rating: 
Summary: "A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!"
Review: Ah, but is it really HIS kingdom, this stolen crown of England? Shakespeare's ultimate justification of the Tudor claim to the throne, "Richard III" is one of the orginal villains you just love to hate. Laurence Olivier struts his humpbacked stuff as the murderous Richard, Duke of Glouchester, plotting to get the crown for himself, even if it means killing off just about everyone related to him to do it, including the two little princes in the Tower. Olivier is joined in this movie by two old cronies, John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson, and together the trio show us Yanks what British theatre was like at its best. Watch and learn.
Rating:
Summary: Most Powerful Movie
Review: I first saw this movie on Public TV in 1978. It sparked an interest in English literature that had been smothered in school. The movie, with its unmatched anywhere performance by Laurence Olivier, was my favorite movie that year. Twenty years later it is still my favorite movie.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent acting but overrated as a film
Review: I must disagree with the reviewers who praised this as one of Shakespeare's best movie adaptations. Sorry, it's not. The main strength of the movie is the acting, and for that alone it's a must-see. Yet, as a movie it has many stylistic and visual flaws. The camera shots are very long and there are very few shifts in angles, there are almost no close-ups, the settings, costumes and makeup are overdone and look too fake and low-budget (perhaps on purpose?), and it's done almost entirely in a studio (the outdoor battle scenes feel like a Western..). The result is that you feel that you're watching a two-dimensional play. Perhaps black-and-white would have been a more suitable vehicle. I'm also annoyed with the liberties the movie has taken with the text, shifted scenes around, chopping lines, etc. I didn't like that it begins with a scene from Henry IV. The Bard's original structure is better. Stick with it! Also, for the first half of the movie I felt distant from Richard, possibly because until then we almost always see him from a distance and rarely up close. That changes once he become king. Overall, the second half is much better. If you want to see a truly great Shakespeare adaptation, watch "Julius Caesar" with Marlon Brando and James Mason, even though the play itself is not as good as Richard III. In spite of all this, I recommend it. Certainly worth seeing Olivier in action.. and it has some great moments.
Rating:
Summary: A must see!!
Review: I won't rehash the plot. Suffice to to say the Olivier's performance is magnificent. Also magnificent in this Criterion collection edition, is the addition of a top notch commentary which explores both Shakespeare's structure of the play and Olivier's decisions in bringing the character to the screen. Also interesting is a 1960's era interview with Olivier that reviews his acting career.
Rating:
Summary: Machiavellian cunning and ingenius
Review: In what I deem Laurence Olivier's finest Shakespearean performance, Richard III is quite simply an absolute must see for any true Shakespeare aficionado. Having just read the play and viewed the movie subsequent to the reading, I was afraid I might be somewhat disappointed after such an enjoyable read. Not the case. From the word go, or rather the words "Now is the winter of our discontent," Olivier adroitly plays a most egregiously evil, yet sinfully likable, villain. Olivier's skillful mastery of the soliloquy is readily manifest as he conspiratorially confides in the audience his countless connivances and sordid schemes as he maniacally murders and manipulates all of those unfortunate enough to be in his way on his morbid quest for the crown. He's so good you'll find yourself rooting for the dastardly villain that is Richard III. Pop some popcorn and sit back and enjoy.
|
