What makes it different from others?

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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.

First the good: the movement to modern neo-fascism was interesting, the twist on many of the speeches was fascinating (which is one of the pleasures of re-doing Shakespeare - viz. the interpretation), McKellen is great, and most of the supporting cast is solid.What I didn't like as much: some of the choices regarding what dialogue to keep and what to discard. Losing some of the opening soliloquy was unnecessary and a crime to Richard III fans. Benning and Downey Jr are not good in this - I like them in other films but here they sounded as if they were reciting lines that they had carefully memorized - very unnatural. But mostly where I think this falls short of the Olivier version is in the believability of Richard as a charmer. Olivier makes you believe that Richard could fool people. In this version, Richard is so blatantly evil that nobody could be deceived by him. Maybe they aren't supposed to be in this version but Richard III is one of the all-time great villains because he could charm people (a la Hannibal Lecter). Not here.

In this version of Richard III the action has been moved to England in the 1930's. The move to this time period is flawless. While not as good as Titus (which is similar) this is a great film with fine performances. Maggie Smith as the Duchess of York steals this movie with her expert handling of Shakespeare. The scene she has with Ian McKellan (Richard III)by the stairs is amazing. Maggie Smith should have been a candidate for an Oscar for Best Supporting actress, a truly flawless performance. Annette Bening is very moving as Queen ELizabeth. Her best scene is in front of the building where her sons are being held prisoner by Richard. Krisitn Scott-THomas is riveting as Lady Anne. Ian McKellan is astounding as RIchard III. This is probably his best performance (even better than his performance as James Whale in "Gods and Monsters.") THe costumes and sets are also expertly done. Richard III is a near masterpiece.

Fantastic translation of William Shakespeare's "Richard III" is both involving, dramatic and humorous as it manages to capture all the emotional highs and lows of the bard's murderous tale of megalomaniacal King Richard.Writers Ian McKellen (who also plays the King) and Richard Loncraine (director) work from Richard Eyre's stage adaptation to create an ingenious screenplay that translates sublimely to a World War II setting. The idea was brilliant, the final product, just as good. Thanks to the intelligent use of Shakespeare's observant dialogue and sharply hewn characters, "Richard III" holds us in a vice-like grip.McKellen's Richard is a hybrid of the loathsome dictators that dominated this new time frame (Hitler or Stalin), yet with much more charm and wit, and a sickeningly egotistical outlook. His performance is marvellous, and I for one have not enjoyed a villain so since Anthony Hopkins brought Dr. Hannibal Lecter to life or Robert De Niro so richly portrayed crime boss Al Capone. Supporting him is a very impressive, solid cast including Annette Bening as the distraught Queen Elizabeth, Kristin Scott Thomas as a haunted Lady Anne, the immensely enjoyable Maggie Smith as the Duchess of York (Richard's mother) and manipulative Jim Broadbent plays Buckingham. Also stars a sinister Nigel Hawthorne as Clarence and an apt American Earl Rivers played by Robert Downey Junior.These outstanding turns and the incisive script (which together make this film) are supported by Tony Burrough's lavish production design, Peter Biziou's classy photography and highly effective editing from Paul Green.Monday, June 23, 1997 - Hoyts Croydon