So much average

Excellent but underrated film

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

at the first sigh, an eccentric adaptation. at the second, a magnificent one. because Richard III becomes the perfect guide on the halls of the second part of XX century. the old words, the well known scenes, the speech, the characters are keys for understand events and decisions and nightmares from inter-war period. and that gives to the film of Richard Loncraine a special status. because it is more than an experiment but definition of roots of evil. because few scenes seem be pages from history book. because In McKellen propose the same Richard but in a more profound and subtle manner. translation of Shakespeare in a dystopia , suggesting many similarities with contemporary dictatorships becomes an useful exercise of memory and rediscover of past. so, an inspired idea and a great work.

The classic William Shakespeare play is reimagined with the world of WWII marrying a British monarchy. The rebel York family fights to put eldest son Edward (John Wood) onto the throne. His army is led by his youngest brother Richard (Ian McKellen) of Gloucester. After winning the war, Richard maneuvers his older brother Clarence into the Tower. Then he woos Lady Anne (Kristin Scott Thomas) after killing her husband and her father during the war. Edward is ill and Richard spreads the rumor that Queen Elizabeth (Annette Bening) is the one who had Clarence killed. He schemes to take out anyone on his quest for the throne.It's fascinating to hear these classic lines being spoken in new settings. It's refreshing for fans of Shakespeare. For others, it doesn't make Shakespeare automatically accessible. The production is well made and the acting is superb. The hunchback is gone though. This is an intriguing exercise.

When I first saw this adaptation of Richard III, I didn't care for it. I hated the way Shakespeare's dialogue is chopped into bits and scattered around randomly. I thought the period details were crudely overdone. (Must every character smoke cigarettes in every scene?) And I just couldn't picture an aging, feeble Ian McKellen as a brutal rampaging tyrant like Richard III.Over time, though, I've come to appreciate the little things. The amazing supporting cast and the sexy background moments, like Robert Downey's fling with the stewardess that ends like it's Friday the 13th! And the happy ending for Richmond and young Princess Elizabeth.And by the way, it's not one moment, but the whole character arc for Lady Anne (Kristin Scott Thomas) who falls under Richard's spell and gradually fades away into a swoon of almost living death. The way she's always in the background, taking pills at one moment, then gulping down liquor, then at the end actually injecting herself with drugs in the limousine, you sense how she just wants to forget everything and fade into sweet oblivion. Yet you also sense she would have loved Richard if he could have shown her any kind of human feeling. Kristin Scott Thomas is perfectly cast as the exquisitely frail and helpless beauty.

Now I have heard it said that the beauty about Shakespeare is that you can take it out of the setting in which the original play was written in, place it in a new setting, and it will still be a brilliant play. Now this is something that I do not necessarily agree with, namely because while up until the 20th Century this could be the case, the world has changed and a lot of the dialogue simply does not fit. Now the events of this film are set in the 15th Century, however the film itself is set in the 1930's. This in itself worked well (and as I argue, made for a very original film) but it falls apart at the end when Richard, after his jeep is bogged, cries out 'a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse'. This, personally, does not really make any sense on the modern battlefield (not that horses aren't used, back in 2004 or 2005, I can't quite remember when, the capital of Kyrgistan was stormed by men on horseback), however I really do not want this minor problem destroy a good film. What this film is doing, is taking the story of Richard III out of the historical content and simply turning into a play about a tyrant.Now, it is debatable as to whether Richard III was actually a tyrant. He was the last of the Plantagenet dynasty, and was deposed at the battle of Bosworth field, after Henry Tudor defeated him and claimed the English throne for himself. This was considered to be the end of England's medieval period and brought not only stability to the country, but also ushered her into the Modern Era. Beforehand, England has just come out of a 100 year war with France (on the losing side) and this sent the country into civil war (the War of the Roses) in which the houses of Lancaster and York fought over the English Throne. The beginning of the play has Edward assume the throne after his predecessor, Henry VI is defeated in battle, however Edward is not on the throne for long and after he dies his son, Edward, takes the throne with Richard as Lord Protector. However, the barons vote to give the throne to Richard, and the crown prince and his brother then disappear.What is not clear is whether Richard was actually responsible for Edward's death and his children's disappearance, and whether his took the throne through manipulation and stealth (something which had been happening since the close of the 100 years war). What Shakespeare does though is turn Richard into a villain. It appears that Richard's deformity was a creation of Shakespeare, and the rumour that the princes were murdered in the Tower of London is also said to be of his creation. In fact, it is suggested that the princes simply vanished from public life after Richard was crowned.One might raise the point that the princes were imprisoned in the Tower of London. While these days the Tower of London is seen as a prison, back then this wasn't the case. The Tower, along with numerous other castles, were originally built by William the Conquerer to protect his newly conquered realm, and later reinforced by Edward III. The Tower of London in Richard's time was simply another castle, and it was only after this incidence that it inherited its reputation. It should also be remembered that in those days royalty, when imprisoned, were held in the castles, but not in the dungeons as we imagine. Castles were luxurious (and the Tower of London was no exception) and while one may have been imprisoned, imprisonment meant that one simply could not leave the castle.Another thing that stood out with this movie was how Richard came to the throne. We have the nobles and barons all pressuring him to take the throne, and in the end he relents. However, this film (and I suspect Shakespeare as well) manipulate this to make it appear that it was all a part of the plan between Buckingham and Richard. However, once Richard is on the throne, he becomes even more wretched and corrupt, in then end killing children and rejecting his friends, until he is left alone on Bodsworth Field. It is funny that when he does cry out 'a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse', he really did not have a kingdom left to give. He had already lost. As for the horse, well if you led an army and you lost your horse, then you were in trouble.It is a shame that this film is very difficult to come by because I really do like this movie. I found it original, and the setting in the 1930's with Richard taking on a fascist mantle upon assuming the throne worked very well. While fascism did not exist in the 15th Century, and while Richard was strictly not a fascist, he was a tyrant (and least as the play portrays him) and to put him in the uniform of a fascist simply adds to the impression of tyranny that the play creates.