Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-19 20:44:33

Bravo Sir Ian

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.

2012-05-19 09:18:22

Excellent film

This adaptation of Shakespeare's play Richard III takes place in the 1930s, and charts Richard's rise as an old-style dictator of that time. Brilliantly done, the film catches the mood of that time, complete with modern weapons, party rallies and the cult of personality. Of course, in order to make this vehicle work much of the original dialog had to be taken out or shifted but overall I think this movie does justice to Shakespeare's tale of a power-thirsty tyrant's rise to power.

2012-05-17 17:55:54

Smashing!

This film couldn't have been better. It is truly a great work of art. The performances by such notables as Ian McKellen, Kirsten Scott Thomas, Annette Benning, Nigel Hawthorne, Jim Broadbent and Adrian Dunbar exceed all expectations. McKellen and co-scripter/director Richard Loncraine play with Shakespeare and all potential allusions to present day Britain (there are eerie echoes of today's young Princes William and Harry, as well as to the youthful Prince Phillip and Queen Elizabeth) and never lose their subject, but rather seem to engage the bard himself, and the audience, further. There is such assurance here that Shakespeare is still an intellectual and popular triumph that the production makes no distinction between the two. None is needed. This movie is simply one of the best.

2012-05-17 06:22:57

a good adaption

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.

2012-05-09 21:32:06

INTERESTING PRESENTATION - NOISE INHIBITS HEARING

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".

Aaron 2012-05-09 09:58:29

Richard "Gandalf" Gloucaster can ROCK!!!!!!!!!!

This version of Richard III is un frickin' believeable. Ian gave a stunning performance as Richard. This story kinda gave me a picture of Nazi Germany only this time its just Yorks v.s. Lancaster. This film is a grade A! You have to see it to believe it!!!!!!!!!!1

2012-05-04 16:48:06

Same Play...Different Time and Different Place

Same Play...Different Time and Different Place If your English teacher mentions that you will be watching a movie on Richard III, would it ever cross your mind that it was possible to reenact this Shakespearean play in a different setting? This Richard III movie, unlike the other movies, puts on the whole play in a different time and place. Instead of having the Elizabethan period, the movie takes place during the early 1900's. Now, would this detain the spirit of the whole play to be fully understood? It doesn't really ruin the whole plot; the movie just shows another way--new ideas and settings--can be substituted in a Shakespearean play. Moreover, since you are most likely aware of the early 1900's than the Elizabethan period, the setting is more familiar. If William Shakespeare were alive during the early 1900's, he would most likely have written his plays this way.

2012-05-04 04:48:03

McKellen's turn

Ian McKellen takes his shot at the consummate villain role, and a well-aimed shot it is. I generally like my Shakespeare acted within its own time frame, but for a modern production, this one isn't bad. The 1930's sets, backdrops, and music are over-the-top in their presentation, lending a surreal, supremely fascistic aspect to this history play. It translates well. McKellen's delivery of Richard's famous lines is spot-on. Watching Maggie Smith is a joy, as usual, and veterans Kristin Scott Thomas, Edward Hardwicke (better known to Americans as Sherlock Holmes's Watson), and Nigel Hawthorne perform admirably in important supporting roles. On the down side, Annette Bening and Robert Downey, Jr. are almost comically miscast, their presence jarring and shallow. Then again, it's a rare American "movie star" who isn't routinely upstaged, and badly, by classically trained British actors. This is a fun version of Richard III, easy to understand, visually impactful, and true to Shakespeare's own intentions.

2012-05-01 04:04:55

Shakespearean novel is portrayed in a different way

Richard III stars Ian Mckellen in the role as the evil Richard of Gloucester. This Shakespearean novel is portrayed in a different way, in the 1930's. Keeping the same dialogue from the play, Richard III keeps it's theme and plot, with Gloucester killing even his own family to get the throne. Replacing horses with jeeps and guns for swords keeps the audience interested, even those who don't know what the movie is about. Ian Mckellen gives a great job as portraying Richard of Gloucester with an ironic smile and an evil laugh of triumph. The ending of the movie shows a version of what happened to Richard, since it is not told of what happened to him in the play.

lonelyoldwoman 2012-04-30 11:54:42

One of the best.

I love this movie! Sir Ian is a marvel as the title character, and thesupporting cast does a fantastic job! The re-setting of the story in afascist country works like a scary charm, the music and photography is allgreat. Overall a wonderful experience, and a lovely way to expose yourselfor your children to the wonders of "The Bard".

2012-04-25 12:49:45

What was butchered worse: Richard's Army or the Bard's Play?

Well, 2 stars might be more accurate, but given the large number of 5 star reviews this horrible adaptation has already garnered I think a 1 star review is warranted.Annette Bening, and most of the other actors, deliver their lines in this film so atrociously it is a wonder they were paid in dollars and not rotten tomatoes(no more needs to be said of the acting, it's just that awful). While I don't question the amount of Shakespeare they cut from the script, I do think they could've done much better in choosing which lines to cut).This adaptation also, like many better films, transcribes Shakespeare into a more modern setting. However, the Naziesque setting has the filmakers selected has no point. Zero. Why bother putting Richard in a tank? Take Branagh's Hamlet and compare it to Gibson's. The late 19th Century costumes and palace that Branagh's Elsinore has is a tremendous aesthetic improvement to the drab, yet historically accurate, Elsinore of Gibson's adaptation. This new Richard III on the other hand, is no improvement at all upon Olivier's. Another Shakespeare adaptation, Titus, gets away with a very crazy modernization because the director was actually competent.

2012-04-25 04:23:16

superbly cruel

The devious nature of Richard III was truly captured in this motion picture. He was depicted as a vilanous, evil man who stopped for nothing to achieve the crown. He went so far as to kill his nephew, brother, and "beloved" friend. "Richard III" showed what a frightening man this was. What made him so frightening was that his enemies knew not of his nature, or of his evil intentions. He was able to turn the heart of a woman spitting curses at him. Despite his hideous appearance, he was able to charm even those who hated him the most. "Richard III" was able to capitalize on the superbly cruel nature of this man.

Niv-1 2012-04-24 19:41:03

Maggie Smith steals this great movie

In this version of Richard III the action has been moved to England inthe 1930's. The move to this time period is flawless. While not as goodas Titus (which is similar) this is a great film with fineperformances. Maggie Smith as the Duchess of York steals this moviewith her expert handling of Shakespeare. The scene she has with IanMcKellan (Richard III)by the stairs is amazing. Maggie Smith shouldhave been a candidate for an Oscar for Best Supporting actress, a trulyflawless performance. Annette Bening is very moving as Queen ELizabeth.Her best scene is in front of the building where her sons are beingheld prisoner by Richard. Krisitn Scott-THomas is riveting as LadyAnne. Ian McKellan is astounding as RIchard III. This is probably hisbest performance (even better than his performance as James Whale in"Gods and Monsters.") THe costumes and sets are also expertly done.Richard III is a near masterpiece.

2012-04-24 03:08:41

The groundlings would have been on their feet...

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.

2012-04-22 21:36:34

Awsome

This is an incredible movie. I haven't seen or read the original Richard III, so I can't say if it held true or not, but it is certainly marvelous in its own right. Sir Ian McKellen is a wonderfully slimy Richard. The only problem with it is that unbelievably inappropriate, light, happy music that is played at the end. It ruins the moment. Watch the rest of the movie and then hit mute.

apteryx-1 2012-04-22 11:14:08

A good combination

Taken strictly as an adaptation of the play, you would have to wonder wherethe other half of Shakespeare's lines went.Taken as a play on a hypothetical fascist coup in Britain in the ‘30s, youcouldn't help noticing how they talk funny.But take it for all in all, it has to be said that it works better than someattempts to set Shakespeare in modern periods. The intrigue that the playcentres on is well suited to the era of dictators and military coups. Iteven provides a modern explanation for the peculiar acquiescence of LadyAnne. Ian McKellen predictably excels in the title role, a role as far asyou could get from his recent one in Fellowship of theRing.

2012-04-21 00:29:22

Warning: This is a VERY Technical Review

This review is from: Richard III (DVD) Overall:At 104 minutes and changed in setting to England in the early 1930s, this film makes little pretense to be Shakespeare's Richard III, with the exception of maintaining the dialogue from the Folio text. As for the quality of the film, I do not believe that modernizing the setting enhanced the film adaptation much, except perhaps for people who would be bored by setting the film in the 1400s. Therefore, it may have created a broader appeal to a cinematic audience. Perhaps, also by starring Ian McKellen as Richard III, the film will appeal to Lord of the Rings fans and/or fans of McKellen's performance as Macebeth in the minimalist "Macbeth." I personally have based my 4 star rating on how well the film communicates the THEMES from Shakespeare's original play, as well as the acting performances [McKellen is excellent]. Of course, as I have previously written, this film adaptation compares Richard III with Hitler and England with Germany (ex: the red, white, and black flags, the military attire, the chants, etc). Below I have listed some technical issues pertaining to the adaptation (for those who really want to know how this film adaptation differs from the Folio text). Characters Eliminated: -Dorset-Gray -Queen Margaret (Duchess of York and Queen Elizabeth speak some of her most famous lines) Alternations: -Lord Hastings is the Prime Minister - not the Lord Chamberlain -Some words and sentence structure are changed [of course, nearly 2/3rds of the dialogue is eliminated]Film opens with Richard's attack against King Henry VI and Prince Edward. [In total, there is 9 minutes of introductory shots/material not included in the actual text of the play.] Act 1, Scene 1 is greatly condensed. -Film clearly portrays from the beginning, Richard's brilliant verbal abilities to woe a crowd when he delivers his first lines in a public speech. -Film shows Richard using the restroom to urinate while continuing the less favorable portions of his introductory speech. Act 1, Scene 2 is greatly condensed. -Anne hovers over the body of Prince Edward in the morgue. -Richard pulls a ring from his mouth for Lady Anne to wear after proposing to her. -In 1.2. 215-250, Richard gives a condensed version of his victory of Anne speech as he walks through a hospital while seeing many wounded people about whom he does not seem to care. Film adds a scene between 1.2. and 1.3 in which Richard burns Clarence's letter of pardon, which King Edward IV had signed. Act 1, Scene 3 with the exception of some of the first 20 lines is excluded until later in the film. A scene is added between 1.3 and 1.4, where Richard meets James Tyrrell. As Tyrrell feeds the pigs rotten apples, Richard asks Tyrrell if he can confide in him.Act 1, Scene 4 is split by Richard telling the murders (Tyrrell and one another) to murder Clarence quickly. Film then covers some of 1.3. 25-85 before shifting momentarily to the murders again, who have arrived at the Tower of London. Film then returns to 1.3.85-110 & 285-320. [Note: Queen Elizabeth speaks some of Margaret's lines, such as those when Margaret warns Buckingham against Richard.] Scene shifts to 1.4. 104-260. Clarence is in bathtub. Murders dunk Clarence's head under the water while slitting his throat with a knife. Short scene is added where Richard receives Clarence's broken glasses, a sign that Clarence has been murdered. Another short scene is added to show that Richard does not talk with his wife Anne. Act 2, Scene 1 is considerably condensed. Act 2, Scene 2 begins at line 38. Act 2, Scene 3 is excluded. Act 2, Scene 4 is largely excluded. (The few parts that remain are considerably altered.) Instead of Act 2, Scene 4, a short scene is included in which Rivers is stabbed through the chest from under the bed as a woman is (probably) giving him oral sex. Act 3, Scene 1 is changed and considerably condensed. Act 3, Scene 2 is greatly condensed. Act 3, Scene 3 is excluded. Act 3, Scene 4 is condensed. Act 3, Scene 5 is condensed. -Richard views 9x12 inch black and white photos of Hastings' head in a noose. [Recall that in play, Hastings is beheaded.] Act 3, Scene 6 is excluded. Act 4, Scene 1 is reduced and included before Act 3, Scene 7. Act 3, Scene 7 is reduced -Richard's prayer book is not really a prayer book. -Richard's two priests are two attractive young ladies. -Lord Stanley [played by Edward Hardwick] urges Richmond to flee England. At the end of 3.7, Richard publicly accepts the kingship in front of a massive audience. The scene is very Nazique. Act 4, Scene 1 is greatly reduced. Between 4.1 and 4.2 while traveling in an automobile, Anne injects herself with a needle. [One gains the impression that Anne is a drug addict.] Act 4, Scene 2 is slightly condensed. -For example, Richard calls Tyrrell right away rather than relying on a page. [Also, unlike in the text of the play, Richard already knows Tyrrell at this point.] Act 4, Scene 3 is slightly condensed. -Princes are suffocated. -It appears that Richard admits that he is going to kill Anne. [Note: In the text of the play, one does not really know whether Anne just died or if Richard was the cause.] Act 4, Scene 4 is relatively condensed (begins around line 145)Act 4, Scene 5 is slightly condensed. Act 5, Scene 1 contains only line 1 before Buckingham is strangled to death. Act 5, Scene 2 is eliminated. Act 5, Scene 3 is slightly condensed. Act 5, Scene 4 is eliminated. Act 5, Scene 5 is largely eliminated -Ghosts do not visit Richard. Instead, Richard, as he dreams, hears the accusatory words of those he had wronged.-Unlike in text of play, Ratcliffe appears genuinely loyal to Richard. -Richard's forces are surprised attacked by Richmond's forces. -Richard and Richmond get into gunfire fight with one another, exchanging bullets. -Richard commits suicide by jumping off a building, just before Richmond can shoot him with a pistol. Final Image: Final scene shows the powerful image of Richard falling back first into a raging gasoline inferno. Overall: I recommend the film, although as I have previous described, the film is definitely NOT a good representation of Shakespeare's text.

2012-04-20 18:19:25

recreation superb

Verbatim from the play written and performed loosely four hundred years ago by the master of the playwrights William Shakespeare, Richard III the movie is an excellent contemporary version of the Elizabethan Richard III the play. By setting the story in 1930's England the best attribute of the play reverberates from the opening scene till the final credits. What attribute is this exactly? It is the timelessness of the tale, even when Queen Elizabeth I and King James I were on the throne this story was ages old and now to launch this tale into the twentieth century and have it still be stirring and realistic is what makes this recreation superb.

2012-04-17 11:54:11

theatrical & farce

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

2012-04-16 18:45:33

Wow!

I didn't think Shakespeare was like soo cool. lol. :0 McKellen was totally awesome! Robert Downey, Jr. was sexy as ever. I mean like it's no Olivier production, but oh my god was it fun. Alot more fun that actually reading ya know. :)