Rating: 
Summary: Stunning Alternative History SF Shakespeare
Review: It's a cliche in Science Fiction film circles to bang on about how 'Forbidden Planet' is a space opera version of 'The Tempest' (OK, it is...) but it's not yet a given that this superb version of Bill Stratford's 'Richard III' (No, star wars fans, there are no Richard I or II movies) is best enjoyed as a SF film.
To quell the outraged Bard purists, I'll admidt this is just one way of viewing the film: Richard III is a brilliant play per se and any version with Ian McKellen would be welcome. But watching the Duke of York's humourously cackling villiany in the setting oif an alternate fascist 30s Britain is sheer joy...this classic tale adapts well to its Moseleyesque sets and design, which threaten to dwarf a nonetheless brilliant cast (even the Americans are excellent - no xenophobia implied, but the accents you guys have don't always cut it in English drama). The music is perfect also, jaunty 30s big band jazz and the climax sees Bosworth replaced by Battersea Power Station, which is sheer genius...'My kingdon for a horse,' yells Sir Ian, clutching his machine pistol like the blackguard he is.
Aside from the superb speculative setting, worthy of comparison with the great alternative history SF novels (Pavane, The Alteration, The Man In The High Castle, Bring The Jubilee), McKellen himself is brilliant, projecting the black humour of Richard's cartoon nastinness superbly, capering and grinning like the mad anti-Quasimodo he is.
So if you're in the mood for anti-fascist alternative history, don't bother to watch 'Fatherland', go for this instead....
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant Brilliant Brilliant
Review: The fact that Richard III is my favorite Shakespeare play and also my favorite villian, i was afraid that Mr. McKellan would not stand up to my personal views of the play. I was so very wrong. Not only is Ian McKellan THE classical actor of our time, this film is brilliant in its portrayal of time period, casting, and acting. McKellan is top-notch is his field and will not dissapoint. His mannerisms are just what i wanted to see, with perfect asides to the camera that will make you adore the pure evil of Richard and his desires. This is one film where you root for the bad-guy.
It was surprising and extremely enjoyable to see Annette Benning as a strong but suffering Elisabeth and Robert Downey Jr. lends his wonderful talent for humor in lightening the load of this bloody historic tale. It is a film that i own, that i remember vividly, and know others who love Shakespeare will want to own, too.
Rating:
Summary: Wait, This isn't Lord of the Rings...
Review: I had to watch this film for a class, and going into it I had no idea that Ian McKellen had acted in any film interpretations of Shakespearean classics, let alone write the screenplays for such interpretations. During the opening credits, my perception of McKellen was severely changed, and I began to look forward to the film I had been secretly dreading all day.Loncraine and McKellen's "Richard III" takes place in England in a more modern day setting. England doesn't appear to be a peaceful country controlled by democracy, but more of a fascist nation ruled by a power-hungry aristocracy. The opening scene alone is reminiscent of World War II and a Nazi regime, and this theme continues throughout the movie. Personally, I think the Nazi theme may have been a bit overdone, and the coronation scene, to me, seemed to be an insult on the audience's intelligence. Rather than just allowing the audience to make their own comparisons between Richard's rise to power and Nazi Germany, we see incontrovertible evidence that Richard represents Hitler, even down to the close-up of his Hitler-esque moustache. However, I don't think this was the most major theme in the movie, despite the constant reminders. Throughout the film, almost all the main characters constantly smoked. There was a lot of smoking, even for English aristocracy. It seems that every time Richard was shown, he was either smoking a cigar or chain smoking cigarettes. However, he wasn't the only character that seemed to have a horrible addiction for nicotine; almost every character was constantly smoking. I think the director was trying to portray the deception and lies that were involved in the play itself by the constant smoke coming out of each characters mouth. Every word Richard said was either followed by or preceded by a smokescreen, and often times his face was partially hidden behind a cloud of smoke. Richard didn't simply smoke; he also provided cigarettes for other people. I'm pretty sure I remember him giving a cigar or cigarette to Buckingham, and possibly to Tyrell as well. To me, this reinforces the idea that Richard and his friends relied on deception and murder as their way of solving problems. Overall, I enjoyed the film a lot, the decisions the director and writers made to change Tyrell's character and to cut some of the play seemed to make sense. I liked how Richard's asides, for the most part, were strictly between the audience and Richard; McKellen would look directly at the camera to enforce a sense of intimacy with the words he was saying, even though this technique is pretty unpopular in current films. My favorite part of the movie was probably the final scene - Richard's death. It was shocking and brilliant...Richard falling into flames was very hellish, and the upbeat music that accompanied his death reminded me that his death was beneficial to England and that things were looking up at the end of the play and movie despite the tragic nature of the ending.
Rating:
Summary: excellent and true representation of the classic play
Review: In the film Richard III we are taken in to the Shakespearean tale of betrayal and murder, with one twist: the story takes place in the 1940's. Richard, a general in his brother's army carefully plots his path to the throne, and on his way slaughters most of his family. As he a slowly maneuvers his way up the royal line, he manages to kill his own brother and nephews, as well as wooing, winning and then killing a widow whom he himself widowed in the first place. Throughout the movie Richard's diabolical motives and methods remain painfully clear, as he informs the audience of every time he pulls the wool over the eyes of his family. Though the scenes and setting have changed, the movie remains true to the original play, and is an excellent and true representation of the classic play.
Rating:
Summary: perfectly depicts the character
Review: The Richard III is an excellent portrayal of the Shakespearean play. Every movement done by Ian McKellen perfectly depicts the character described in the play. Not only is the movie of great interest because of the way the actors go about bringing the real characters to life, the great accuracy of the shortened version of the play also attracts the viewer. The setting is also an ideal one for the movie. Even though everything takes place in another time period, the way every situation is arranged is surely that of a setting that would have been used, would Shakespeare had lived in this period of time. Altogether, the movie was a modern look at a play written long ago
Rating:
Summary: An interesting version of the celebrated play.
Review: The greatest aspect of this film is its look. With extravagant costumes and glorious set designs, there is ambitious detail in every scene. The problem with a film looking this gorgeous is that many of the performances are often overwhelmed with the color and sparkling detail surrounding them. As a result, only two performances stand out. Annette Bening has seldom behaved so furious in any of her other roles, and it was a breath of fresh air to see any of the characters fight back against the tyranny and betrayal of Richard III. Her performance is excellent, and glows accordingly. The other great performance is, of course, Ian McKellen and his diabolical and just plain evil portrayal of the title character. He oozes with lust and is oftentimes disgusting to look at as a result. This is another notable performance in a long list of superb roles for Ian McKellen. There is a small role for Maggie Smith which she relishes, yet she has only one fantastic scene where she reprimands her son Richard for being the foul human being that he has become. I thought she was going to spit. The rest of the cast is either forgettable or wasted. Kristin Scott Thomas has the famous scene with Ian McKellen where Richard III woos her character while she mourns her husband's death. She knows full well that is was Richard who killed her husband. I have never been able to believe this scene, regardless of the performances. If she truly loved her husband as much as she says, and loathes Richard with as much passion, she could never be tempted to either forgive his actions let alone lay them aside and go to his bedchamber. Surely, she is in a weakened state, and perhaps susceptible to persuasion, but that is simply too much to ask. Robert Downey Jr. has a throwaway performance. He is a great actor, but the role he has here is limited and really could have been portrayed by any decent actor. Overall, the film is gorgeous to look at, and is certainly worth watching for the grand acting of Ian McKellen and Annette Bening.
Rating:
Summary: Shakespeare gets updated and how
Review: Once you get used to the Shakespearian lingo, you marvel at the ingenious blending of a Third Reich "ish" regime & the original Shakespeare. A beautiful modernization of the play that works. The cinematography was amazing. The use of smoke via cigarettes or cigars was pure genius not to mention brillant symbolism with freudian overtones. The same can be said of the use of color and camera angle techniques. Reading the original version only enhances the beauty of this piece. Oh, and it also kicks a** as a war movie.
Rating:
Summary: Bravo Sir Ian
Review: I will admit that the only reason I pick up this movie was because it had Ian McKellen in it, and his performance, as always, was amazing. He does a brilliantly job portraying the loathsome, savvy, ingenious Richard III. The language threw me at first (I believe they kept almost all of Shakespeare's original dialect) but it seems so natural in this film. It was a great cast, with Maggie Smith as the grieving queen mother, who has to see and face her son, knowing the awful things he does, things he doesn't even deny. Richard, the youngest brother of King Edward, sets out to take the throne. He will be king, no matter the price, and thus begins a bloody civil war, murdering, betraying, and seducing all who stand in his way.
Rating: 
Summary: Fun, but perhaps too many cuts
Review: My husband bailed out when the singer started in on "Come Live with Me..." I stayed with the film and enjoyed the fun. There's not much sense of the sad history of the Lancaster-York rivalry, with the original sin of the deposition and murder of Richard II leading in an almost fatalistic way to rebellion, wars, and cold-blooded murders, all the way down to the innocent victims in the Tower. (For that, go to the BBC version.) That's a quibble, however; this is a "variation on a theme," and I can't quarrel with the simplifications. What I mind more is the loss of so much of the poetry. But if Clarence is going to be interpreted as a kindly, inept soul, "False, fleeting, perjur'd Clarence" has to go. Giving the lords' line "How have you slept, my lord?" to Elizabeth of York the morning after is a little bizarre, but it works in the context. BTW, some people think Henry VII killed the little princes, but that's not an idea one could expect Shakespeare to float.
Rating: 
Summary: An interesting interpretation that just does not deliver
Review: This version of Shakespeare, set in World War II era England, is an innovative interpretation that fails to live up to its potential. While Ian McKellen's Richard is cold-blooded and sly, he is more comical than menacing. The humor he puts into his role does not seem to match the more serious portrayals of the other characters. Annette Bening, even with an American accent, is spectacular as the strong-willed Queen Elizabeth. Likewise, Robert Downey Jr. is forceful but grossly underused as the queen's brother Rivers: he really deserves a Shakespearean film of his own. Maggie Smith has a small part as Richard's mother that she makes the most of despite the fact that she and Ian McKellan seem too close in age to be a mother and son. Kristin Scott Thomas, as Richard's wife, stands around and looks gorgeous, but delivering her lines while smoking a cigarette doesn't make her a great actress. The film is a glamorous one, with great attention to old Hollywood details, but suffice to say, there is very little beneath the surface.
|
