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.
Rating:
Summary: A horse , a horse , my kingdom for a horse!
Review: Laurence Olivier at the top of his form with this sublime performance about Richard III the wicked deform king and his conquests . This is the definitive and greatest adaptation of this magnificent work of William Shakespeare . If you liked the acting of Olivier in Hamlet , this is much more compelling , beside the fact that Olivier did not win the Academy Award with this movie .
A superb triumph . Watch for the cast : Ralph Richardson , John Gielguld , Claire Bloom .
Rating:
Summary: Olivier is EVIL to the core!
Review: Laurence Olivier does a FANTASTIC job of being so fantastically and deliciously evil in a wonderful production of this Shakespeare classic. This is NOT meant to be historically accurate, but merely a telling of the play as it was written. Olivier stays very true to the script although he adds some lines from Shakespeare's earlier plays to help round out the evil, plotting of Richard. Necessary since the film audience wouldn't be as familiar with Shakespeare's historical plays. It actually works really well and Olivier carries an unusual "hero" movie as the focus is on someone who's supposed to be despicable. Olivier makes Richard so likably evil though, that you just end up cheering for him. McKellan's version is good, but he just doesn't have the charisma of Olivier. Go with this one first.
Rating:
Summary: The greatest Shakespeare movie ever!
Review: Laurence Olivier is at his best as he plays the role of the evil Richard of Gloucester. The movie makes a wonderful use of several motiffs, notably the various viewings of the shadow of Richard, as he express his cunning plans. The movie in addition, boasts a wonderful supporting cast which includes Sir Ralph Richardson and Claire Bloom. The film furthermore has a magnificent score written by William Walton. A complete recording of the score can be found under the Chandos edition of William Walton, conducted by Sir Neville Mariner. With a powerful and climatic ending, this movie is must for all Olivier and Shakespeare fans!
Rating:
Summary: Una de las mejores películas de la Historia del Cine.
Review: Obra maestra del cine mundial, la interpretación de Laurence Olivier alcanza en esta película cotas magistrales. Cada vez que es visionada se descubre un matiz, una nueva y cruel ironía de las que son comunes en esta gran visión del poder y la ambicíón sin escrúpulos. Un complejo entramado de las pasiones humanas. El eterno pulso entre el bien y el mal.
Rating:
Summary: "Now is the winter of our discontent"....no DVD!
Review: On television the other day, I caught part of Al Pacino's close encounters of a Third kind i.e. a Richard III kind. If I recall correctly, someone in the Pacino piece said that Richard III is the most popular of Shakepeare's plays. If so, where is the DVD of the very best film of this play? It just cries out to be produced. Olivier's performance is superb and will probably never be excelled. The play covers the gamut of human emotions from jealousy, deceit, love, loyalty, anger, sadness, etc. There is never a dull moment as the scenes are filmed in such a fluid and beautiful manner. This is a true classic film of one of the bard's greatest works!
Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest Shakespeare films...
Review: Only two of Orson Welles' Shakespeare films rival "Richard III" for the title of greatest Shakespeare movie ever made. That said, Olivier's film may contain the most sheerly enjoyable performance any actor gave on film. His Duke of Gloucester is the definitive performance. Elia Kazan once said Olivier had a certain girlish quality, and that quality is used in the film: His Richard is seductive--a prancing, charming monster whose voice sounds like "honey mixed with razor blades." But one look into his black eyes, framed by false hawk nose, violently angled eyebrows and fright pageboy wig, will tell you that he's also stone-cold pure evil. Richard enacts all our homicidal, plotting fantasies as he cheerfully knocks off all his stuffy relatives and rivals. Olivier emphasizes the black comedy and wittiness of Shakespeare's play, which he cut and refashioned into a star vehicle for himself. Though Sirs Gielgud, Richardson and Hardwicke co-star, they don't make much of an impression. (Blame that on Shakespeare too) Interestingly, Olivier later regretted not having cast Orson Welles as Buckingham. You experience two major innovations concerning the filming of Shakespeare: the first is Olivier's old custom of using extremely stylized, artificial sets, thereby making Shakespeare's stylized, artificial verse fit in with the settings. The second is the source of Olivier's triumph: he delivers his soliloquys directly to the camera. This daring move destroys the fourth wall and takes true advantage of what the movies offer. He becomes our friend and confidante and we become complicit in his mounting evil. The production values are top-notch: we get deliriously vibrant technicolour, William Walton's pompous, irresistible music of pageantry, and the book-of-hours sets. And through those sets Olivier's camera subtly glides and skulks like the snake Richard himself is. Olivier is still an underrated director, and his grasp of the frame's spatial properties is excellent: he knew how to move the camera into and out of the frame for maximum impact. For an example, look at the moment Richard finally becomes King, and his satanic powers become unbottled: He slides down the bell rope to greet his minions, and expecting to shake his hand they approach, only to fall on their knees when Richard silently demands they kiss it. As they sink downward, the camera flees backward until the awful composition is complete, with half a dozen men in black on their knees as Richard presides all in the center of the frame: on twisted and bent legs as the bells announce the triumph of evil.
Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest Shakespeare films...
Review: Only two of Orson Welles' Shakespeare films rival "Richard III" for the title of greatest Shakespeare movie ever made. That said, Olivier's film may contain the most sheerly enjoyable performance any actor gave on film. His Duke of Gloucester is the definitive performance. Elia Kazan once said Olivier had a certain girlish quality, and that quality is used in the film: His Richard is seductive--a prancing, charming monster whose voice sounds like "honey mixed with razor blades." But one look into his black eyes, framed by false hawk nose, violently angled eyebrows and fright pageboy wig, will tell you that he's also stone-cold pure evil. Richard enacts all our homicidal, plotting fantasies as he cheerfully knocks off all his stuffy relatives and rivals. Olivier emphasizes the black comedy and wittiness of Shakespeare's play, which he cut and refashioned into a star vehicle for himself. Though Sirs Gielgud, Richardson and Hardwicke co-star, they don't make much of an impression. (Blame that on Shakespeare too) Interestingly, Olivier later regretted not having cast Orson Welles as Buckingham. You experience two major innovations concerning the filming of Shakespeare: the first is Olivier's old custom of using extremely stylized, artificial sets, thereby making Shakespeare's stylized, artificial verse fit in with the settings. The second is the source of Olivier's triumph: he delivers his soliloquys directly to the camera. This daring move destroys the fourth wall and takes true advantage of what the movies offer. He becomes our friend and confidante and we become complicit in his mounting evil. The production values are top-notch: we get deliriously vibrant technicolour, William Walton's pompous, irresistible music of pageantry, and the book-of-hours sets. And through those sets Olivier's camera subtly glides and skulks like the snake Richard himself is. Olivier is still an underrated director, and his grasp of the frame's spatial properties is excellent: he knew how to move the camera into and out of the frame for maximum impact. For an example, look at the moment Richard finally becomes King, and his satanic powers become unbottled: He slides down the bell rope to greet his minions, and expecting to shake his hand they approach, only to fall on their knees when Richard silently demands they kiss it. As they sink downward, the camera flees backward until the awful composition is complete, with half a dozen men in black on their knees as Richard presides all in the center of the frame: on twisted and bent legs as the bells announce the triumph of evil.
Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare's most fun play
Review: Richard III is easily Shakespeare's most fun character. You almost end up rooting for the guy despite his dastardly deeds. Don't take this as history (the real Richard wasn't deformed and it is highly doubtful whether he killed anybody who didn't deserve it), but pop it in and have a great time.
Rating:
Summary: Olivier creates a disgusting yet charismatic Richard
Review: Shakespeare's Richard is a villian of a most terrifying persuasion: An intelligent man of extreme privilege and rank who also routinely manipulates and murders friends and relatives for his own political gain. Olivier portrays the fiend with his trademark excellence. Olivier's skills are in full glory as he becomes the unctious Duke of Gloucester; During the soliloquies, He shares his depraved and bitter complots with the viewer by speaking directly to the camera. It creates the effect that Richard is sharing his secrets with you in confidence, and allows Olivier to give you a "private" showing of his incredible depth in expression and physical gesture, and his astounding richness in vocal characterization. His Richard is also paradoxical, and his portrayal at times approaches farce. He paints the picture of a pampered, prating, and downright prissy Gloucester, but who also has a heart of dark hate and nerves of steel. The amazing fact is that Olivier's Richard is actually likeable. The text calls for characters in the play to find Gloucester's charm and confidence so overwhelming that he wins their loyalty, and Olivier plays this part effectively. Part of this Richard's charm is a brash sissiness that cloaks his vile treachery. But his manner flatters the viewer as well. He seems at times to be almost winking at the audience, mocking his prey before us as he uses them. The fact that Richard can successfully woo even the audience makes me feel a palpable element of parody in the film, which gives it a sense of depth I really enjoy. Enjoyable also is the work of the supporting cast: Sir Ralph Richardson as a wry but reasonable Buckingham, Sir John Gielgud as a hapless Clarence, unknowingly sent to execution by his evil brother Richard, Claire Bloom as the pathetic Lady Anne, hostage to Richard's lying heart. I will mention however, The actor who played Lord Hastings was woefully inadequate. His and a few other minor parts were portrayed with exceeding dullness and detracted from the overall. But on the whole, I would put this in the highest class of Shakepearean rendition, with Olivier's vision as director and performance as actor as the two chief reasons.
|
