Richard III

1995 "I can smile, and murder while I smile"
7.3| 1h44m| R| en
Details

A murderous lust for the British throne sees Richard III descend into madness. Though the setting is transposed to the 1930s, England is torn by civil war, split between the rivaling houses of York and Lancaster. Richard aspires to a fascist dictatorship, but must first remove the obstacles to his ascension—among them his brother, his nephews and his brother's wife. When the Duke of Buckingham deserts him, Richard's plans are compromised.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall
BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See
Helloturia I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.
Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
pontifikator The 1995 film is a masterpiece. I'm not familiar with Richard Loncraine, the director, but the cast includes such luminaries as Ian McKellan, Annette Bening, Jim Broadbent, Robert Downey, Jr., Kristin Scott Thomas, and Maggie Smith.McKellan adapted the play to a modern England where it has become a fascist state. King Richard is a kind of Hitler, and the wars are fought with modern equipment. We are sucked into McKellan's version so completely that the anachronisms between the language and the time don't matter. McKellan is excellent as the mad would-be dictator, and the rest of the cast is lifted to his level. As with all Shakespeare's work, I recommend reading the work before seeing the movie. I'd suggest a copy of the Folger's or Arden editions (either or both probably available from your local library for free) with explanations of the more obscure words and phrases. The language of Shakespeare is beautiful, and the cast here is equal to the words.McKellan is a superbly evil and maniacal Richard as he murders his way to the throne, and his death is one of the best on film. He nails the role; he nails the look as a sordid, dissolute tyrant.This adaptation is similar to July Taymore's adaptation of "Titus Andronicus" to modern times in her 1999 film "Titus." Taymore and McKellan have both done excellent jobs of introducing modern elements into classical tragedies from Shakespeare. They showcase the incredible genius behind the works, still relevant today.A reminder that this film is an adaptation and that McKellan rearranged scenes, removed characters, and rewrote dialogue. I have not seen Olivier's "Richard III," but it gets high marks as the best on film for the true play, not an adaptation.
Niv-1 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.
ntvnyr30 It's unfortunate more people don't know about this film and what a treasure it is. In fact, I think I almost relish when people are not aware of a small film like this, because I can introduce it to them. A similar small, great film that people have never heard of is "Glengarry Glen Ross." I am a Shakespeare fan, and think updating the period to the modern era should have made this more accessible to the general populace, but unfortunately it didn't register with them.Everyone knows the plot--about a deformed man with an insatiable lust for power who is able to overcome his physical handicap with a silver tongue (hmmm, I think I met some of these people before...).There are many superlatives about this film--the cast, the cinematography, the music--but what can't be said of Ian McKellan's performance? He was simply amazing, and seemed to have a devil of a time in his quest to reach the throne. The scene when he's walking the hall of the military hospital after successfully wooing Elizabeth is hilarious. How he wasn't nominated for an Academy Award I'll never know.The cast is worth mentioning, such a great compilation of actors: Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, John Wood, Kristen Scott Thomas and of course Nigel Hawthorne. The cast also included two Yanks: Annette Bening and Robert Downey jr. I liked Downey's inclusion more than Bening's, since Bening's reading of the lines sounded well, just like that.Broadbent is great as Richard's willing accomplice and Adrian Dunbar is also excellent as another willing participant in Richard's evil deeds.This is a must-see for all Shakespeare fans.
loudprincess Most versions of Shakespeare plays that attempt to bring a classic story into a more modern setting fail. This film is a rare exception.Sir Ian McKellan plays Richard III with such dead-on artistry that it was hard to shake off the impression that he really was a power-hungry cretin with a hunch. Furthermore, Richard is usually played as either so evil the audience can't stand him, or so pitifully desperate that his plots and schemes don't seem plausible. But McKellan portrays him on the fine edge of the sword; evil enough to be repelled by his actions, but sly and funny enough to almost root for him.Of course, part of why one begins empathizing with him is because he's surrounded but the shrill Annette Benning, who's not close to being McKellan's equal, and other characters that give the audience excuses to believe that they don't deserve to live. However, that simply adds another dimension to the story that is often ignored in varied productions of the play.It's a slick, stylish film that sucks it's audience in, even in the most loathsome moments.