recommended

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

In many ways this is a stage-bound adaptation and with Olivier in the lead role this is not a bad thing. After all he was one of the theatre greats of the twentieth century.In Richard III, Olivier constantly turns and talks to the audience with his devilish plans to ascend to the throne of England. Aided by his cousin the Duke of Buckingham (Ralph Richardson) he soon replaces King Edward IV (Cedric Hardwicke), rids himself of his other brother George (John Gielgud) and dispatches his young nephews to the tower and then brings their tender lives to a premature end.The deformed, despicable hunchback even seduces the widow of a man he murdered for his own purposes, Lady Anne (Claire Bloom).Once Richard ascends to the throne he finds that he has to do battle with a rival who also stakes a claim to the hollow crown.This is a chance to see Olivier, still in his pomp speaking the Bard's verse. Unfortunately the accompanying music is too bombastic and Olivier's death scene verges on the ham.

This movie was a hard one for me to determine whether or not it was set back OR way ahead of its time. Laurence Oliver, one of the kings of cinema, directs, adapts, and stars in what is William Shakespeare's RICHARD III.I would like to make clear right off the bat that THIS FILM IS NOT INTENDED FOR THE SIMPLE MINDED. From how technology spoils us day-in and day-out, the dialogue is strictly SHAKESPEARIAN. Meaning, that the dialect might be hard to decipher in a new AGED kids brain. I would say the only people who might find this movie appealing are **the ones who are fans of the legendary playwright and have been familiar with his work so much that it is a second language. Other than that, I doubt a clueless 8th grader would have any idea what's going on.What really drew me to this project was mostly the CAMERA WORK; really long takes mixed with the POETIC MOVEMENTS and DIALOGUE. // Another element that caught my eye was the SYMBOLISM IN WARDROBE DESIGN. I believe it is at Richard's worst moments that we see him wearing mostly black or something dark (if the scene is a struggle than perhaps the costume is complex, as well, to fit the mood).**TYPICAL Shakespeare: I mean, we got the old tall-tale that carries traces of TRAGEDY, ANGUISH, DESPAIR, BETRAYAL (of course), GHOSTLY HAUNTINGS, 3 ACTS (was there three prophecies?), etc. etc. Pretty much similar to MACBETH and HAMLET where we endure the rise and fall of some douchey-prick that wants control of the throne.I do have to say, the ENDING to this story is pretty epic (on the battlefield) from where it takes you. I really enjoyed it; sorta made the three hours worth watching. It just has a lot of cliché moments that not even Shakespeare can fix at this day in AGE.I give this JANUS film a 7 out of 10 on IMDb. **It reminded me a bit of Marin Scorsese flick, where we have an evil, not relatable guy who is our main protagonist and how we cheer him on throughout his process. Anyone agree?-- Michael Mendez

This is the third movie in Olivier's trilogy of Shakespeare. I'd say this one is the worst of the three although the performance by Olivier here is the best. It's been called everything from brilliant to high camp but one thing it won't be called is forgettable. He steals every scene and is absolutely electrifying to watch. The opening soliloquy in particular is genuinely mesmerizing. Deceiving, cunning, often times funny, he lies, betrays and kills his way to the English Crown all the while letting us in on his plans. The score is solid while rest of the cast is passable. Ralph Richardson as Buckingham is probably the other performance worthy of note.That being said it does have its faults. As usual with Shakespeare it can be at times hard to follow. The script is full of metaphors and puns all being said at a vicious pace. Unless you know the play beforehand some of the content will be lost to you. Also, unlike Olivier's former efforts, the pacing seems slower here. At times the movie can get a little dull. The battle from the final act in particular is clumsy and messy.Overall, it's a flawed but still good movie. However as an introduction to Olivier's Shakespeare, Henry V is a better choice.

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.