What a waste of my time!!!

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.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

As a fan of Richard III, I've seen every version produced. I still do not understand why anyone likes Laurence Olivier's version with its grim, heavy-handed performance. Ron Cook is the perfect Richard, upbeat and energetic, sly and humorous, delighting in his mission until the weight of his crimes begin to trouble his conscience. Jane Powell's direction, as she did with Henry VI parts I, II and III (my favorite of the series), keeps the action moving and the characters in sharp focus, especially King Edward, whose final speech is one you'll always remember. This is the Richard that Shakespeare wanted his audience to see, a man of a courage who loses control of his ambition.

That period known in the 15th century as the War Of The Roses ended with the reign of Richard III who has come down to us through a well written play and a host of great actors playing one of the great Machiavellian villains of all time. Was Richard really as bad as all that. He was no saint, but he was living in a time when one of the few saints around was Henry VI of Lancaster and he paid as dearly for sainthood as Richard did for villainy.If you can get over the fact that Ron Cook who plays Richard III bears an uncanny resemblance to Dudley Moore, you will enjoy this BBC production of The Tragedy Of Richard III. Richard III in his time was called 'Crookback' because he was supposedly a hunchback though it never affected him on the battlefield, even his enemies conceded he was quite the man at arms. That was a bit of Tudor propaganda as spun by the court favorite William Shakespeare.The two roles that really make this production are that of Rowena Cooper as Elizabeth Woodville, the commoner who married Edward IV and bore him the two sons who were killed in the Tower in 1483. She spent a lot of time making sure her generous and indulgent husband took care of his many in-laws. She transforms remarkably as the Queen enjoying privileges to the distraught mother whose sons were taken and murdered, probably on Richard's wishes if not unwritten orders.One thing that should be clear. This incident with the murder of the child king Edward V and his brother Richard plays more shocking for today's audience than back at the Globe Theater in Shakespeare's day. People had an abundance of kids because the majority of them died before reaching their majority. And child monarchs mean regencies and regencies always mean court politics on steroids and dynastic challenges. People in those time need only look in Scotland to the north which had a series of child monarchs which weakened the realm so totally that it's only remedy was union with England which happened not long after people saw the first production of this play. And the three parts of Henry VI that led up to the events here began with an infant king and the struggles for power which turned into the War Of The Roses.The other female role that stands out is Margaret Of Anjou, late the Queen consort of Henry VI who singlehandedly for her husband and son kept the Lancastrian claims going. She was and is a controversial figure in English history still. Julia Foster played her in all the stages of her life in the three parts of Henry VI and in Richard III. Ironically enough this role was eliminated in Laurence Olivier's acclaimed big screen film of this play. But seeing it now that kind of diminishes Olivier's work somewhat. Foster is a bitter figure of passion, grief, and revenge in equal parts as she curses all the new Yorkist royalty and nobility and most especially Richard of Gloucester.For Richard it was a case of what went around really did come around for him.

I recently purchased the 4 DVD versions of the BBC TV 1980's 'Henry VI/Richard III' series and they have had me spellbound.I agree withe the general view of other commentators that the excision of the British 'hammy' style does nothing but enhance the powerful sweep of this epic.In the final play Ron Cook's deliberately paced and under-stated (by comparison with, say, Olivier) performance renders a powerful image of the 'toad'.I was especially struck by the scene with the 3 women characters where they debate the evils wrought by their various male relatives on them and their offspring.The last few scenes covering the night before the battle of Bosworth where the stream of ghosts taunting Richard then support Richmond, highlights what a great piece of pro-Tudor propaganda this play is.I know that my comments are really about the original Shakespeare play but this production made it live for me.The final scene with Margaret cackling on top of the heap of dead is a masterstroke!

In 1982, the BBC, in their undertaking to produce all of Shakespeare's plays, assembled a company of actors which would take us, in one logical arc, from Henry VI part one right through to Richard III. This is notable in that through all four plays, the principal actors keep their roles (although smaller roles are also undertaken). This gives an unparalleled clarity to the events as you see the chaste Margaret descend to Machiavellian plotting to destroy challengers to her grip on power, and then her downfall as Edward and then Richard take power. It is fitting that she, in a horrific scene at the end of this play, is seen atop a mound of dead. This was, after all, her legacy.In a simple, but effective, set, with authentic costumes and asides taken directly to camera, this brings your closer to Shakespeare's work than much of the praised films and productions in the past.If you found Olivier's version just too hammy to bear..... try this one.