Richard III

Rating:
Summary: To fully enjoy this version you first have to know the play
Review: Every since Orson Welles and John Houseman started the trend of updating Shakespeare, there have been several innovative interpretations of the Bard. More so that the drug lord culture of 1996's "William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet," this 1995 version of "Richard III" cast in Edwardian England is a successful addition to the tradition. Of course it has one big advantage over other such films in that it is based on the captivating stage production by Ian McKellen and Richard Eyre. Certainly McKellen is totally comfortable in his role, adding a 20th century venire of evil to the calculating Duke of Gloucster on his way to the crown. This Richard is readily accessible to a contemporary audience.

But there is one extremely important caveat to enjoying this film: you have to be familiar with the original play, otherwise you will totally lose the irony of the alterations. For example, in the play Richard woos his intended bride as she follows the casket containing her husband, who had been slain by Richard, who at one point ponders whether a woman had ever been wooed let alone won in such a manner. In the film version the scene takes place in a morgue, with the dead husband lying on the gurney. The scene is gruesome, something you would expect in a splatter flick rather than Shakespeare, but has a certain validity given the original scene. It is, after all, just a question of setting. But if you are not well versed in "Richard III," you simply can not appreciate the McKellen version.

Of course, this is a marvelous opportunity for teachers who can screen the film, or key scenes, after students have read the play. Imagine the discussions you can have on the range and validity of interpretation available. You can do the same sort of thing with "MacBeth"/"Throne of Blood," "King Lear"/"Ran," or the Olivier/Branagh versions of "Henry V." Or you can just enjoy this film at home and mull over such wonders on your own.

Rating:
Summary: The groundlings would have been on their feet...
Review: well, anyways, they would have even if they could have afforded seats. This film was not "authentic" Shakespeare, in that the screenplay hacked the original play to pieces, obliterating reams of unnecessary scenes and characters, rearranging the dialogue, and splicing lines, but it made for a movie that was great fun, and I think the Bard would have approved heartily of all the special effects. Ian McKellen is a god. Maggie Smith was fabulous. And I was cheering madly when that hunky Henry of Richmond--oh, never mind, I won't give it away. A pox on all those assorted culture snobs and pedantic wusses who trashed the movie in the name of "high art." Blush, blush, thou lumps of foul deformity! I for one will never see the Wars of the Roses quite the same way again.

Rating:
Summary: I Know If This Had Been Done When I Was an Embryo....
Review: ...I would have become more of a Shakespeare fanatic than I am now. This is sheer brilliance in acting and filmmaking. If you don't find new meanings in the creative new setting--such as McKellen's Richard over the pissoire upon the termination of the "winter of our discontent" speech--then we can say that nothing stirs your imagination. I always have been a Robert Downey Jr. fan and to see him here in this sleeze and carnage adds to the viewing fun. Compare this with the recent "Titus" and the 80s-ish "Dangerous Liasons" with Glenni Close, Malkovich, Pfieffer.

Rating:
Summary: A brilliant and imaginative interpretation
Review: Ian McKellen's "Richard III" is a brilliant 20th Century adaptation of the Shakespeare original. McKellen sets the murderous intrigue and civil strife of the play in an imaginary fascist period of English History. In doing this, he removes the story from its historical context and demonstrates the timeless nature of its themes. The original story was set during the War of the Roses, a bitter succession conflict which took place in pre-Tudor England. None of the medieval butchery is lost on us when we see it take place in a fascist context.

The central theme of Richard III is not ambition or ruthlessness but the power of momentum. Richard relies on both physical and rhetorical momentum for his success. Physically, he must always be on the move. Once his movement is stopped he is doomed. Richard makes this abundantly clear in the play and in the film when his transportation is destroyed at the Battle of Bosworth field and he can no longer move. Richard says "a horse a horse,my kingdom for a horse" meaning that without movement he loses the battle and with it his life and his kingdom. This signature death speech is even a bit ironic in the film since it is Richard's jeep that is shot out from him which means that he is speaking metaphorically when he refers to it as a horse. What could be more fitting for a fascist leader?

Momentum is also crucial to Richard's rhetoric. On two occasions in the play, Richard must convince a woman whose husband he has murdered to marry him. Richard accomplishes this the first time by matching each of the widow's arguments with a witty retort until she has none left. But Richard is later unable to do this with the second widow. He begins his confident stream of witty retorts but is flustered by and then outdone by her. Rhetorically he has lost his momentum and with it his power to dominate and control.

Momentum is as crucial to modern despots as it was to the tyrants of Shakespeare's time. Hitler mesmerized a generation of Germans with speeches whose content made little sense but whose momentum carried the day. And like Richard III, Hitler was only successful as long as his army could keep on the move. I wonder if any Panzer driver stuck in the mud and snow of Stalingrad in 1942 found himself muttering "a horse a horse, my kindom for a horse"?

Rating:
Summary: theatrical & farce
Review: a great waste for acting talents and resources. Richard III converses and winks at the audience... not funny at all. not historical, humorous nor believable plot. the costume design was nominated for Oscar...not an enough reason to watch such an empty shell

Rating:
Summary: To it pell-mell... hand in hand to hell!
Review: A great movie, and a great adaptation of a brilliant play.

Easy to see why Al Pacino chose to do his own homage, with curiously similar timing to Ian McKellen (coincidence?). The story is very much in line with that of the Godfather, or any epic centering on one man's burning ambition.

The lead role is demanding. It requires a great acting talent to make the viewer believe that the Duke of Gloucester can kill a woman's husband and father, openly admit it, and then seduce her. The lines are chilling:

"Was ever woman in this humor wooed? Was ever woman in this humor won? I'll have her... but I'll not keep her long"

McKellen does pull it off - just - with his Machiavellian charisma. And Scott Thomas gets the opportunity to spit at him, and call him all those great Shakespearean insults.

Transposing the setting to a mythical 1930s fascist England is a great idea, which does work well. Along with Luhrman's Romeo and Branagh's Hamlet, it highlights just how timeless Shakespeare's insights into human nature are.

The film has no great flaws - though it will likely never eclipse Olivier's stunning performance (so cleverly parodied in Rowan Atkinson's Blackadder).

For me, the highlights are the opening scene, where McKellen delivers the "Winter of discontent" as an after-dinner speech; and the battle at the end, where justice is finally served.

An intriguing, well-executed experiment

Rating:
Summary: Delightful contemporary turn of a classic piece of literatur
Review: When I see how wonderful this Richard III is, it immediately makes me question what in the world has Kenneth Branagh been doing all these years? Certainly nothing as imaginative, as provocative as this.

Deprived of Shakespeare as a child, I have been forced to catch up piece meal through film. Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard" gives attention to Richard III, from a far different perspective, but both that film and this agree that it has all the key elements of great drama: evil ambition, betrayal, rivalry.

The casting is tremendous with Ian McKellen (from his own stage play) and Kristen Scott-Thomas in the leads-thankfully there is no Kenneth Branagh to be found. And is this guy Jim Broadbent any good, or what? For my money he steals every scene he plays in "Little Voice", he's subtly brilliant here in a lesser role. Only Annette Benning seems a little overmatched in her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth, but that's hardly surprising.

The accessibility of the current version, the setting in 1930's Fascist Europe, gives the story a vibrancy that is present from the first frame to the last.

Challenging, fun, and educative-far more than most films deliver. I highly recommend.

Rating:
Summary: Saw the movie, will buy the video
Review: I saw the movie in Washington, DC at a Dupont Circle theater. I was so bowled over that I went back four times. I never see a movie more than twice. I talked about the movie for weeks afterward!

Setting the ancient tale in 1930 fascist England just goes to prove the timless nature of Shakespeare and how it speaks today across the ages.

This was the first Ian McKellen movie I have ever seen and he was incredible. I saw him again in the adaptation of the Stephen King short story, "Apt Pupil." The man can really bring life to a character.

Rating:
Summary: .
Review: Interesting take on Shakespeare's Richard III, with generally quality performances, sets, and a creative transposition into Nazi Germany. It struck me as a bit too quirky, however, and the last half-hour or so was somehow unsatisfying. This is an imaginative adaptation, and certainly not a bad one, but somehow I felt it could've been done better.

Rating:
Summary: A non-standard, cohesive and ultimately wonderful movie
Review: I am not usually a big fan of Shakespeare set in modern locales, but this Richard III, set in a facist England of the 1930s is awesome. Unlike many such modernizations, this one holds together well and makes a great deal of sense. Atmospheric and moody, nothing gets in the way of the words. McKellen is superb, the sets are wonderful, and the supporting cast, particularly Kristin Scott Thomas turn in wonderful performances. Listen closely to the score.