Here are some customer reviews of
Richard III
: 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.
Although I'm a film devotee, and love Shakespeare on the stage, film versions of his plays usually bore me to tears -- but not this one! To begin with the centerpiece of the movie, Ian McKellan's performance is magnetic, magnificent, and thoroughly engaging. He doesn't overplay Richard's physical disability, and despite his unprepossessing appearance, he can be almost appealing when he wants to be. It's a portrayal you won't easily forget. The rest of the cast -- with a single exception -- is almost his equal. Jim Broadbent beautifully underplays the shallow, traitorous Buckingham. Maggie Smith's few scenes are powerful and heartbreaking. Annette Bening more than holds her own -- you get the feeling that this woman is intelligent and persuasive, despite her countless travails. Adrian Dunbar in the small role of Tyrrell is slimily personable. Only Robert Downey Jr. is sadly miscast; he manages to butcher the language every time he opens his mouth (and I'm generally a fan of his work). Too much has been made of the resetting of the play in an imaginary 1930's fascist England. With good actors and an imaginative director, Shakespeare works equally well in unconventional settings and traditional ones. I WILL say that Julie Taymor must have seen this film before embarking on her own "Titus". The similarities are remarkable, and I'm surprised that no one has commented on them (that film is also recommended, by the way).
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
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.
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!
|
