Titus

Rating:
Summary: titus
Review: even julie taymor can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. it is a horrible story of horrible people doing horrible things to one another.

Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare's worst is still 1000X genius
Review: Anthony Hopkins reciting the poetry of Shakespeare for over 2 hours.
+
Lavinia standing on a tree trunk with branches as hands and blood pouring like a river from her mouth.
+
Over the top modernized art direction like you've never seen with a cross between early 1900's era, ancient mediterannean, and wild gothic rock styles.
+
Anthony and Dinner.
=
Heaven.

'Nough said.

Shakespeare is best when he is timeless.

Rating:
Summary: The mixing of old and new elements doesn't work
Review: I couldn't go for the mixing of elements. Motorcycles and chariots together? Uh-uh. It doesn't work. It's neither one thing nor the other.
And I didn't like having the mute kid running around everywhere. It was annoying.
The acting is great; Shakespeare is, well, Shakespeare. Same incredible depth of characters, even supporting characters who, sometimes, suddenly leave off their character, inexplicably developing a momentary conscience which they never had before. I suppose that'd be my only complaint about the genius himself.
But really, this adaptation, this mixing of armored track vehicles with Goth and Roman helmets--it just doesn't do it.
It distracts more than anything.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent! But not necessarily for everyone.
Review: On a personal note: I took my fiancée, who was suffering from some MAJOR pre-wedding jitters, to see this movie the night before our wedding. Whatever else can be said about this movie, I can definitely say that her anxieties about the next day's nuptials had been utterly obliterated by the time the lights came
up. She is glad that she saw this movie, but has demurred on several occasions when I offer to rent it and bring it home.

Suffice it to say, this movie is an acquired taste, and a gentle reminder that even High Art such as Shakespeare can revel in blood, gore, sex and mayhem alongside the tawdriest of slasher flicks. In many ways, "Titus" is even more disturbing than the generally over-the-top slasher genre. The images of "Titus" burn themselves onto one's memory for all times.

Some reviewers gripe about the juxtaposition of Ancient Rome with 1930's Europe, but as another reviewer has pointed out, Shakespeare himself was hardly scrupulous in his historical accuracy, nor in minor details like stage settings and the like. Whatever moves the story along works for the Bard. Even his "historical" plays can only be understood in the context of the political currents of Tudor/Stuart England. Shakespeare's plays lend themselves quite naturally to modern adaptations.

Of course, it is another issue entirely as to whether or not the adaptations are well done or not, and I would rank "Titus" alongside Ian McKellan's "Richard III" as one of the more memorable Shakespeare films in recent years.

Anthony Hopkins is fascinating to watch as a man so committed to duty and honor that he is willing to sacrifice virtually everything, including his own sanity. Equally fascinating is Jessica Lange, equally committed to the principles of vengeance no matter what the cost. Way back when Lange nearly demolished her career in "King Kong," it would have been impossible to imagine her in a role such as this.

Some people may find this movie to be violent to an appalling degree --- if ever there were a need for "viewer discretion advised," this would be it. But if you know what you are getting into, this will be a most memorable viewing experience.

Rating:
Summary: the blue color of revenge
Review: I had never heard of the Shakespeare play "Titus Andronicus" before and I was walking through a video rental place when I saw Anthony Hopkin's face on the cover of the Titus DVD, so I decided to rent it. I was in no way prepared for the world of madness I was about to enter. Truly the Pulp Fiction of its day, this film is wrought with violence, beheadings, dismemberments, rape, tongue and eye gouging, blood in large volume and fear.

Often times, it's what you don't see that scares you, and even though this film is in-your-face grotesque in many scenes, the unknown that is coming up next is even more scary.

This is not a pick-me-up, feel-good moving watching experience. If you or a loved one has been raped (statistics say this is a 1 in 3 reality in the U.S.), this is not a film you want to see... nor if you or someone you love has had a child murdered. Even the most stoic, iron-stomached individual cannot steele themselves for the visual assault on the screen.

This Shakespeare adaptation appears to take place in the 1930s - big microphones, gangster cars, but still Roman architecture, Shakespeare's original script, and Titus is still wearing his Roman regalia. It is a truly surreal experience. The film is in color, but there is a murky blue look to everything - fleshtones are realistically pink, but sometimes blood looks black, and the music will make every hair on your body stand at attention.

The acting is superb and the story is a chilling one of revenge, murder, rape, betrayal and self mutilation to the ultimate extreme. Not for those with weak constitutions or for expectant mothers. It's truly hard to believe that a woman directed this blood bath, but she did an exquisite job. While I don't recommend that everyone see the film, I can tell you that the visuals will stay with you forever. There is a surreal, yet almost super-real quality to the scenes. With the carrying on that people are doing over the "Passion of the Christ" being too violent, I wonder where all the violence protesters were when this film was released... much less how it got away with an R rating.

Fans of Hopkins will not be disappointed, the whole cast delivers in horrific form.

Rating:
Summary: DIRECTORIAL EXCESSES DON'T OVERSHADOW BRILLIANT PERFORMANCES
Review: I am not a squeamish person -- I can sit through pretty much anything -- but this film had me squirming. Based on one of Shakespeare's first efforts it makes Macbeth and Hamlet look like sitcoms, the play is rife with murder, beheadings, evisceration, cannibalism, and revenge sweet revenge. That alone would be enough for me to recommend this film, but it doesn't end there.

Unlike earlier Shakespeare adaptations like Baz Lurhman's Romeo and Juliet, or Gil Junger's The Ten Things I Hate About You that take place in the here and now, this film is a walking talking anachronism that flits between the past and the present. Set amidst the decadence of 1930's fascist Italy, and the glory of the Roman Empire, it juxtaposes classical Roman stylings with post-modern architecture and dress. Furthermore, it combines elements of the classic Hollywood epic with the bombastic visuals of a 90's music video, and boasts sweeping vistas and grandiose sets that scream excess.

The acting is marvellous too, what else do you expect from any Hopkins fare! As the stoic leader reduced to an emotionally distraught outcast, his agony is palpable but not overwrought. Jessica Lange's effortlessly slips into the role of the revenge-obsessed matriarch determined to destroy Titus and his clan.

This movie is not perfect - some of the visuals (especially during Titus' bouts with insanity) are overblown, Allan Cumming is horribly miscast as Saturninus and the runtime is over three hours. But if you are a Shakespeare fan, or a serious action-flick buff, don't miss this brilliant piece of cinema.

Rating:
Summary: One can see why...
Review: Titus Andronicus is among Shakespeare's lesser performed works. This is very dark stuff, full of pathos and bloody revenge in the tradition of the great Greek tragedies.

Julie Taymor certainly "gets it." How many limbs are hacked off? How much blood is spilled? As with any true tragedy, you can guess from the beginning, "not many of these people are going to be alive at the end."

The production is a fabulous mixture of 20th century fascist and neo-classical. She is taking MAJOR cues from Peter Greenaway, though without the same over-the-top gore and sex.

One would hope that such a successful revival might mean that other less-popular of the Bard's works might see the light of the silver-screen, but few get this dark.

Great performers and beautiful actors abound. Lange is surprisingly good but everyone does a first rate job.

Rating:
Summary: I wish I hadn't seen it
Review: When I first saw this film I left the theatre weeping uncontrollably. I can't deny the artistic excellence that went into the production, but I rate it with one star because I didn't like this film. It tore out my heart. It is a film about cruelty and lack of mercy. It is based on a play on the same subject. The small ray of hope shown at the end of the film is too small and comes too late to redeem the movie from the dark, miserable images which overwhelm it. I can't forget this movie, but I would like to, because when I think of it I want to cry with sorrow for the suffering of the innocent in this world.

Rating:
Summary: a few thoughts on this fantastic interpretation. . .
Review: I just wanted to say. . . a few of the reviewers are absolutely clueless and wrong in regard to the mixing of classical/contemporary motifs (i.e., "this horrible misinterpretation of Shakespeare" . . . "people dressed as ancient Romans, riding around in motorcycles and cars, speaking ancient gibberish"). The belief that contemporary interpretations of Shakespeare should "[e]ither keep it classic (with ancient sets, costumes, and speech), or make it modern (with modern sets, costumes, and speech)" totally negates and ignores the actual nature of Shakespeare's works. It is no small wonder that the reviewer I'm alluding to found little enjoyment from this production. . . knowing a bit about Shakespeare's aesthetic and method of making art does help in enjoying how people interpret his plays. . .

I guess that I'm saying all of this because in Shakespeare's times (and in many of his plays). . . his plays (and the productions of his plays) were meant to be anachronistic. They contained chronological mistakes. . . for example, if we saw an actor wearing a watch in Mel Gibson's Braveheart. . . it doesn't fit. Well, Shakespeare's plays contain purposeful (and accidental) mistakes like this. . . in essence, watches all over the place. His plays combine elements of the "old," classical times. . . say, Ancient Rome in the case of Titus. . . But, they also contain references to topical events and British culture/society.

Shakespeare (whether by pure intent or mistake) often blurred the line between time and setting in the way his plays are presented. Taken from real, historical perspectives. . . plays like Richard III would make no sense to our disgruntled reviewer. . . Richard III contains a character (Margaret) who had been dead for several decades (maybe even centuries. . . I can't remember, exactly) before Richard was even born. However, she is a living, breathing entity in the play and even a British audience in the time of Shakespeare would have known that she was out of place. . . BUT ACCEPTED THE DISCREPANCY AS PART OF THE PLAY'S STYLE. Shakespeare put this character from the past in his play (and she almost seems like a ghost) to haunt Richard and represent the lingering shame of a bloody Bristish history of vengence and betrayal. Thus, mixing an out of place element into a Shakesperean play is not bad. . . Shakespeare does it all the time, even in his choices of characters and setting. . .

This isn't even to start citing examples of how certain props in certain plays are completely out of place in the supposed "reality" of the production. For instance, scores of flowers that appear in Shakespeare's plays stick out like sore thumbs in the setting they're in. The gloomy blooms of Ophelia's despair in Hamlet (DENMARK) are mostly (if not all) flowers from the British countryside located around Stratford on Avon. . . Even the flower names murmured back and forth between the lovers of A Midsummer Nights' Dream (GREECE). . . yep, those flowers aren't Greek either. . . they're primarily British. . . from around Stratford on Avon. . .

I ramble, I make little sense and discredit my own assertions by continuing to talk. Still, I thought it was important to mention this stuff because it actually demonstrates what a quality production Taymore's Titus is. . . Her choices and decisions regarding people wearing Roman armor (who also drive around in cars) is little more than paying homage to Shakespeare's own love of mixing and matching different cultures, time periods and elements within his plays. The combination of modern elements with the savagery of ancient Rome has a special power. . . to miss that is to miss the better point of Shakespeare.

By looking at the "savagery" and bloodlust of a classical civilization, Taymore allows us to realize how little difference exists between our culture and that "savage" time period. The whole point is. . . as you are disturbed by "ancient roman armor" next to an arcade game like Space Invaders. . . or the ruins or Rome being the setting for motorcycles and modern vehicles. . . I think you come to realize that there is no juxtaposition. . . no jarring difference or uneveness about classical and "modern" elements being present, side by side. . . Taymore's work is powerful because it points out that be it Ancient Rome (legions and all) or the United States/Western World, year 2000. . . . the brutality and lesson of Titus is timeless. Any revulsion to these weird combinations is actually a revulsion to the truth. . . that they are no different to each other within the fabric of the play. Titus is an endearing, sad commentary by Shakespeare about the downward spiral of murder and needless death represented by stories like Cain and Abel.

Hence the reason Shakespeare's work is so often called "universal" and "timeless." This production is a fine, postmodern interpretation of the disjointed elements of revenge. . . and it also portrays Shakespeare's (and our own society's) eventual preoccupation with violence and tragedy. There are many, many better reviews here. . . I mainly wrote this to point out that playing with the time and chronological elements of a Shakespeare play is not sacrilege. . . it actually demonstrates that Taymore knows about the play and the spirit in which it was conceived/performed/observed by audiences.

I doubt I even explained what I wanted to. . . still, check out (Sir) Ian McKellan's Richard III if you have the chance and are interested in another excellent contemporary portryal of a play by Shakespeare. However, I still find Titus more riveting and visually brilliant than McKellan's Richard III. . . . so, buy, rent, steal Titus if you're a fan of Shakespeare (or just interested in the sociology/the human psyche). It's not for the faint of heart, but. . . then again, which tragedy by Shakespeare is. . . ?

enjoy the film!

Rating:
Summary: A lot better than I thought it would be.
Review: This movie was indeed a great surprise. Upon the opening credits, and the synchronized, choreographic marching of the soldiers, I knew I was in for a very unorthodox Shakespearean experience. I loved this film. Very entertaining. Be prepared for new age Matrix style camera angles, and an effeminate lipstick wearing emperor. This movie will keep you on your toes. Highly Recommended.