I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

A Masterpiece!

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Placing one of Shakespeare's history plays in another specific historical period is always a bit of a risky thing. Such a ploy more frequently works better on stage than on screen –our suspension of belief being somewhat more liberal in a theatre than in front of a screen. Often the transfer in time is to a "generic" future historical setting, with a bit of this period and a bit of that. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. The reason I think placing this version of Richard III in the 1930s works so well is the faithfulness to that conceit, which is carried through impeccably in every detail, though never in a forced or laboured way. It is a clever, often witty, adaptation of Shakespeare's masterly examination of one man's relentless pursuit of power –and has both elegance and a style of its own aside from the play it is based on, and a healthy respect of Shakespeare's glorious language and characters.Perhaps the language is what may deter some people from fully enjoying this, though I would argue that it merely demands paying a little more attention to what is being said than when watching a "normal" film. Contrary to what many may think, Shakespeare's language is not difficult or obscure –quite the opposite– but you do need to listen to it! Here, of course, you are helped by having some of the finest actors around, with not only great command of that language, but the ability to present clearly defined yet complex characters, so that we are able to keep track of who is who in the web of family connections and intrigue. The film is much shorter than the play (Shakespeare's longest), and does away with some characters and combines others into one figure. This polishes the narrative somewhat, but does not take anything vital away from the unfolding tale. I do, however, recommend going back to the original play if you enjoy this film, because it will give an even broader appreciation of the story. And what a story!Centre-stage (or centre-screen, in this case) is Ian McKellen as Richard. It is surely his finest screen performance, and is certainly the one that really made me appreciate his work when I first saw the film upon its original release. Like Olivier before him, his Richard is a performance perfected through countless performances on stage in the role, and with devilish charm he milks each ounce of scheming, determination and wickedness from his scenes. Yet, unlike Olivier, he also shares with us a certain clumsiness and even pathos, which though it does not excuse in any way his actions does give us some understanding of why he has become the grotesque figure he is.Of the other performances I particularly like Jim Broadbent's take on the Duke of Buckingham –his beaming face has eyes of steel, and he seems to be silently scheming, listening, and judging in every scene in which he appears. Anette Bening also does a terrific job and makes more much of her part than is written. But all the actors do wonders in conveying their own particular "angsts" and concerns. Seeing the film again now, I only wish it was longer and we saw even more of some of them.Finally I must applaud the designers of the production –both visual and aural– who have created a totally believable alternate English setting of the 1930s. It is both familiar and alien at the same time –which is what makes the film's central idea so chilling: That such a thing could have happened in England at this time as it did in Germany and Italy and Spain. Shakespeare may have been writing about the 15th century, but the scheming of despots, hungry for power, goes on and on and on.I rate this as one of my favourite Shakespeare films!

How many times have we seen a version of Shakespeare's 'Richard III'? Probably more times than we can count. In 1995, director Richard Loncraine and Sir Ian McKellan (Gandalf the Grey) wanted to adapt 'Richard III' into a modern film. And since McKellan already was in the stage play, which he helped get off the ground, this match made in heaven seemed like the perfect fit. McKellan even served as a big consultant and writer on this unique adaption of Shakespeare's work.Over the past twenty years, a lot of Shakespeare enthusiasts and followers have expressed negative reviews of this film, because it is not true to Shakespeare's work. Even in college, I remember discussing with my fellow film and theatre peers why this version of 'Richard III' is so good and unique. Most people seem to forget that the real Richard III was alive more than a century before Shakespeare came along and started writing about him. This tells me that Shakespeare was in the game of entertaining and captivating his audience, rather than tell something of historical fact from top to bottom.First and foremost, most movies are here to entertain us, and if they're based on true events, which most films are these days, there are usually some part of this realistic story that actually happened. However, a lot of these films or stories have been embellished and created to entertain us. If we really wanted to adapt the real life story of Richard III or even just take the exact story from Shakespeare's words, we'd be in front of a stage or screen for hours and hours on end, which is why most adaptations we've seen have excluded many scenes and characters from the play.This 1995 film does that, but plays out like a cohesive WWII film with the same overall characters from Shakespeare's mind. It's impressive feat and film for sure with stellar performances from McKellan as Richard the Duke of Gloucester, Robert Downey Jr., Annette Bening, Jim Broadbent, Maggie Smith, Kristin Scott Thomas, and a young Dominic West. This film takes place in a fictional fascist England, where Richard (McKellan) is on a destructive path to destroy almost everything. What is so interesting about this film is the strange social and political climate it instills that happened during these years, as it doesn't quite go with Shakespeare's original vision or even history.But that's the point here. 'Richard III' is a creative adaptation of what some veteran Shakespeare scholars wanted to portray for a modern audience. I know it's weird, but I'll compare 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' to this. That iconic horror movie was based off a couple of real life serial killers, specifically Ed Gein. In order to tell a story of something that might have happened in actual history, an indie filmmaker decided to take elements of these true events and turn it into a crazy family in Austin, Texas, but still showed some of the facts of this killer's life.It made for a brilliant film that still scares audiences today. This 1995 version of 'Richard III' is far from the 1955 version that starred Laurence Olivier, but it still stands on its own. It's a fantastic war film with brilliant performances and set pieces, and is a very welcome addition into the Shakespeare realm.

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-

Most versions of Shakespeare plays that attempt to bring a classic story into a more modern setting fail. This film is a rare exception.Sir Ian McKellan plays Richard III with such dead-on artistry that it was hard to shake off the impression that he really was a power-hungry cretin with a hunch. Furthermore, Richard is usually played as either so evil the audience can't stand him, or so pitifully desperate that his plots and schemes don't seem plausible. But McKellan portrays him on the fine edge of the sword; evil enough to be repelled by his actions, but sly and funny enough to almost root for him.Of course, part of why one begins empathizing with him is because he's surrounded but the shrill Annette Benning, who's not close to being McKellan's equal, and other characters that give the audience excuses to believe that they don't deserve to live. However, that simply adds another dimension to the story that is often ignored in varied productions of the play.It's a slick, stylish film that sucks it's audience in, even in the most loathsome moments.