Richard III

Rating:
Summary: a good portrayal
Review: This movie was a good portrayal of the actual novel Richard III. If I were to give the movie a rating, I would give it four out of five stars. Richard was represented by an evil, cunning man that had a hunch on his back and wasn't able to move his arm. The other characters were very close to the actual characterization in the novel also. The setting that was in the movie could relate to how it was. For instance, the tower was some far away cooling tower that was only accessible through a single bridge. Overall, the movie was very close to portraying what it might be to us in this century. In the time of century it took place, this movie would be good to see or show to a class in English.

Rating:
Summary: Destruction of a Masterpiece: A comment on Richard III
Review: Many consider Shakespeare the greatest writer of all times and when his beautiful work is manipulated and degraded, as in this version of Richard III, it is a great loss. Movies are supposed to use actions and pictures to support the words, but here the words, not the pictures, convey the emotion and meaning in the story. In Richard Loncraine's film, it seemed the focus was on the fires, guns, sex, and violence. When spoken, the words became a meaningless extra to the movie instead of the principal pivot causing the emotions. In Shakespeare's play the emphasis was on the words spoken with passion, lust, revenge, greed, and hate. The central flaw of the movie lies in its failure to reveal the greatness of the playwright's words.

Rating:
Summary: I really enjoyed the film.
Review: Shakespearean plays have often been modernized and turned into films. Several movies that attempt to be authentic and original are never successful. Only few films succeed to transform Shakespeare's plays into a triumphant film Richard III is one of those successful films. The portrayal of the characters and the manifestation of the play into an1930's setting is excellent. The portrayal of Richard is the best. The actor clearly shows the cold-hearted and heartless man Richard is. The actor reminded me of Adolph Hitler and so throughout the whole film I thought of Richard as Hitler. But I feel that the film jumped from scene to scene before I could comprehend what has happened. In order for one to enjoy the film one needs to read the play. Otherwise, I really enjoyed the film. Especially the portrayal of Richard.

Rating:
Summary: for the most part excellent
Review: Comparing the book to this movie I give the movie a rating of three out of a possible five stars. The scripting was done really well. The characters were accurate and played good roles. Each of the characters lines were accurate. They were exactly from the book. The acting was excellent. Each of the characters did a good job in acting their part. The only thing that I didn't like was the time period that the movie was recorded in. I feel that it would have been better if it depicted the Sheaksperean Era rather than Nazi Era. Another thing which I found in the movie which wasn't in the book was the sex scenes. Other than that, the graphics, sound, and lighting was for the most part excellent. The only part that wasn't very good was at the end when Richard dies.

Rating:
Summary: best adaptation
Review: Richard III by William Shakespeare is one of the best historical drama's ever written. The film adaptation for Richard III is the best adaptation since the book itself. This film has the best visual notation of Shakespeare's play since it was played at the Globe itself. Sir Ian McKellen is the best Richard because he mixes the comedy of Shakespeare with the the modern issues of the 1930s. Sir Ian McKellen made the perfect Richard III because he brought together the evil part of Richard which could not be experienced with the book. The film also expressed some scenes that could not be imagined form the book. For example, the expressions on the actors face could not be imagined form the book.

Rating:
Summary: more enjoyable than any other play
Review: The movie Richard III is a unique portrayal of Shakespeare's play. This film is unlike any of Shakespeare's plays that have ever been made. Although Romeo and Juliet was made in 1996 with a modern setting on a beach and with very popular teen actors, Richard III, the movie, is quite different from any other representation of Shakespeare. Richard III is set in a thirties type of setting in England. Ian McKellen plays the part of Richard in the play and really shows the "ugly" side of Richard. His sarcasm and cunning lines adequately display Richard's true character, as Shakespeare intended. Despite the fact that the setting was not at all something that was expected, Shakespeare's play did not miss a beat. All of the elements of a classic Shakespearean play were there and were perhaps more enjoyable than any other play ever made for the theater.

Rating:
Summary: worth seeing
Review: The movie Richard III was a very entertaining. This Shakespearean play was set in the 1940's which at first didn't make much since. But later I realized that it had to do with Richard III portraying Adolph Hitler. One thing that I noticed was the acting. In this movie, produced by Richard Loncraine, the acting was excellent. Ian McKellen, played Richard III, an evil man that was determined to become king. Ian McKellen and the rest of the cast did and excellent job of making this movie. The language was clear and comprehensible. Although there was good acting and entertainment, the movie cut out many important parts of the play. Overall I enjoyed to movie, and it was real worth seeing.

Rating:
Summary: modernized version
Review: The movie of Richard III is an interpretation of the play written by William Shakespeare. The movie is a modernized version with the basic principles of the play. This movie starts with Richard's manipulations and soliloquies, as he arranges his brother's Clarences death. It ends with Richmond's victory. The movie has performers that form the structural basis for the dramatic action found in the story. Scenes found in the movie describe the same plot as in the play. For instance, there is an early scene in the movie and play where Richard, in a soliloquy, presents himself as a villain. Both in the movie and play Richard woos Lady Anne over the corpse of King Henry VI, whom Richard murdered.

Rating:
Summary: Don't be surprised
Review: This video is a version of William Shakespears's play, Richard III. From its original setting, this version takes place during the 1930's. Don't be surprised by this change in the play, many details in the play has been modified to adapt to the new setting, but the plot is still the same. The part of Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later King Richard III, is still the famous villainous character. Richard plots his evil-doing schemes, meticulously leads the royal family to grant him the crown, and although he is hideously malformed, he tries to charm and flatter Lady Anne. We can appreciate the power of the character of Richard. Although the play is descriptive, visual effects on the video makes the play entirely different. From the beginning to the very end, the video catches you off-guard with unexpecting events. Read the play before watching the video.

Rating:
Summary: humorous tone
Review: This movie version of Richard III is a masterpiece in captivating the brilliance of Shakespeare's work. The dialogue is exactly the same as the original play, and no small events are cut out. Usually, Shakespeare movies are butchered to fit into the time frame in which it was written, but providing a Hitler type setup matches the theme exactly. The only discrepancies are the love scenes, which really did not need to be included, and are a poor excuse of fitting into society's entertainment world; and the marriage of Richmond and Elizabeth, the marriage scene in the play is the last event that occurs, and in the movie, it is before the big show--down. The narration done by Richard is played very well, and heightens its humorous tone. Overall, the movie captures the audience, especially that of a high school student who read the play in class, and would have preferred to see the movie only because it is assuredly the exact same as the play.