Recensioni degli utenti

This film sets Shakespeare's Richard III in an alternative to WWII era England, where fascists and royalists maintain their own militias and play power games with kings and thrones. The first scene sets the tone for the entire film. A young officer is settling down to dinner with his dog chewing on a bone nearby. The building begins to shake and a low rumbling is heard. Soon enough, a tank erupts through the fireplace and stormtroopers charge in automatic rifles ablaze. Ian McKellan removes his gas mask and spouts a few lines of Shakespearean dialog.

The action and the intrigue never really let up, as the film follows Richard's (McKellan) rise to infamy and power. Neither does the Shakespearean dialog. Somehow the cast manages to make the dialog fit the action and setting effortlessly.

Richard III is jarringly strange - perhaps the most innovative of the recent Shakespeare updates - very well acted and directed. Although I recommend the film, I have to warn you - it's not for everyone.

This is a peculiar updating of Shakespeare's play to the Thirties fairly races through the Bard's text and adding some historical elements. Dazzling and stagy entertainment about the ruthless and power-hungry Richard III being haunted by those he has killed . A deranged Lord competently performed by the great Ian McKellen mercilessly murdering his way to the English throne, during a dystopian England in the thirties . Great Britain kingdom is ruled by a sicked Edward IV who violently deposed the previous fleeble King . A web of intrigue veils the lives of all who know only too well that today's friends might be tomorrow's enemies . This interesting film deals with the story of mean Richard III Crookback , 6th in throne succession, while his brother king Henry IV -John Wood- appoints Clarence as Lord Protector of the Realm and preceptor his children . But aside from Edward , his other brother , Clarence -Sir Nigel Hawthorne- , and Edward's two young sons also stand between Richard and the crown of England . Subsequently , Richard eliminates those ahead of him in succession to throne then occupied by his ill brother Edward IV . As Richard , Duke of Gloucester , results to be a dominant , unstoppable , nasty lord , gross black spider of a figure that devours or possesses everything on its path . What Is Worth Dying For... Is Worth Killing For. I can smile, and murder while I smile . Power Conquers All...I am determined to prove a villain, and hate the idle pleasures of these days... Mother England meets Father Terror ? You will need someone to hand onto when you come face to face with the blood-chilling terror in the tower !

Enjoyable and hypnotic amusement for Ian McKellen enthusiasts , resulting to be a sophisticated remake from classy Laurence Olivier version . The film turns out to be like a Shakespearean theatrical drama set in a fascist society . Give it high marks for originality and admire some striking set pieces , but hand the superior and real crown to Laurence Olivier's 1956 vintage movie . This awesome movie being partially based on historic events , during Two Roses War, Red Rose (York House) ruled by Edward IV and Richard III followers and White Rose (Lancaster House) , Henry VII followers who defeat to them . Finally , there takes place the Battle of Bosworth , in which Richard III is vanquished and a new ruler called Henry VII takes over the kingdom . The picture profits from a terrific cast who gives over-the-top interpretations . Ian McKellen provides an incisive role featuring an acclaimed acting . He plays a camera-adressing fascist , seems far too easily bested at the end . Being well accompanied by a prestigious secondary cast , such as : John Wood as King Edward IV , Nigel Hawthorne as Duke of Clarence, Annette Bening ,Tim McInnerny , Jim Carter , Bill Paterson, Maggie Smith , the best performance comes from Jim Broadbent and Robert Downey Jr but unfortunately his role doesn't last very long .

Other movies regarding this historical character are as follows : "Tower of London 1939" by Rowland V Lee with Basil Rathbone , Boris Karloff and Vincent Price who coincidentally appeared here as the doomed Duke of Clarence . "Richard III 1956" starred and directed by Laurence Olivier with Jean Simmons , Ralph Richardson , John Gielgud , Sir Cedric Hardwicke , Peter Cushing , this is the landmark version of the Shakespearean play . ¨Tower of London¨(1962) by Roger Corman with Vincent Price , Michael Pate , Joan Freeman, Richard Hale , Robert Brown and Sandra Knight, it is really a terror film in the wake of Allan Poe/Roger Corman adaptations . And this modern take on "Richard III" by Richard Loncraine with Ian McKellen, Jim Broadbent , Robert Downey Jr , Nigel Hawthorne , being set in an imagined 1930s London if swanky Art Deco .

I'm not always comfortable with Shakespeare in modern dress, nor with Ian McKellen's apparent assumption of the mantle of Olivier and Gielgud. Neither did I think that anything could top the experience of seeing Antony Sher play the role on the 500th anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth.

So after all the unfavourable comment, I was shocked to find this version comprehensively squashing all such reservations. It's brilliantly thought out, superbly played and totally gripping from start to finish.

The updating to a non-specific inter war period is not just apposite but genuinely illuminating. The games McKellen plays with the changing techniques of warfare in the period, the rise of fascism, realpolitik and the undermining of royalty by the Wallis Simpson affair, push back the boundaries of Shakespeare on film in all directions.

For example, at the very moment you're thinking that all this mayhem is a bit much in English period costume, the helmets change, then the uniforms get darker, the red flags appear and Richard's acceptance speech turns into an underground Nuremburg Rally - a stark reminder of just how deeply the country flirted with fascism in the 30s and just how short and steep the descent can be. Stanley's troops, crucially uncommitted, stood off overlooking the real Battle of Bosworth. McKellen's Richard has control of the railway network here, but Wing Commander Stanley denies him the all-important air support in a superb piece of updated analogy. Throughout, modernity is so carefully and relevantly overlaid on the plot structure that it becomes one of the great pleasures and achievements of the piece.

Lots of surprises, not the least of which comes as the play's most famous line is perfectly re-engineered and delivered and lots of great players at the top of their form.

McKellen, Scott Thomas, Broadbent, Downey Jnr and Annette Bening are all worth the price of admission individually, but there's hardly a flaw in any of the performances.

I simply can't see what the detractors are on about at all. Really. An epic piece of work. Easily the best version on film. Easily the most thought provoking Shakespeare on film.

This is one of the movies you remember for a long time - and for all the good reasons. Transplanting Shakespeare in a different time and giving his historical plots a modern political sense is not such a new idea. What is really strong and works well here is the perfect fit between the characters as Shakespeare intended them and the background which is so different from the original historical one. Each one of the characters is both shakespearian as intended, a perfect citizen of the fictional time created by the director - a fascist England in the 30s - and more than everything else a human being: sensual, hating and loving as only humans do.

Perfectly acted, almost flawlessly directed, with very little overweight, this film is a feast for the intelligent spectator, a brutal, well-paced and expressive piece of art - and exactly as Shakespeare would have loved it, a mirror of his time, of our time, and of any time. 9/10 on my personal scale.

"Richard III" may not have the all-encompassing understanding of uman nature seen in "Hamlet" or the grace and mastery of "The Tempest", but for my money is one of the greatest plays ever written and certainly Shakespeare's most entertaining.

It may be lacking in character development and psychology, but it more than makes up for that with a brilliant concept: have the villain as main character and make the audience his playful confident. The concept is aided further by eminently quotable lines and one great scene after the other of scheming, fiendishness and confrontations. One of the few pieces of criticism you can successfully throw at Shakespeare is that his central characters are often meek or feeble. Not so here! Tudor propaganda this might have been (it quite grotesquely disregards historical fact in a few places), this is storytelling at its finest.

Richard Loncraine's 1995 film places the story in a fictitious 30s England reminiscent of early Nazi Germany. The device serves to make the proceedings more accessible (if only marginally since the original language has thankfully been preserved). It also makes for amusing situations (Richard of York telling his monologue while taking a leak in a public restroom - "my Kingdom for a Horse!" bellowed from a paralyzed jeep) and serves as further proof of the Bard's timelessness.

Beyond the structural and technical feats - and they are quite excellent without exception, including Trevor Jones underrated dark jazzy score - lies what should be our main concern: the cast. Sir Ian McKellen as Richard is a Machiavellian wonder, blowing both Lawrence Olivier's rendition and McKellen's earlier work away. His fiendish creation is a joy to watch and root for, despite the increasing gruesomeness of his crimes. The byzantine plot demands that recognizable faces be cast in supporting roles and the characters are magnificently portrayed by eminent actors giving it their best and succeeding admirably. Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent and Kristin Scott-Thomas are expectedly great, but the truly outstanding supporting performances come as surprises: Annette Benning is all grief and fury, Adrian Dunbar is eerie yet very human as Richard's pet killer Tyrell and Nigel Hawthorne is incredibly moving as the meek Clarence. Even Robert Downey Jr. manages to hold his own against this impressive array of actors.

All in all if you can appreciate the language (that only gets better with repeated readings/viewings) and have a thirst for fine acting, it would be criminal to ignore this masterpiece.

There are two definitive film productions of Richard III: - Sir Laurence Olivier's 1955 film version, which he directed and in which he plays the title role, supported by Sir Cedric Hardwicke as King Edward, Sir John Gielgud as Clarence, the delectable Claire Bloom as the Lady Anne and a host of other brilliant performers - and Ian McKellen's 1995 version, screenwritten by McKellen and director Richard Loncraine, in which McKellen also plays the title role.

While the Olivier version is the definitive classic presentation of the play on film and should serve anyone who wants to see the play as it was intended to be seen (albeit the Colley Cibber adaptation), McKellen's adaptation captures the spirit of the play in modern context.

The movie opens with the Lancastrians in their war room receiving word of Richard, Earl of Gloucester's holding Tewksbury by teletype, then soon their war room is breached by a tank, behind which swarm raiders in gas masks, one of whom slays the Prince of Wales and then the King himself, before removing his gas mask (one of the old goggle-eyed full-face models the Russians still use) to reveal himself Richard, duke of Gloucester.

The scene shifts rapidly to a typical 1930s rich people's fete, complete with mellow-voiced torch singer and live orchestra, at which Richard III delivers the "sun of York" soliloquy as a toast to his father Edward and the assembled party - and then the scene shifts again to Richard completing the soliloquy to the camera, as he does throughout the film. The address to the camera is a little jarring - McKellen's smiling, evilly smirking delivery is a little over the top, what you'd imagine the Blackadder films would have been if they hadn't gone for laughs.

But Ian McKellen carries the role off very well... his not-quite-sane, quite unbalanced and power-mad schemer Richard III is entirely plausible as a 1930s dictator-king in the central European mold. The uniforms shift from the standard British armed forces' khakis to the blacks and greys of Hitler and Mussolini as Britain slides into fascism under her scheming "Lord Protector."

The screen action is taut, visually compelling - even when McKellen bellows "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" from a World War II Dodge weapons carrier/"command car," the scene doesn't degenerate into incongruous, unintentional comedy, because by then the viewer is caught up in the tale of this wild-eyed sociopath who has just about run out of rope - and since the truck is axle-deep in sand, stuck, a horse is just what Richard could have used around then.

There's just enough realism in the 1930's props to help with willing suspension of disbelief - no more. Military history buffs will not be happy. No matter. What is communicated very well is the senseless welter of fully-joined battle, fiery slaughter and Richard III's lashing out in senseless rage, eventually as much against his own men as the enemy.

The Duke of Stanley's last-minute defection against Richard's forces in the final battle is all the sharper for Stanley being the commander of the air force (his loyalty to Richard III in the coming battle with Henry, Earl of Richmond seemingly assured by his young son's being held hostage in Richard III's war train) - so that the viewer no sooner hears the news of the defection in the play's dialogue than Richard's forces are strafed and bombed by Stanley's war planes as Richmond's forces swarm into Richard's assembly area, cutting the Ricardian army to pieces.

Lots of interesting touches in the screenplay, such as Queen Elizabeth and her brother Earl Rivers (played ably by Annette Bening and rather indifferently by Robert Downey, Jr - who only manages to convince in the scene when he is assassinated in bed while submitting to the erotic ministrations of a Pan Am stewardess) playing their roles as Americans - using the homage to Wallis Simpson and her husband the Duke of Windsor (who abdicated his kingdom to marry Simpson because she wasn't only a commoner but a divorced American) to bring needed tension among the royals to the play.

In case the viewer's a little too thick to realize that Downey's character is an American, not only does he lay the flat, nasal accent on thicker than Hell, but on landing in England, he steps out of an airliner painted in bright Pan-American Airlines livery, where he is met by his royal sister Elizabeth and her children.

Bening's performance is more nuanced and sympathetic than Downey's - the conundrum of Elizabeth's brother being a Peer and obviously an American at the same time is just left out there. But before long, we're McKellen's willing co-conspirators and agree to forget this lapse.

Maggie Smith as Richard's mother Queen Margaret is stellar in her portrayal of a mother torn between the remnants of love for her twisted, lethal offspring and mourning the rest of her family dead because they stood in Richard's way to the throne. Her delivery of Margaret's of the advice Elizabeth asks for on how to curse Richard (Act 4, Scene 4):

"QUEEN ELIZABETH

O thou well skill'd in curses, stay awhile, And teach me how to curse mine enemies!

QUEEN MARGARET

Forbear to sleep the nights, and fast the days; Compare dead happiness with living woe; Think that thy babes were fairer than they were, And he that slew them fouler than he is!"

is one of the best-delivered lines in Shakespeare on film I have seen.

In closing one compares McKellen's Richard III to Anthony Hopkins' Hitler in "The Bunker" - an eerie channeling of one of history's foulest personalities, so that one feels one's self in his foul presence watching the show.

Masterful work.

The classic William Shakespeare play is reimagined with the world of WWII marrying a British monarchy. The rebel York family fights to put eldest son Edward (John Wood) onto the throne. His army is led by his youngest brother Richard (Ian McKellen) of Gloucester. After winning the war, Richard maneuvers his older brother Clarence into the Tower. Then he woos Lady Anne (Kristin Scott Thomas) after killing her husband and her father during the war. Edward is ill and Richard spreads the rumor that Queen Elizabeth (Annette Bening) is the one who had Clarence killed. He schemes to take out anyone on his quest for the throne.

It's fascinating to hear these classic lines being spoken in new settings. It's refreshing for fans of Shakespeare. For others, it doesn't make Shakespeare automatically accessible. The production is well made and the acting is superb. The hunchback is gone though. This is an intriguing exercise.

This dynamic adaptation of the Shakespeare play is reset in a kingdom that looks suspiciously like 1930s Germany and depicts Richard III as a ruthless fascist.

The film looks marvelous, and it's got a great cast. Ian McKellen of course deserves the most praise for his performance as Richard, which he throws himself into with plummy gusto. But strong performances are to be given by all, including Annette Bening, Robert Downey, Jr., Kristin Scott Thomas and Maggie Smith. What I like most about the film is that it's very cinematic; it takes a stage property and actually ADAPTS it to the screen, rather than making a filmed version of a stage play.

The "my kingdom for a horse" line gets quite a laugh in the context it's given here.

Grade: A-

Visually, the movie is arresting. I like stark, dramatic images, and this movie delivers them. Also, I think the screenplay adaptation is quite well-done, although events are so compressed at the end that there's a major shift in tone from relatively realistic at the beginning to terribly stage-bound at the end. The irony is that the realistic scenes at the beginning are largely interior shots, and the end of the movie is filmed out doors, on location at the famous disused power plant that featured so famously on the cover of Pink Floyd's "Animals" album. And the real reason that the events seem compressed and stage-bound at the end is that, after all, this is a play, and one that, in spite of its obvious brilliance, also suffers from some serious faults. Shakespeare's historical plays tended toward abrupt, "abracadabra" endings, often because to analyze things too deeply might carry unpleasant consequences for the author. Queen Elizabeth (herself a Tudor and granddaughter of the man who supplanted Richard) would have been angry with Shakespeare if he had strayed too far from the long-established Tudor line about the evils of the Yorkists, and Richard especially. So the ending is contrived and foreshortened.

The performances are studies in contrasts. McKellen, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, Nigel Hawthorne...in fact, most of the British cast as far as I can remember, carry off their roles exceptionally well, and there are no bad performances among them. The two unfortunate casting choices are Annette Benning and, to an even greater degree, Robert Downey Jr. I've never particularly cared for either of them, although in the right role they have at least limited abilities. These are not the right roles. Every line is delivered with a wooden, empty quality. It's clear that neither of them had any idea about how to approach their roles. Expressions, mannerisms, emphasis, accent, tone are all exaggerated and wrong. The movie comes to a screeching halt every time either one of them is on camera. The only shot which works for either of them is when Downey descends the steps of a plane and climbs into a limousine...tellingly, he doesn't say a word. In that single shot, the American swagger and presumption that the filmmakers were implying works for them.

Any other complaints I might make about this movie are mere quibbles, especially in the context of the colossally bad performances from the Americans. The movie is still highly watchable, in spite of them. I've watched it probably half a dozen times, and I'm sure I'll watch it again. Certain scenes resonate: The opening scene, the meeting between Richard and the assassins, Gloucester in the prison, the party rally, the meeting of the privy council. These scenes are flawlessly done, to my taste at any rate.

As to the quality of the adaptation from Shakespeare's original, I think that's a matter of taste. I'm no professional scholar, but I have read all of Shakespeare's plays, and I've read Richard III at least three or four times over the years. I've seen it performed on stage and in film several times as well. And I've read quite a bit about the Wars of the Roses and the Tudor age. This film is certainly a stretch from the original play, and certain things (as others have pointed out) don't seem very credible, such as the accusation of witchcraft. But these historical anachronisms don't bother me. Politicians use empty accusations and false charges to maneuver themselves; that much certainly hasn't changed. Mostly, I'm interested in an enjoyable movie experience, and overall this film provides it.

It's just a pity that the movie can't be redone with more suitable actors to replace Benning and Downey.

From the very first Shakespeare film (a silent version of "King John," of all things), filmmakers have sought to impose their own unique visions on Shakespeare; in the case of "King John," it was fairly simple (a scene of John signing the Magna Carta, which isn't in Shakespeare's play). Ever since, Shakespeare adaptations have faced the difficulty of remaining true to the greatest writer in the history of the English language while bringing something new to the table; filmed plays, after all, belong on PBS, not in the cinema.

Luckily, the minds behind this adaptation of "Richard III" is more than up to the challenge. To be fair, putting the movie in an alternate 1930's Fascist England doesn't serve the sort of lofty purpose that, say, Orson Welles' 1930s updating of "Julius Caesar" (intended to condemn the Fascist governments in Europe at that time) did. What it does do is allow the filmmakers to have a lot of fun. It's not necessarily more accessible -- the Byzantine intrigues and occasionally confusing plot can't be tempered by simply moving the setting ahead 500 years -- but it's definitely more entertaining. There's just something inherently amusing about Richard sneaking off for a pee after the "winter of our discontent" speech (still rambling on as he, ahem, drains the main), or giving the "my kingdom for a horse!" bit while trying to get his Jeep out of the mud.

To be sure, the Fascist England shown in the film isn't very convicing -- from OUR historical hindsight -- but this isn't our world, this is a world fashioned from the imagination that just happens to look like our own, just as Shakespeare's were. You can't criticize "King Lear" for its faux-historical setting any more than you can criticize this film for the same reason.

The complaint registered by a previous commentator -- more or less, "if you're going to move Shakespeare to a new period, you need to be true to that period" -- is utter bollocks, really. After all, it is inherently "untrue" to have people running around speaking Elizabethan dialogue in the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, etc., so if you try to remain "true," you end up stripping away the dialogue -- the very essence of Shakespeare. I agree with the even more controversial Shakesperean theatre director Peter Sellars in that words are not what makes Shakespeare great, but rather his characters and ideas. But Shakespeare communicated those through his words, and if you change them, it's not Shakespeare anymore. The same commentator pointed to Branagh's more faithful interpretations as a counterweight to this film, yet Branagh's "Hamlet" is not only set in the 18th century but in a country that looks nothing like 1700s Denmark, even though the characters refer to it as such.

The complaints about McKellen's "hamminess" are equally unfounded. What are they using as their basis of comparision? Olivier? Olivier's Richard makes McKellen's look positively restrained by comparision. Richard is egotistical, bombastic, and prone to spouting lines like "thine eyes, sweet lady, have infected mine." I have little doubt in my mind that Skakespeare did not intend Richard to be played "straight" -- indeed, if Shakespeare had any concept of what we call "camp," he was probably thinking of it when he wrote the play. From this point of view, the "silly" little touches like the Al Jolson song at the end and even the newsreel of Richard's coronation fit in perfectly.

As with most Shakespeare films, the plot has been streamlined -- nearly all of the characters are here, but scenes and speeches have been truncated and removed, but despite what some have said, these aren't fatal to the plot or the characters. Richard's seduction of Anne does seem to occur to quickly, but it's not a completely successful one, seeing how she lapses into drug addiction later in the film. Besides, Richard's evil has nothing to do with the fact that his "inability to experience romantic love." Richard isn't a psychological portrait like Hamlet, he's a ruthless bastard, a piece of Tudor propaganda. When people praise "Richard III" (the play), it's not for its character depth.

I notice I've focused more on answering the film's detractors instead of dilineating its merits; in a way, I guess this expresses how much I like it. The cinematography, direction, and acting are all top-notch. The sets are perfect, once you realize that this is NOT historical England -- the power plant subbing for the Tower is more imposing than the real thing could ever be, and the factory ruins that serve as Bosworth Field are certainly more interested than a bunch of tanks and Jeeps roaming around the open countryside. Shakespeare purists will, of course, hate it, but then they hate anyone who dares to put anything more than a cosmetic spin on the Bard, be it Welles' "Voodoo 'Macbeth'" or Brook's stage production of "Titus Andronicus." For everyone else, read the play, then see the movie -- it'll help increase your appreciation of both.

When it comes to updates of the plays by William Shakespeare, Richard III is probably the best of the lot. While it might seem like an unusual concept to take the classic play of deceit, betrayal, seduction, and cold-blooded murder out of the 1400's and into an alternate history 1930's version of England, the cast and production designs make that concept seem not only believable but so realistic you might find yourself wondering if this could really have happened if events had played out like they do in the film.

Ian McKellen plays the title role, the youngest brother of the royal family of the York's, who is determined to take the throne at whatever cost. McKellen's performance is chilling to say the least. From the moment he is introduced in a classic introduction to the battle sequence at the end of the film, McKellen makes the character of Richard seem to be the most evil villain ever to grace a movie screen as he is able to literally become the character in the vast web of deception via acting like he has no interest in taking the throne. One can't help but believe that Richard could really pull of the deceptions that he's able to pull off convincing people not only the public but members of the royal family and nobility. The character's various monologue's in which his thoughts are spoken aloud, giving the audience a glimpse into the tyrannical mind of this would be king / dictator are a highlight of the film especially at the film's beginning in which if one had any doubts about how evil Richard is are very quickly dismissed. McKellen sells Richard and he grips your attention to where your focus is entirely on him, making the trailer line about Richard being the "greatest villain of all time" ring very true and it's a shame that McKellen didn't even get an Oscar nomination for his performance.

Annette Benning plays Queen Elizabeth, the American wife of Richard's brother Edward. Many have complained about Benning in the role for various reasons including the fact that she is American and some question her acting ability. Benning, in my opinion, succeeds in making the idea of an American queen seem realistic and her acting talent matches up against McKellen in every scene the two are in together. Also keep in mind this is an alternate history, so an American queen of England isn't that unfeasible. Robert Downey Jr. plays her brother, Rivers. Rivers disappears about midway trough the film, but for the first half of the film, he is Richard's biggest enemy and his obvious dislike of Richard is evident in Downey's performance and the scene where his character meets his demise is shocking to say the least. Jim Broadbent plays the role of Buckingham, Richard's biggest supporter, with unnerving calm and his conniving attitude makes him almost as big of a villain as Richard. Kristin Scott Thomas is superb as Anne, the widow of one of Richard's victims who eventually falls for Richard and lives long enough to regret it. Her confrontation against Richard in a morgue towards the film's beginning stands out as one of the film's best scenes. Nigel Hawthorne's all too brief appearance as the plain and simple Clarence stands out as well, as does Maggie Smith's Duchess of York and John Wood's King Edward.

The concept of being updated to the 1930's is no more evident then in the production design. There is no doubt that we are in the 1930's and the filmmakers appear to have gone to great steps to make it evident that this is very much an alternate history. As I am sure others have commented this England is not the England we all know and love. Instead, one constantly gets the feeling that we are instead in a Nazi version of England. Everywhere in the film, in the costumes especially, the aura of Nazi Germany can be felt. Virtually all of Richard's costumes are based off German uniforms of the Nazi era, as are the uniforms worn by his supporters in the film's final half. If anyone doubts the influence of Nazi Germany on this alternate history version of England, look at the rally scene shortly before Richard is crowned. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that this scene is a case of déjà vu: it is almost identical to the well known documentary footage we have all seen of Nazi rallies right down to the flags that, while containing a boar instead of the swastika, still makes one think that they're in Nazi Germany.

The film's opening sequence with the classic sight of a tank crashing trough a wall and the film's final battle sequence also add to the feeling of this being in the 1930's. And to everyone out there who has commented about the red stars on some of the tanks here's why: if you knew about the war of the roses you would know that red was the color of the rose symbolizing the Lancaster family and that the white rose, seen on many of Richard's troops in the finale, was the rose representing the York family.

Also, Trevor Jones score is a must hear. The beautiful song at the beginning of the film sells the idea of the 1930's very well. The score, while at times going out of the 1930's, does the job of keeping the feeling of tension throughout the film and is another example of the talent of Trevor Jones.

Few films have the power to hold the attention of a viewer from beginning to end, especially when there is a large amount of dialog. But with the performance given by Ian McKellen, production design, battle sequences, and the score by Trevor Jones, Richard III easily counts not only as a must see but as a modern classic.

When I first saw this adaptation of Richard III, I didn't care for it. I hated the way Shakespeare's dialogue is chopped into bits and scattered around randomly. I thought the period details were crudely overdone. (Must every character smoke cigarettes in every scene?) And I just couldn't picture an aging, feeble Ian McKellen as a brutal rampaging tyrant like Richard III.

Over time, though, I've come to appreciate the little things. The amazing supporting cast and the sexy background moments, like Robert Downey's fling with the stewardess that ends like it's Friday the 13th! And the happy ending for Richmond and young Princess Elizabeth.

And by the way, it's not one moment, but the whole character arc for Lady Anne (Kristin Scott Thomas) who falls under Richard's spell and gradually fades away into a swoon of almost living death. The way she's always in the background, taking pills at one moment, then gulping down liquor, then at the end actually injecting herself with drugs in the limousine, you sense how she just wants to forget everything and fade into sweet oblivion. Yet you also sense she would have loved Richard if he could have shown her any kind of human feeling. Kristin Scott Thomas is perfectly cast as the exquisitely frail and helpless beauty.

Shakespeare seemed particularly big for a while there in the mid to late 1990s, especially when it came to those adaptations that were a little offbeat or experimental. The most popular is probably Romeo + Juliet, my personal favourite is Titus, and I guess Richard III can join the club as another unique take on the bard himself.

And if we want to count Shakespeare in Love as part of this wave... maybe? I guess it's not an adaptation, but supports this notion of Shakespeare being particularly big around this time. But I also guess Shakespeare's always been kind of a big deal; leather bound books, an apartment that smells of rich mahogany, and all that jazz.

Rambling aside, even Shakespeare detractors might well find Richard III worth checking out, just because there are so many well-regarded actors here all giving strong performances, with Ian McKellen in the titular role being the standout.

Granted, this Richard III is not for everybody due to the updated setting. However, I am not one of those who says that any adaptation that doesn't stick to the original setting and such is immediately rubbish. I do find that approach unfair, and have always thought considering that we are talking about different mediums here that adaptations should be judged on their own terms. Because on its own terms, this Richard III is excellent, not as good as Olivier's film but then again it is always a tough act to come up with something equal to film as amazing as Olivier's.

The only things that I didn't like so much were that Edward's speech being cut meant that John Wood had literally nothing to do and Rivers' death scene for me didn't make sense. Also, Robert Downey Jnr's role is small and important, but at the same time I did find him too American and this jarred.

However, the updated setting I had no problem with. As well as the fact that it's clear what the period is, the sets and costumes are beautiful and evocative, and Richard's entrance in a tank through the wall is incredibly dynamic even for a film adaptation of Shakespeare.

Trevor Jones' music fits perfectly with the mood, haunting, poignant and tense all in one. The song set to Christopher Marlowe's words at the ball surprisingly likewise. The dialogue is as ever brilliant, of course there are cuts which is necessary considering the running time, but the dry yet inspired delivery of "well I'm not made of stone" really stands out. It was very effective at how Richard looked into the camera as if talking directly to the audience, this did help us to engage with the characters and the story. The story is daringly told and compelling, with a powerful and hilarious if not quite epic final scene and the touching morgue scene.

Richard has always been a controversial yet enigmatic character, and Ian McKellen plays him superbly. He gives the character humour and charm yet also treachery and menace, and does so in a mesmerising way. Kristin Scott Thomas is a moving Anne, and Annette Bening is a fully-realised and sympathetic Elizabeth. Maggie Smith commands her scenes in whatever scene she appears in, and Jim Broadbent's Buckingham is wonderfully sly. Adrian Dunbar is effectively eerie and ruthless as is Tim McInnery, and Nigel Hawthorne affects as Clarence. Donald Sumpter's Blackenbury is nice to spot.

All in all, an excellent Richard III if not for all tastes. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox

Richard Loncraine's "Richard III" might turn even the most vehement detractor of William Shakespeare into a born-again fan (and this is coming from a dedicated non-fan). Instead of stilted soliloquies and limited sets, we get a sprawling (if minor) epic that is in constant motion--from the sweeping remix of the "Winter of our discontent" speech to a finale in a shrapnel-ridden, corpse-strewn battlefield, the movie leaves little time for boredom. While the supporting cast is brilliantly chosen (even allowing such unlikely performers as Annette Bening and Robert Downey Jr. some fine moments), Ian McKellen's Richard dominates the film--a decrepit smooth-talker with a gnarled arm always shoved deep in his jacket, the performance swings between camp and credible venom with reckless abandon, and is very satisfying. The decision to transpose the late-16th century text into the 1940s (during World War II, and at the peak of Nazi decadence) proves an interesting fit; this historical familiarity makes the Bard's talky text far more tolerable. And for those who know Shakespeare as the master of extensive characters that are difficult to keep track of, "Richard III" (both the play and the film) are reasonably compact and easy to follow. If you regard the Bard as a distant high-school nightmare, give "Richard III" a whirl...it may or may not alter your perception, but it is an impressive modernization nonetheless.

I just watched this awful movie on Swedish television, and I can't understand how so many reviewers can praise it. It doesn't matter how splendid the actors are if the setting isn't believable. It is in general very difficult to "modernize" historical plays/movies/novels, and in this case, the result was disastrous.

Moving Shakepeare to a fascist pre-WWII England in the way it was done here just doesn't work. Apart from the superficial features with clothes, cars, trains, tanks, flags etc, there was no resemblance at all to fascism or the politics of the pre-WWII era. In the 20th century, you simply can't have noble families who, obsessed with lineage, fight for the throne, neither in a Western democracy nor in a fascist state. This was typical for the feudal society Shakespeare wrote about; to move this to the 20th century creates nothing but a strange anachronism without any credibility. Instead, the noble families should have been transformed to political parties, or classes, or some other more modern type of groups fighting for power. And the so called "fascism" should have been depicted by letting us see how society was affected on a much deeper level, not just this superficial kitch with uniforms, flags, tanks, etc. If you don't think you can do this without being faithful to Shakespeare, then you should refrain from it rather than doing it in this poor superficial way.

I give it two stars, and that's being kind!

Erland Gadde