Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

PodBill Just what I expected

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Robert J. Maxwell I've avoided Shakespeare in modern settings. Before this I'd only watched Olivier's version and read the play. And, I regret to say that all the way through this film the setting -- 1930s "Germany" -- was a bit of a distraction. You have never seen so many people smoking cigarettes. What saved the movie was the performances. Ian McKellen is far more a rude lump of foul deformity than Olivier ever even suggested and his performance as the central figure is superb, all squinched up, skinny and ugly. Richard the Turd, some have called him.But then everybody is pretty good, with Robert Downey, Jr., perhaps the weakest of the lot. Kristin Scott-Thomas as Lady Anne is a close second to McKellen. She's also very attractive. Kate Steavonson-Payne has only a few lines but makes a succulent Princess Elizabeth. The exopthalmic Maggie Smith, as usual, sets the screen alight and Edward Hardwicke is the soul of morality as Dr. Watson -- I mean Stanley.The story is familiar enough,. Richard, a deformed cripple, murders his way to the top. The first victim we learn about is Lady Anne's husband. McKellen has had him murdered and Scott-Thomas knows it. But he confronts her in the morgue where she is lamenting her late husband's fate over his body, which has two holes in its chest. Richard woos her on the spot. Yes, he says, he killed her husband -- but only because he loves her so much. He proffers a dagger and invites her to cut his throat. When she demurs, he claims he can do it himself, but she refuses the offer because of his "honey'd words." Not only that. She looks at him a little curiously and not much later falls under his spell. It always struck me that Lady Anne was kind of dumb.The final battle takes place in a burned-out city, something like the Saigon of Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket." I was waiting to see how the hell they would work, "A horse! A horse! MY KINGDOM FOR A HORSE!" into a battle that has tanks plunging through walls and jeeps with machine guns zooming around in a confusing manner and not a horse in sight. They did manage to work the famous line in, though. I won't say how. The closing scene is surreal -- Richard is shot and plunges to his death in some kind of bonfire, laughing maniacally all the way, and then Al Jolson is singing "Top of the World." And I'm thinking: homage to Cagney? Production design and related elements aside, what impressed me was how much of the play Olivier had left out and McKellen, who wrote it, has managed to squeeze in and how the text of the play itself was at least equally mangled.

GusF As I said in my review of Laurence Olivier's 1955 film version, "Richard III" is my least favourite of the Shakespearean plays with which I am familiar as I don't think that its language and exploration of themes are on the same level as his best work such as "Hamlet" or "Macbeth". When it came to the Olivier film, I think that he forgot that he was a great actor and director while he was making it as his performance is too over the top and hammy and his direction is pedestrian. He failed to live up to the high standards that he set for himself on both fronts in "Henry V" and "Hamlet". Thankfully, this is a far, far superior version which has served to increase my appreciation for the play. As with most Shakespearean films, it makes changes to the play, the Bard's longest after "Hamlet". It only incorporates about half of the text, conflates several characters, cuts out others and reorders some of the events. At only 100 minutes, it's a very fast paced film.Of the eight Shakespearean films that I have watched this year, this is the first in which the lead actor was not also the director. However, Ian McKellen did play another important behind the scenes role as he and the director Richard Loncraine wrote the screenplay. Loncraine does a wonderful job in the director's chair. The film has a great atmosphere and I love the cinematography. The film takes place in an alternate history fascist version of 1930s Britain. This is an excellent creative decision as Richard's rise to and consolidation of power is highly reminiscent of the Night of the Long Knives and, on the other end of the political spectrum, Stalin's Show Trials, given that he frequently uses trumped up charges to get his enemies out of his way. In the visual sense, many of the costumes are obviously based on Nazi uniforms and the scene in which Richard's accession is announced looks like something out of "Triumph des Willens". On an even simpler level, Richard has a moustache! In reality, Elizabeth Woodville belonged to a minor aristocratic family and was the first commoner to become queen. In the film, she is depicted as an American socialite reminiscent of Wallis Simpson and she and her brother Lord Rivers are looked down on because of it.As the title character, Ian McKellen is absolutely remarkable. While Olivier's Richard was too obviously villainous, McKellen portrays him as a Machiavellian manipulator who skilfully moves all of the pieces into place to secure his accession to the throne without ever tipping his hand. He uses guile and subtlety to achieve his ends, playing the role of a loving brother to Edward IV and Clarence and a loving uncle to Edward V and the Duke of York. As in real life, it's not the villains who wear black hats and twirl their moustaches that you have to worry about; it's the one who take a more subtle approach, at least initially. In private, however, he relishes his status as a villain, delivering his soliloquies to the camera with a smirk. He even jumps for joy after he asks the Lady Anne, the widow of Henry VI's son the Prince of Wales whom he murdered days earlier, to marry him.The film has a very strong cast overall. After McKellen, I thought that the strongest performer was Annette Bening as his sister-in-law Elizabeth Woodville, who has a large role in the film as opposed to the character's fleeting appearances in the Olivier version. She is a very strong woman who, in one of the film's best scenes, openly accuses Richard of murder and refuses to allow her daughter Elizabeth to marry him. Bening is more than a match for McKellen in their scenes together. Another strong female character is Richard's mother the Duchess of York, whose role is merged with Henry VI's widow Queen Margaret. She grows to despise her son as the film progresses and his villainy becomes all the more apparent. I have to admit that I've never thought of Maggie Smith as highly as I think of other British actresses of her generation such as Judi Dench, Vanessa Redgrave or Glenda Jackson but she is excellent in the film. Kristin Scott Thomas has less screen time but she excels in the aforementioned scene in which Richard proposes to her, delivering a wonderfully understated performance in contrast to Claire Bloom's caterwauling in the 1955 film. Jim Broadbent, in particular, and Tim McInnerny were cast against type as Richard's lackeys Buckingham and Catesby but they're both very good. Nigel Hawthorne is downright brilliant as Clarence, who is blind to his brother's true nature until it is far too late. He particularly excels in his monologue in the rain on the roof of the Tower of London. John Wood is excellent as the easily manipulated king Edward IV who trusts the wrong brother. One thing that is quite funny about the film is that Maggie Smith plays McKellen, Hawthorne and Wood's mother in spite of the fact that she is not only a mere five years older than McKellen but five years younger than Hawthorne and four years younger than Wood! Bill Paterson, Donald Sumpter, Jim Carter and Edward Hardwicke (whose father Cedric played Edward IV in the 1955 version) are all very effective in comparatively small roles. The weakest link acting wise is Robert Downey, Jr. I don't think that Shakespeare is really his forte but he's quite good. It's certainly not a disaster on the same level as Keanu Reeves' performance in "Much Ado About Nothing".Overall, this is a brilliant film which offers fresh insight into both a 400 year old play and some of the worst moments of the 20th Century. It's a shame that McKellen and Bening didn't receive Oscar nominations for Best Actor and Best Actress.

TheLittleSongbird 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

david-sarkies Now I have heard it said that the beauty about Shakespeare is that you can take it out of the setting in which the original play was written in, place it in a new setting, and it will still be a brilliant play. Now this is something that I do not necessarily agree with, namely because while up until the 20th Century this could be the case, the world has changed and a lot of the dialogue simply does not fit. Now the events of this film are set in the 15th Century, however the film itself is set in the 1930's. This in itself worked well (and as I argue, made for a very original film) but it falls apart at the end when Richard, after his jeep is bogged, cries out 'a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse'. This, personally, does not really make any sense on the modern battlefield (not that horses aren't used, back in 2004 or 2005, I can't quite remember when, the capital of Kyrgistan was stormed by men on horseback), however I really do not want this minor problem destroy a good film. What this film is doing, is taking the story of Richard III out of the historical content and simply turning into a play about a tyrant.Now, it is debatable as to whether Richard III was actually a tyrant. He was the last of the Plantagenet dynasty, and was deposed at the battle of Bosworth field, after Henry Tudor defeated him and claimed the English throne for himself. This was considered to be the end of England's medieval period and brought not only stability to the country, but also ushered her into the Modern Era. Beforehand, England has just come out of a 100 year war with France (on the losing side) and this sent the country into civil war (the War of the Roses) in which the houses of Lancaster and York fought over the English Throne. The beginning of the play has Edward assume the throne after his predecessor, Henry VI is defeated in battle, however Edward is not on the throne for long and after he dies his son, Edward, takes the throne with Richard as Lord Protector. However, the barons vote to give the throne to Richard, and the crown prince and his brother then disappear.What is not clear is whether Richard was actually responsible for Edward's death and his children's disappearance, and whether his took the throne through manipulation and stealth (something which had been happening since the close of the 100 years war). What Shakespeare does though is turn Richard into a villain. It appears that Richard's deformity was a creation of Shakespeare, and the rumour that the princes were murdered in the Tower of London is also said to be of his creation. In fact, it is suggested that the princes simply vanished from public life after Richard was crowned.One might raise the point that the princes were imprisoned in the Tower of London. While these days the Tower of London is seen as a prison, back then this wasn't the case. The Tower, along with numerous other castles, were originally built by William the Conquerer to protect his newly conquered realm, and later reinforced by Edward III. The Tower of London in Richard's time was simply another castle, and it was only after this incidence that it inherited its reputation. It should also be remembered that in those days royalty, when imprisoned, were held in the castles, but not in the dungeons as we imagine. Castles were luxurious (and the Tower of London was no exception) and while one may have been imprisoned, imprisonment meant that one simply could not leave the castle.Another thing that stood out with this movie was how Richard came to the throne. We have the nobles and barons all pressuring him to take the throne, and in the end he relents. However, this film (and I suspect Shakespeare as well) manipulate this to make it appear that it was all a part of the plan between Buckingham and Richard. However, once Richard is on the throne, he becomes even more wretched and corrupt, in then end killing children and rejecting his friends, until he is left alone on Bodsworth Field. It is funny that when he does cry out 'a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse', he really did not have a kingdom left to give. He had already lost. As for the horse, well if you led an army and you lost your horse, then you were in trouble.It is a shame that this film is very difficult to come by because I really do like this movie. I found it original, and the setting in the 1930's with Richard taking on a fascist mantle upon assuming the throne worked very well. While fascism did not exist in the 15th Century, and while Richard was strictly not a fascist, he was a tyrant (and least as the play portrays him) and to put him in the uniform of a fascist simply adds to the impression of tyranny that the play creates.