Rating: 
Summary: a good adaption
Review: The Shakespearean play Richard III was re-enacted in the 1930s, with an English family and a ruthless son, Richard III, who will stop at nothing to win the crown. As in the old shakespearean play, Richard is the youngest brother who through treachory and decieving, he tries to get the whole family out of his way so that only he will remain for corination. The way that Shakespeare wrote the play, it would be adapted to that in the 1930s. Oozies instead of swords. Jeeps instead of cars. Instead of ghosts appearing, they have dreams so that it will seem more realistic, since it is an easier way to show the same thing in this time period. This way of changing the movie into modern times seems realistic and is a good adaption.
Rating:
Summary: interesting
Review: The movie of Henry III was a good way to bring the characters to life. We always imagine them but never get to see how they would look like. You have to remember that everyone has a different imagination, so everybody might have a different picture of the characters. It makes it more interesting to the modern public by adding objects that we have today. Well the time that Henry III was around is pretty far from present day. So the movie is sort of a link between that time to the present day. If it were to be a version of like when it actually happened with old stuff like horses and wagons, some people may not would of want to watch it at all. The way they combined the story of Henry III and the modern time, it makes it interesting to us.
Rating:
Summary: like the book
Review: The movie Richard III is like the book. Do not let the setting, which takes place during the Hitler era, fool you into thinking Hollywood producers have manipulated the plot. If you have the Richard III book infront of you while watching the movie, you can follow the movie. Even the lines that the actors say are the same as the ones in the book. For example, in the book, Richard puts a sword to his throat and tells Katherine to kill him. That part exists in the movie, right infront of Katherine's dead husband, like it was supposed to
Rating:
Summary: Good comparison
Review: Although Richard III the movie had a setting of the 20th century, instead of the 16th century, the play still had the same impact, meaning that Richard of Gloucester still wanted to be better than the others and power. The way that he does it is empirical meaning that he is still the villain greedy for power and most of all, his deadly move. The play overall gave the feeling of ambition for power and lust. The movie was also taken in a good time, because also at that time a dictator named Hitler was also greedy for power and did anything to obtain it. Good comparison of movie and play to make the same feeling of ambition for power.
Rating:
Summary: awkward film
Review: This movie was a bit awkward. The obvious difference in time did not seem to hinder the overall outcome or quality of this production. The main objective of this movie was definitely accomplished by the producer. The Shakespearean view of Richard III, as a conniving and deceitful individual, proved to be quite evident throughout the movie. Several lines were of course left out, but again the idea and general plot were still present throughout this production. Although the producer perhaps made the plot simpler to understand with a few modern-day changes, this movie cannot replace the original Richard III version by Shakespeare. Again, even with all those drastic changes I enjoyed this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Wierd, but extremely good.
Review: I had seen the Laurence Olivier version (1955) about 10 years ago on video and sort of expected something similar from this version. Setting the story in a 1930s, neo-Fascist London was an interesting twist, and Ian McKellan's portrayal of Richard was deliciously evil. Also, hearing Stacey Kent singing a jazzy torch song in Shakespearean English in the opening scene was strange but very good. I had the song in my head for several days and it made me go looking for her music on CD. I've gotten used to Kevin Branaugh producutions of Shakespeare's plays on video and thought this was at the same caliber. If you like Henry V and Much Ado About Nothing then you'll like this.
Rating:
Summary: This movie is a gorgeously sleek interpretation of the bard
Review: I think anybody who likes sumptuous movies with glorious scenery and great acting should think about this movie for their collection. I am sick of seeing tiresome remakes of Shakespeare and other literature that is self-serving and stultifying in its slavish attention to the restrictions of precedent and norm. This movie is fantastic!
Rating: 
Summary: INTERESTING PRESENTATION - NOISE INHIBITS HEARING
Review: The setting was unique and helped make the play more interesting to those of us who experienced the 1930s. I wish the producers of the video would have published the video with none of the movie scenes edited out. The practice of covering dialog with noise is unfortunate. Hearing 16th century dialog well enough to understand it is inhibited by the "scene noise".
Rating:
Summary: No Better Shakespearean Adaptation
Review: Ian' McKellen's amazing adaptation of Shakespeare's "Richard III" shows just how good Shakespeare can be, even for a modern audience that is not trained in the Shakespearean vocabulary.Directed by Richard Loncraine, and adapted from his triumphant stage production, this "Richard III" is set in a pseudo-Nazi-era England, and the Wars of the Roses are seemingly set as the preliminary days of WWII. In a great opening scene, Richard leads the forces of his brother, King Edward IV (John Wood), to victory over the rebel forces -- following a tank smashing through a fireplace and planting a bullet in his rival's head, all the while breathing through a gas mask like a 20th-century Darth Vader. The royal family is seemingly happy, "Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer . . ." But Richard is a villain -- in a wonderful soliloquy that starts as a homage to his kingly brother but evolves into a private rant in a bathroom, Richard confesses that he is a villain. "Plots have I laid!" Capitalizing on the trust given him by his brothers, Richard sets off on a mad quest for power that sees him arrange for the murder of his brother, seduce the widow of his dead rival ("Was ever woman in this humor wooed? Was ever woman in this humor won?"), and ultimately seize the throne. But for Richard the quest for power is the game -- he seems happiest when winning but almost morose having won his prize. He wins a bride but ignores her. He wins the throne but does not enjoy it, and seems to go out of his way to find others to seduce, including Elizabeth (Annette Benning, in dubious casting, but she gives it a good shot), and men to kill, such as Anthony (Robert Downey, Jr., proving once again that he can do just about anything). In addition to the American cast members (McKellen succeeded in not casting too many Americans in an effort to create box office, unlike Kenneth Branagh in his full-length "Hamlet"), "Richard III" has the usual cast of recognizable British actors -- Nigel Hawthorne (Clarence), Kirsten Scott Thomas (Lady Anne), Maggie Smith (Duchess of York), and Jim Broadbent (Buckingham). Spinning this tale of murder and corruption in a Nazi-esque England was pure genius -- Richard's murderous successes gain a momentum that is reminiscent of Hitler's and Stalin's respective power grabs, and we get a true sense of danger from Richard's ascension. (Plus it allows for some great costumes!) It is chilling to watch the dominoes fall, one after the other, just as Richard has planned. Of course, we know that all ends well and that Richard is defeated, but his fall has never been so perfectly staged. Refusing to be captured by Henry, Earl of Richmond (Dominic West), Richard climbs out onto some rickety ironwork. In a nice, but surprising editorial choice, Richard throws out a line that is not in Shakespeare's play -- "Let's to it pell-mell; if not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell." He leaps into a raging inferno below him, and the camera tracks him down, his beaming visage showing that Richard is dying just as he lived -- as a villain in love with his own villainy. Al Jetson's "I'm Sitting On Top of the World" is the perfect icing on the cake. What a gas! Shakespeare has given us one of theater's great experiences -- watching a man who loves being bad be about as bad as you can get. A must for Shakespeare fans and for anyone who is a fan of the cinema. Check this out!
Rating:
Summary: "Now is the winter of our discontent ...
Review: made glorious summer by this sun of York." The first line of Shakespeare's "Richard III," spoken by Sir Ian McKellen approximately 10 minutes into the movie, sets the tone for this unusual telling of the tale. Shakespeare's drama is set in England ... but not an England that you might know. This is England as it might have appeared if the Fascist sympathizers had come into power. Interestingly enough, the politics are very similar to the Wars of the Roses, so this odd juxtaposition works incredibly well. The casting is, of course, superb. McKellen is delightfully wicked as Richard. Annette Benning makes a superbly sympathetic Elizabeth Woodville. I found all of the players to be quite credible in their roles. An interesting aside for Shakespearean scholars: the song being performed at the movie's opening by the chanteuse at the ball is "The Passionate Shephered to His Love," which was written by Christopher Marlowe. Marlowe is one of the frequently-named possibilities as the true author of the Shakespearean catalog. Overall, this is one of the best performances of "Richard III" that I have seen. For admirers of Shakespeare, Ricardians who want to investigate every possible performance or book concerning the last Plantagenet king, or for historians with an interest in either the present or the past era, this is a film not to be missed.
|
