I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

The first must-see film of the year.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

"I sin in enying his nobility. And were I nothing but what I am, I would wish me only he"

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.

I don't like Shakespeare.I tried him on multiple occasions and in multiple forms and by now I could write an essay on all the reasons why.However, Coriolanus the movie, is very palatable and the lack of popularity this movie has puzzles me as much as the popularity that Shakespeare has.There are some familiar core problems. Some of the dialogue is poetic nonsense, for which you have to pause and rewind so as to try grasp for some meaning. There are some issues with the story as the wordy dialogues sometimes ignore to explain some basic story aspects, motivations or fail to concentrate on the plot making the movie feel on the slow side. Again, not sure that is the movie's fault rather than Shakespeare's (or the source Shakespeare ripped off). For example, the two main men of this film state that they want to be together and then repeatedly say that they hate each other, with no clear explanation for either of those polar opposite attitudes.The general dialogue is nonetheless understandable so that one can follow it. It is helped by the good acting of everyone involved. Ralph Fiennes in the main role portrays the Roman general Coriolanus with his overly proud screws loose. His eyes alone could cut you. Good casting there.The main hook of the movie is that the it is Shakespeare in modern times where Rome is shown in the style of a Western country while the Volsci neighbors are shown in the cultural style of the Balkans. This is not completely novel but it works well and the cultural styles are portrayed well, interesting to look at. There is a lot of hand held camera (but not shaky cam) and it makes things look more gritty and personal. Good cinematography overall, though the real action is not well shot as the cuts are too fast..The overall plot is interesting. There are no real villains, which is always refreshing. There is no cheesy love interest or a hero. The movie instead explores the clash between patriotism, personal pride and duty to your people. It is an off-beat story.With so many movies being a copy of the same 4-chord pop song formula, this Shakespeare based film is like a breath of fresh air. And on top of that, it is well-acted and for most part well shot.

As a first-time director, Ralph Fiennes gives a good account of himself in a challenging production, but is under-served by two sources from whom one expects better: Fiennes the actor and William Shakespeare the scenarist.Caius Martius (Fiennes) is a proud Roman, rather overmuch in the minds of many of his compatriots. In the midst of a war Martius is doing much to win, a conspiracy takes root to displace him of his high station in Roman society. Despite counsel of his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave) and patrician friend Menenius (Brian Cox), Martius' knack for blowing up at the wrong time proves his Achilles heel."Coriolanus" is one of Shakespeare's more interesting problem plays, articulating an elitist attitude that seems designed to annoy inhabitants of future democracies. Either you accept Martius's contempt for the people he serves, or you relish his undeserved downfall as the result of excess pride. Fiennes doesn't try to recast the story in a more populist way, even as he repositions the story in a modern setting and employs the use of hand-held cameras and TV studio sets. A CNN-style network, Fidelis, provides the same role as messengers do in the original play. Combat takes place using automatic weapons in a style reminiscent of a "Call Of Duty" video game.This all works better than I expected, grounding the play in a way it needs and doesn't have in the writing. Nice work is offered by the supporting players, particularly Cox, who plays Menenius as sage and crafty with a nicely understated delivery. My favorite line in this film is a simple one he delivers over his shoulder late in the film: "I'll undertake it."What is wrong with the film is mainly the fact Shakespeare wasn't at his best here spinning the story. There is a rather simple plot, more a character piece where the character in question performs two 180s in two acts. Fiennes and writer John Logan employ some useful trims, but they still leave alone some rare clams from the Bard, like Volumnia's raging cry: "Anger's my meat!" and Martius's "O, a kiss/Long as my exile, sweet as my revenge."Playing Martius, Fiennes ranges between two poles, those of soft-voiced underplaying, such as at his entrance; and hammy, spittle-flecked ranting, like when he has his showdown with the people of Rome. This makes empathy for an already difficult character much harder. "Bolder, but not so subtle," is how his enemy Aufidius (Gerard Butler) describes him, and boy, is he not kidding. After a while it kinda grates.The Shakespearean language doesn't add or subtract from the overall experience. It never quite feels natural. If you know what is happening, and Fiennes the director does a good job making it clear, you can glom onto what the various characters are saying easily enough, and enjoy the way they play with their deliveries. It's a good cast, even if no one puts forward their best work. Redgrave's entirely too gentle in the role of fire-eating Volumnia, but she has her moments.It's that kind of film, really. I ended up watching it again for this review in installments because even at just over two hours I found it a bit much to absorb in one sitting. I suggest you do the same; it's a decent time-passer if not something to leave an impression.