I love this movie so much

Such a frustrating disappointment

Please don't spend money on this.

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Perhaps the excruciatingly involved family relationships could have been clarified a bit more. Dock one star reluctantly, but feel guilty. The full play runs for four hours, and just has to be cut. These twisted family trees show how ridiculous it was to re-position this play in the fascist 1930s. Shakespeare's Richard was systematically killing off his nearest relations, his brothers, his nephews, his wife. There was no parallel whatsoever with fascist Europe, quite apart from the hilarious sight of Richard sitting in a jeep, and shouting: My Kingdom for a Horse ! The entire play, as Shakespeare wrote it, revolves around a diabolical family massacre. Not exactly Socialism, National or International. This was Richard's revenge on the genetic trick, which sent him into this breathing world, scarce half made up, with little to do but descant on his own deformity. The lines are indelibly fixed in the memory. Richard felt compelled to compensate by bustling.Any criticism is irrelevant, in one sense. This film's immortality depends, once and for all, on Olivier's utterly mesmerizing performance. This etches its way into the viewer's consciousness, never to be eradicated. I can hardly believe the film was at first a commercial flop, allegedly. I remember family friends already obsessed with it, in 1955. In that year it was shown on US TV, gaining an enormous audience. Ten years later, it broke box office records in many US cities, with 40 million viewers. Olivier's Richard was parodied in an acclaimed take by Peter Sellers, which, although extremely funny, took nothing at all away from the original. In any case Shakespeare wrote it as a caricature, both humorous, tragic and even slightly sympathetic. The viewer identifies in some way with the wretched villain. Olivier's direction is magnificent. His production is for all time. I saw the all-female Richard III at the Globe in 2003. It was hyper-ridiculous.

Laurence Olivier garner the reputation as the greatest actor of the 20th century. However, he was not very fond of film acting, calling "an inferior medium." On film, Olivier did some performances that were not very good. I thought he sucked in The Merchant of Venice. I thought he was bad in some parts in Rebecca. But there were some instances where he was at the level of his stage acting. He was awesome in Marathon Man, he owned Henry V, and his Hamlet is still the best portrayal and the best Shakespeare movie ever made. Thing is, his version of Hamlet was heavily condensed. If he included more parts, everyone would agree that his Hamlet was the best movie and portrayal. Luckily, his Richard III makes up for it. Hamlet and Richard III are the hardest characters to play and Olivier nails both, but is slightly better in this. Richard III follows a man that does all he can to become king, be it murder, extortion, framing, robbery. But he is also supposed to be a sympathetic and admirable character. How a character can be evil and likable is what makes him so interesting and so hard to play. Olivier does it to a T. There are moments in the film where Richard speaks to the camera looking deep into it with a freaky look on his face as if he is about to kill you. The opening soliloquy is enough to make the viewer uncomfortable. Olivier must have done this many times on the stage. Now, you can see just how good Olivier was on stage by watching this. Very, very, very few film performances are superior to Olivier as Richard III.

Apparently this movie flopped at the box office, which is why this was allegedly the last of Sir Lawrence Olivier's Shakespearian films. There is nothing necessarily bad about this film (though I might be considered a heretic for saying this, but the 'now is the winter of our discontent' soliloquy did seem to be a little stilted and lacked the passion and emotion one would expect from such as speech, though of course there is such a thing as over acting, and that is something that I doubt Olivier would do).This is sort of one of those films where the first scene does captivate you, and it is the coronation of the king, and we see everybody focus on the king, yet Richard glances back at the camera with that evil look in his eye which suggests that he is up to something and that he is not going to rest until he gets what he wants. I do suspect that we are all familiar (I hope) with this story, about an ambitious prince who manipulates his way to the top, but when there does not reward any of his peers, and ends up being killed after falling from his horse in the battle of Bodsworth Feild.The funny thing I do find about this play is that technically it is the final play in the trilogy set around the War of the Roses. The first two plays deal with the wars themselves, and this one begins after the war has ended, and it appears that the throne is secure in the hands of the House of York, except that there are elements within the house of York that are not happy with their position and want more.It is true that this play is based on real events, but in a way Shakespeare seems to also be reminding his audiences of the problems that arise out of civil wars. It is suggested that the plays were originally written at a time when there was a conspiracy against the throne of Queen Elizabeth, and in a sense it was reminding the people of England of their recent history and the dangers that would arise if a legitimate ruler were to be overthrown in a coup, and it is not as if Richard was the one doing the overthrowing, but rather he assisted in the initial coup, and once that had been completed, as it turns out the new King was not all that secure in his position anyway, namely because one of his supporters (Richard) was wanting the throne for himself.It should be noted that in this play there are references to the events in the previous play, such as the scene where Richard is not so much wooing his wife, but making his intentions known as she mourns over the body of her late husband. This was one of the events from the previous play. We also note that the play begins with a coronation, but as it happens, this is a coronation brought out by conquest rather than inheritance. To me, it would seem like only showing Return of the Jedi despite the fact that there are two other films before it.

Maybe if I had seen this before the really good Sir Ian McKellen adaptation I would have thought this was a good classic traditional film from William Shakespeare, but to be honest, I preferred the McKellen version. However, with Lord Sir Laurence Olivier directing, producing and acting in the lead role, with a BAFTA win and Oscar nomination, no-one can complain that he is a good Richard III/ of Gloucester. You probably already know the story, he says the great line "in the winter of our discontent", tells us his plan to win the crown of Britain, gets it, and dies in the war (in quite an odd fashion), I can't really remember any highlights, but if you like the classic version instead of the more modern remake, then this is a good film. Also starring Ralph Richardson as Buckingham, Claire Bloom as Lady Anne, Sir John Gielgud as Clarence, Sir Cedric Hardwicke as King Edward IV, Mary Kerridge as Queen Elizabeth, Pamela Brown as Jane Shore, Alec Clunes as Hastings, Sir Stanley Baker as Henry Tudor and Batman's Michael Gough as Dighton. It won the BAFTAs for Best British Film and Best Film from any Source, and it won the Golden Globe for Best English-Language Foreign Film. Sir John Gielgud was number 35, and Lord Sir Laurence Olivier number 21 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, Olivier was also number 3 on Britain's Finest Actors, he was number 14 on 100 Years, 100 Stars - Men, and he was number 4 on The World's Greatest Actor. Good!