Ennemis jurés

at first sigh, translation of Shakespeare's play in contemporary formulas. in fact, high performances, fresh spirit of original, Rome in a credible and strange images who remands wars and crisis, politic errors and hypocrisy. a film who explores roots, solutions, emotions, fake options . a film about heroes and their failure. about contemporary politic life because the laws, tricks are the same. result - a kind of House of Cards. not very different essence. only forms who reminds art of theater, an ambiguous genius , actors who gives proofs of admirable manner to resurrect a text and its substance. a provocative film. because it is not exactly adaptation of a play on screen. but a provocative portrait of power, duty and force of fundamental decisions.

First, this is Shakespeare and it uses his original dialogue, so anyone that doesn't appreciate the rich language shouldn't be watching this, never-mind reviewing it. I find it sad that so many negative reviews here revolve around the difficult (wonderful) language. If anything, too much of Shakespeare's writing was cut out in order to make the movie shorter, and some scenes and characters suffer because of it.

Second, it is transported to a modern setting despite the language, in order to demonstrate its universal themes. Sometimes this works quite well (see Richard III with Loncraine/McKellen). Here, the result is a mixed bag. The modern settings with news-rooms, tanks and trucks work very well, but the war-action scenes sometimes feel shoe-horned in just to try to make Shakespeare more thrilling and pander to audiences, and a key plot element that involves the Roman practice of a hero showing the people his physical wounds in order to gain their trust, doesn't work anymore.

The acting is generally good, although the wide range of accents are too distracting, and Azabal chews the scenery and ruins her scenes. The direction is passable.

As mentioned, some scenes suffer from too much cutting of dialogue. I found the key scene involving the turning of the crowd against Coriolanus, too awkwardly staccato. Where the original writing had speeches that sway people's emotions, this has abrupt statements and declarations, and many of the characters lose their dimensions as a result.

But all these can be overlooked and the movie enjoyed despite these flaws. The one flaw I was not able to overcome is Fiennes characterization of Coriolanus. He portrays him as way too contemptuous and angry, a spiteful man beyond sympathy that basically brought the tragedy on himself. Whereas my impression while reading the play was of a socially awkward, hard, but basically honorable and good man led astray by politics and pressure. Including more of Shakespeare's colorful dialogue and soliloquies could have helped.

'Coriolanus' is not an easy play to perform or stage, with Coriolanus not being easy to identify with, and dramatically is not as concise or as consistently gripping as other Shakespeare plays. One of Shakespeare's most compelling and more complex titular characters is one of the main interest points, regardless of whether he is likeable or not (more the latter), as well as it emphasizing a class divide that wouldn't be too out of date today, relevant politically and financially too.

Ralph Fiennes is a wonderful actor, with experience in Shakespeare including this role, and is just as talented a director. 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' particularly shows that off. And then we have a talented cast alongside him, including Vanessa Redgrave in a role that sounded perfect for her. 'Coriolanus' was his directing debut. To me, it was a most credible one in a surprisingly very strongly executed film that is to me one of the better recent cinematic Shakespeare adaptations and almost as good as the 1984 BBC Television Shakespeare and 2014 National Theatre Live productions in its own way.

By all means 'Coriolanus' is not a film exempt from flaws. The momentum does sag at times, especially in scenes that are particularly talky. Count me in as another person that didn't care for the news footage-like parts, Jon Snow's involvement has a disconcerting amount of unintentional humour that doesn't gel with what is going on and they just felt very heavy handed and out of place. The film would have been a lot better without them, maybe they were put there to make the story more relevant but there was no need for that as thematically the story is relevant today already.

Not all the cast work. Gerard Butler struck me as somewhat bland as Aufidius and too subdued. The role needs charisma and brutal intensity and Butler lacks both, or certainly the kind needed for the role as he didn't strike me as brutish enough. And of course Snow's involvement should have been left on the editing room floor.

Actually liked Jessica Chastain as Virgilia and thought that she brought a touching tenderness to her. Volumnia is one of 'Coriolanus' more complex characters and Redgrave gives a very powerful and both nuanced and firey performance, didn't think it was overcooked at all. Brian Cox is dignity and clever wit personified as Menenius. Best of all is a truly ferocious Fiennes, there is a lot of intensity to his performance in the difficult title role but he also brings vulnerability to the softer moments.

His direction is most credible, much of the character interaction sears, there is plenty of intrigue and the action is truly exciting and unyielding. That he did well at making the story accessible was appreciated while still having a very pull no punches approach. The visuals are grandiose and rich in style, the setting not looking ugly despite being suitably unforgiving as ought. The film is hauntingly scored and Shakespeare's text still resonates and while it is wordy it is mostly not overkill on that. Despite it being in old English, Shakespeare's work has always to me been accessible with so many interesting characters, themes and speeches and is fascinating to study, and the mix of his language and the non-traditional setting here in 'Coriolanus' actually work better than most Shakespeare cinematic adaptations to have a modern setting mixed with the original text.

Overall, didn't blow me away but impressive in a lot of areas. 7/10

A modern-day spin on one of Shakespeare's lesser known plays, Coriolanus is an ambitious and lyrical Greek tragedy that has everything you'd expect from the mind of the Bard; betrayal, revenge, pride, conflict, monologues, dilemmas, death- it's all in there. The only thing missing is a star-crossed lover or two.

Both its star and director, Ralph Fiennes follows past masters Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh onto the breach in this doomy and demanding directorial debut that may signal a new and exciting direction for the steely-eyed actor.

Set in a city on the verge of collapse that resembles Tripoli but calls itself Rome, the film charts the rise and fall of general Coriolanus (Fiennes); a fiery soldier of war-torn Rome who earns his stripes in a bloody battle against an insurgent army lead by Turrus (Gerard Butler). In the aftermath of a brutal bullet storm and knife fight, Coriolanus emerges victorious and is branded the symbol of a new and prosperous empire. It doesn't work out. The decorated vet is more brawn than brains; his strong sense of pride coupled with the dirty work of corrupt bureaucrats and advisors lead to civil unrest and, in turn, a verbal attack by Coriolanus' on the people of Rome which results in his banishment from the city. Bitter, betrayed and hell- bent on revenge, the spitting outlaw seeks refuge and redemption in who else but his sworn enemy, Turrus.

Swapping the frantic razzmatazz of Baz Lurhmann's Romeo and Juliet retool for a far more gritty and paced approach, Fiennes has crafted a brave and bombastic drama that'll probably find its way onto a school curriculum or two before the year is out. And why not. His contemporary vision of a 300+ year old morality play is one awash with thought, feeling, values, complexities, politics and emotion- pure, unadulterated Shakespeare.

Coriolanus is far from the vision of just one man, though. Gladiator screenwriter Josh Lucas lays the necessary footing for Fiennes and Hurt Locker cinematographer Barry Ackroyd to bring the tale to life. Stirling support also comes in the shape of seasoned thesps Brian cox, Vanessa Redgrave, James Nesbitt and....Gerard Butler; all of which are new to big-screen Shakespeare yet convincing nonetheless. Even Butler.

The screen belongs to a raw and rampant Ralph Fiennes, though. More than just a noseless sorcerer, Fiennes is an exceptional actor and, now, promising director whose verbose and gung-ho approach from both behind and in front of the lens makes for a fascinating commitment. "Such is the work of a man". Olivier and Branagh would be proud. Coriolanus will have Shakespeare enthusiasts chomping-at-the-bit, students scrambling for the exits.

Finally, after over 50 film versions of Hamlet, someone ventures into new Shakespearean territory, bringing the Bard's last tragedy, Coriolanus, to the big screen for the first time. Some may complain it's a lesser work- as if they want more of the same, and showing the audacity to pan Shakespeare- and specifically the play TS Eliot considered the Man from Stratford's greatest! In truth, Coriolanus is a perfect play for times of political turmoil, probably simpler than Hamlet but rich in its conflict, with international war tied up in domestic politics. We have a protagonist who heroically serves his country, but his tragic flaw is his anti-social nature and smugness that makes him unpopular at home.

We can see the decision was made to recast the play, based in ancient Rome, to the modern era. It's a device we've seen before with Romeo and Juliet (1996) and Hamlet (2000), and while it would seem appropriate to place the first Coriolanus film in its own time, the story translates to an age of media and modern warfare relatively well. Slate magazine considered the argument that placing Coriolanus in a new setting and making it work proves it is Shakespeare's greatest play. However, the magazine rejected that argument, noting Hamlet has been placed in every setting imaginable. Certainly, Macbeth as well has been adaptable- Orson Welles transported it to the 19th century Caribbean, while Akira Kurosawa brought it to feudal Japan. While this film may not prove Coriolanus is the best of Shakespeare's plays, it nevertheless reflects that the neglected play is brilliant.

Fiennes' film has a strong look and helps the viewer feel some of the intense conflict, though it's not a great film. Reading the play for the first time this week, I felt the politics were a lot more gripping than what was brought to the film. Ideally, Fiennes' film might encourage other filmmakers to make their attempts at more successfully adapting Coriolanus, or bring it back to its original setting. Alas, the poor box office performance of this film will likely discourage that- but I still salute Fiennes for his effort.