I love this movie so much

One of my all time favorites.

I'll tell you why so serious

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

....understand the left (marxist-leninists) always love films that depict the 'evil' with a khaki uniform and the hardware in tow - i.e. 'Hitler'is such a 'lock' to embrace the college kids. What secured my affection was the remark (mind you truly Shakespeare) when Annette Benning replied to 'Richard's' (Ian McKellen) inquiry as to what she thought of him i.e. "What thinkest of me madame?" Her laser reply "Thou art a bottled spider!" We have today in 2013 some 18 years hence the reality of a world continuing into the 'abyss' and mind you, not a moment of pause as the patricians ignore the free fall - (abortion, gay gay all over, SEIU, the usual entitlement idiocy) this is all Richard III is about. No - not the clutter and self induced suicide of the antagonist but the wrecking of decorum to slate the thirst of licentiousness and most of all for 'power'.This is what tyrants loathe the most - use of satire to magnify the con - remember that great Jack In The Box TV ad some 12 years ago? The condescending monarch commenting on the sandwiches presented to him? "Peanut butter!" and the scullion daring to say "Where's the butter?" with the reply "SILENCE!"

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

This is a filmed adaptation of Shakespeare's Richard III. Film has different constraints than stage, not the least of which is time. A three or four hour theatrical performance can be divided with an intermission for audience comfort and concentration. A stage production can get away with hinting while a film has to re-create verisimilitude. A stage production strongly suggests 'as if' --hence actors taking a bow after the performance--while a film must mean: this is it, the film actors wanting to convey a death actually occurred.So in film lots gets lost in translation. But in this adaptation of Richard III in a fascist state, the sense of Richard giving himself over to total evil is not lost. Richard III is not Lear, or Othello, or Macbeth, or Brutus. These others are brought low by their humanity, by their human aspirations. From the get-go Richard plans on murder to become ruler, he announces to the audience that he will murder to get what he wants, and he stops at nothing to murder people who are in his way. The film doesn't miss this part of Richard.And for me, the final scene of Richard falling into what looks like the fires of eternal damnation made the movie worth the price of admission. The model of Richard III in fascist 20 century is not the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, not even Vidun Quisling who betrayed Norway to the Nazis. The model of Richard III is Adolf Hitler. The fact that Richard III has a sinister mustache to match Hitler's sinister mustache could not have been lost on the principals of the film. Richard III was a real historical character; Shakespeare derived his characterization from Sir Thomas More's "The History of King Richard the Third." Thomas More--the Man for All Seasons. Thomas More painted the blackest portrait of Richard III, a portrait only now being questioned, but in Shakespeare's day, Richard III was Villain personified.Hitler, like Richard III, was no fiction. Hitler's totalitarian state realized the death of millions of Jews, the death of millions of Russians, the death of European society. The German state had been turned over to the forces of evil as state policy. So Richard III,--Hitler--falling into the fires of eternal damnation seemed a fitting conclusion to those fascistic machinations.Many commentators of this film, film being democratic while theatre is elitist, seemed at a loss as to where to go for Shakespeare. SIGNET CLASSICS provides an excellent paperback resource with the play reproduced in Shakesearian English with footnotes to interpret the more obscure words Shakespeare might have used; plus every play has several interpretive essays to help guide the reader in thinking about the play. FOLGER Shakespeare LIBRARY from Washington, DC provides a similar service of paperback editions with each scene interpreted in modern English, difficult vocabulary defined, prints dating from the age of Shakespeare. PBS has filmed each and every Shakespearian play in its entirety; but again PBS provides a film of a stage performance and there are still niceties of film that stage can't reproduce; for example, the camera focusing on one person's face despite others being on stage.We live in a day and age which seems to have no moral constraints upon it; as Cole Porter might say: anything goes. Richard III--this filmed adaptation with that final scene of Richard falling into what could be construed by the audience as the fires of eternal damnation--reminds the audience that there is accountability and punishment for behavior. And Richard as a doppelganger for Hitler brings that message home.

It's unfortunate more people don't know about this film and what a treasure it is. In fact, I think I almost relish when people are not aware of a small film like this, because I can introduce it to them. A similar small, great film that people have never heard of is "Glengarry Glen Ross." I am a Shakespeare fan, and think updating the period to the modern era should have made this more accessible to the general populace, but unfortunately it didn't register with them.Everyone knows the plot--about a deformed man with an insatiable lust for power who is able to overcome his physical handicap with a silver tongue (hmmm, I think I met some of these people before...).There are many superlatives about this film--the cast, the cinematography, the music--but what can't be said of Ian McKellan's performance? He was simply amazing, and seemed to have a devil of a time in his quest to reach the throne. The scene when he's walking the hall of the military hospital after successfully wooing Elizabeth is hilarious. How he wasn't nominated for an Academy Award I'll never know.The cast is worth mentioning, such a great compilation of actors: Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, John Wood, Kristen Scott Thomas and of course Nigel Hawthorne. The cast also included two Yanks: Annette Bening and Robert Downey jr. I liked Downey's inclusion more than Bening's, since Bening's reading of the lines sounded well, just like that.Broadbent is great as Richard's willing accomplice and Adrian Dunbar is also excellent as another willing participant in Richard's evil deeds.This is a must-see for all Shakespeare fans.