Too much of everything

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

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.

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.

Very few actors and director's have the skill to bring William Shakespeare's work to life. The transition from stage to screen can prove difficult, especially when wrestling with the Bard's complex word-play and trying to make a movie that feels like a movie and not simply a filmed stage performance. No-one has succeeded as well as Laurence Olivier, here trimming one of Shakespeare's most wickedly entertaining plays to it's bare necessities, and delivering a fascinating performance to boot. Despite his high esteem, I've always found Olivier's acting to be somewhat hammy. But his hunchbacked, sneering monster is the definitive Richard III, combining his character's heinous acts with a devilish smirk.A lot has been written about Olivier the actor, but clearly not enough about Olivier the director. Though his Shakespeare adaptations can often feel stagy, he wasn't afraid of taking narrative risks. His magnificent Henry V (1944) began with actors preparing to perform the play in front of a theatre audience, before go into full-movie mode. Richard III begins with Olivier breaking the fourth wall and delivering his gleefully atrocious plans to camera, boasting of his strategy to usurp his brother King Edward IV (Cedric Hardwicke), but not before ridding himself of his other sibling George (John Gielgud). He seduces the widow of the man he slew during the War of the Roses, Lady Anne (Claire Bloom), and conspires with his cousin the Duke of Buckingham (the astonishing Ralph Richardson).Shot in wonderful Technicolor and opting for minimalist set design, Richard III is a treat for the eyes. But the true delight is the cast - a smorgasbord of British thespian talent - who deliver Shakespeare's poetic prose as if they talk it in their sleep. This is a tale of greed, paranoia and blood, told with a jet-black sense of humour, and Richard is one of Shakespeare's greatest creations. Disgruntled at being born lame and deformed without being compensated for his sufferings - you just have to sit back and marvel as he tricks and murders his way to the throne, turning to regicide and infanticide with a smile on his face. Olivier is clearly having a ball, and this is truly his show. I never realised Shakespeare could be so much fun.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

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.

Shakespeare himself must rejoice whenever this version of his play/movie is shown. It boasts his own witty dialogue placed in the mouths of some of the greatest actors of our times to make it understood these several centuries later. It's in technicolor so you see the pomp & circumstance in glorious Technicolor (literally). You even get the humor dripping with bitter irony most of the time. The one flaw of the film was the decision of Olivier's make-up (or lack of it). It's clear from Shakespeare's description in Olivier's/Richard's first soliliquoy that Shakespeare wants him to be shown deformed & heavily so. He should look like Charles Laughton in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. But, perhaps because Olivier didn't want himself disfigured, the only hint we get is a limp. I think this does discredit to the author even though it plays to the prejudice that Hunchback fought against, that the deg formed are evil. Having said that, it's a wonderful movie & a classic that can be forgiven its one flaw of perfection.