 |
| List Price: $14.99 |
|
Our Price: $7.95 |
|
You Save: $7.04 (47%) |
| | |
 |
|
Product Description
The third and final entry in Laurence Olivier's Shakespeare triptych, Richard III (1954) is an audacious portrait of a man determined to prove himself a villain. As the personification of evil impudence, Olivier portrays the Duke of Gloucester with such aplomb that he brings the audience onto his side. This is true even as Richard engineers plots to murder his brother Clarence (John Gielgud), betray his cousin Buckingham (Ralph Richardson), and seduce his niece Lady Anne (Claire Bloom). From the play's famous opening lines ("Now is the winter of our discontent"), Olivier delivers every speech with truly Machiavellian splendor, and his superb staging of the climactic battle rivals his work on Henry V. Regrettably, this would be Olivier's last Shakespeare film, as a planned adaptation of Macbeth was abandoned for financial reasons. Olivier justly received an Oscar? nomination for his performance; and believe it or not, this film was the inspiration for the original Blackadder! --Kevin Mulhall
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer Reviews: - "Talkers are no good doers."
Laurence Olivier as the hunchback King, and where others melodramatize Richard's deformities, thus providing him with an excuse for his actions, Sir Laurence portrays him as just pure evil, which is much more frightening and villainous. A filming accident gave Olivier a real limp during the shooting of the movie, by the way. His portrayal of Richard is riveting and, in the opinion of many, definitive.
As usual with Olivier's Shakespeare productions, his version is different from the written original, especially in the order of the scenes. But unless you are following along with the play in front of you, you will hardly notice. The battle finale on Bosworth Field is exciting and richly done. This is the second best Shakespeare on screen after Olivier's HAMLET....more info - The Human Spider
Many excellent actors have tackled that "foul lump of deformity," the hunchbacked Duke of Gloucester, a.k.a. Richard III. Among them such acting greats as Ian Mckellen and Al Pacino. Say "Richard the Third," though, and I immediately think of a human spider with hooded eyes, a pageboy haircut, sharp nose, and halting chicken legs in black tights. In other words, I think of Laurence Olivier's Richard III.
This ranks as one of Lord Laurence's greatest performances, if not the greatest. It's certainly his most darkly sardonic and deliciously self-confident. Olivier was really at the top of his game when he made this movie in the mid-fifties, and his performance has the joie de vivre of an actor at the height of his powers. I was in a somewhat morose mood the other day when I popped this into the DVD player, and Olivier's infectiously energetic performance transported me to another world. Richard's a spiritual cousin to such scene-stealing villains as Iago of 'Othello' and Edmund of 'King Lear', and, like them, he's impossible to resist. This Richard embraces his own superficiality, takes malevolent delight in his clear-cut villainy.
Olivier surrounds himself with an all-star cast. Sir John Gielgud, he of the honey-dipped vocal chords, cuts a noble figure as Richard's doomed brother, Clarence, but is dispatched (memorably, in a barrel of wine) relatively early in the film. Claire Bloom, beautiful, brings poignancy to the underwritten Lady Anne. Sir Ralph Richardson is excellent as the politicking Buckingham.
Yet supporting characters fade into the periphery and all that's left is the highly quotable, irresistibly charismatic hunchback. Richard III is kind of like Hamlet's inverse: he doesn't know how not to act. He's like a shark that'd die if he stopped moving, and he consumes everyone in his path to the crown. Even on the battlefield, in the face of overwhelming odds, Richard goes out with a bang: "My kingdom for a horse!" In moments like those I'm like Lady Anne: falling for Richard against my better judgment. ...more info - Excellent acting but overrated as a film
I must disagree with the reviewers who praised this as one of Shakespeare's best movie adaptations. Sorry, it's not. The main strength of the movie is the acting, and for that alone it's a must-see. Yet, as a movie it has many stylistic and visual flaws. The camera shots are very long and there are very few shifts in angles, there are almost no close-ups, the settings, costumes and makeup are overdone and look too fake and low-budget (perhaps on purpose?), and it's done almost entirely in a studio (the outdoor battle scenes feel like a Western..). The result is that you feel that you're watching a two-dimensional play. Perhaps black-and-white would have been a more suitable vehicle. I'm also annoyed with the liberties the movie has taken with the text, shifted scenes around, chopping lines, etc. I didn't like that it begins with a scene from Henry IV. The Bard's original structure is better. Stick with it! Also, for the first half of the movie I felt distant from Richard, possibly because until then we almost always see him from a distance and rarely up close. That changes once he become king. Overall, the second half is much better. If you want to see a truly great Shakespeare adaptation, watch "Julius Caesar" with Marlon Brando and James Mason, even though the play itself is not as good as Richard III. In spite of all this, I recommend it. Certainly worth seeing Olivier in action.. and it has some great moments....more info - A Masterpiece Of Cinema!! Olivier's Best Work Yet!!
Sir Laurence Olivier's absolute mastery of another of William Shakespeare's timeless plays (his previous two self-directed efforts being "Henry V" and "Hamlet" [see my review on it]) is revealed yet again in this sumptuous adaptation of another of Shakespeare's most beloved tragedies. He is nothing but the absolute villain as Richard, Duke Of Gloster, who schemes to get the crown. His appearance was so scary, that he doesn't seem like the brooding Dane who won my sympathy in "Hamlet," the jealous Moor who took my breath away in "Othello," or the evil general who made me squirm in "Spartacus." He was an excellent actor, stepping into/becoming each character that he played. I really liked the camera showing his deformed shadow as he walked, his soliloquies to the camera, as if he were involving the audience in his wicked schemes and the way he was able to slither his way to the top unsuspected, NEVER backing down for even a second, evil to the end, not to mention the choice additions (the final scene from "Henry VI, Part III" and portions of a speech from that same play, which really fleshes out his character even further, so that we empathize with him throughout the film) and cuts (Queen Margaret and an interesting, but long scene between Richard, his mother, Margaret and Queen Elizabeth; if I forgot any others, let me know). As usual, Olivier cut a lot out, but that was just to keep the running time under 3 hours; you want uncut Shakespeare, see Kenneth Branagh's excellent, 4 hour take on "Hamlet," also done masterfully by Sir Laurence Olivier (see my reviews on both of them). All the actors in this film did an excellent job, ESPECIALLY Olivier, who was nominated for Best Actor, but lost to Yul Brynner for "The King And I" (see my review on it); should've been a tie. The film opens with a great prologue to the story, for those who aren't familiar with the play, showing the cast of characters before AND AFTER the film. The royal-sounding score, as composed by Sir William Walton, who also scored Olivier's "Henry V" and "Hamlet" (see my review on it) is terrific. I recommend this movie to everyone who enjoys Shakespeare, NOT the s**tty 1995 "Remake" (which I haven't seen, but the concept is just "Bleah!!"; see my review of Luhrman's sh-tty "Romeo + Juliet" for more information) of this classic tragedy "Of a hunchback who sought solace and glory in being a king." What I really enjoyed about Olivier's films (mostly the Shakespeare, even those that he didn't direct, such as the 1965 stage production of "Othello" [see my review on it]) is his ability to transform a play into a movie, while maintaining the essence of theatricality at the same time (at the end of his "Hamlet" [see my review on it], you see that part of the scenery [the stage in the play] was a real stage, etc.)
My only complaint is that the VHS (the MUST-HAVE 2 Disc Collector's Edition DVD being priced at almost $28) is poor quality (but not so bad as to prevent you from seeing the picture clearly, isn't widescreen as it said it would be when I ordered it from this site and isn't closed-captioned (which I would definitely recommend to keep up with the dialogue, even if you are familiar with the Bard's works and know every line...or every FAMOUS line, that is), but it's not bad-quality wise, the movie is EXCELLENT. Only Kenneth Branagh can equal Sir Laurence Olivier in everything Shakespeare (they both produce, text-edit, direct AND star in most adaptations of Shakespeare, take leading and small roles in others, etc). This film is Not Rated.
...more info - A must see!!
I won't rehash the plot. Suffice to to say the Olivier's performance is magnificent. Also magnificent in this Criterion collection edition, is the addition of a top notch commentary which explores both Shakespeare's structure of the play and Olivier's decisions in bringing the character to the screen. Also interesting is a 1960's era interview with Olivier that reviews his acting career....more info - Shakespeare 101
Here is Olivier at his rollicking best. This movie must be seen to be believed, and once seen will likely be regularly revisited throughout your life. It is beyond superlatives.
The reviews on this site amply speak of this great film's riches. While not one of the so-called "major tragedies" of Shakespeare, Olivier uses the play to to hammer home the most essential 101 level lessons about Shakespearean drama and performance -- its broad and physical appeal, its bald directness and outrageous humor, plain human pathos. If your kids need to start somewhere with the Stratford Bard, this is the place. It is highly likely that this single film will make a lifetime believer out of them -- and you too.
Olivier uses the adaptation of the play by the great British actor David Garrick from a couple centuries back, using the last part of Shakespeare's Henry VI, part 3, for necessary background, and then going off full-tilt into the best melodrama in the English speaking world. There is no reason to set forth the plot -- Richard himself delivers it to you inch by inch as he schemes his awful trail to power. Yet too, you laugh with him -- evil is not a black and white, Sunday school, cardboard cut-out proposition. The drama faces you with its terrifying seductiveness. This is a lesson once thought vital for developing adults in the English-speaking world, before the current monkey see/monkey do miasma of political correctness -- saying "good things" just to get ahead. Indeed, Richard is nothing if not the epitome of political correctness.
Of course, the story of Richard's character, as Shakespeare presented it, is Tudor era propaganda writ large -- still subject to reasoned debate. The drama, however, rightly retains its place as absolutely central to the ethos of the English speaking world, and its cultural claims. And Olivier nails it at all corners. Simply, this movie is as essential as a good dictionary, a properly translated bible, and a fundamental background in literature and the language....more info - One dimensional Richard
I know I'm going to come off as a bit of a heretic here. I already know that people generally LOVE Larry's,well, anything Shakespeare,BUT, as a Shakespearean actor myself,(and one whose favorite role is the Hunchback King),I must say that Richard's character has much more potential than Olivier's rendition reveals. Also,the play is abridged by about 30 min. of cut material,(in order to cement Richard's one-dimensional cast). I didn't particularly like Olivier's Shylock either. To be fair,his Hamlet is brilliant,but unfortunately,it too is abridged,like, where are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern anyway? Apparently this is done for the shorter attention span of the American audience?...more info - Even More Impressive in the DVD Format
Those who criticize Laurence Olivier and Alan Dent -- co-authors of the screenplay -- for taking certain liberties with Shakespeare's play should also criticize Shakespeare for taking certain liberties with the historical material on which he often relied so heavily. In this instance, Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, Vol. 6, and various Tudor Historians. In my opinion, such quibbling is a fool's errand. This much we do know about the historical Richard III. He was born in 1452 in Fotheringay Castle, Northamptonshire, the youngest son of Richard, Duke of York. He was created Duke of Gloucester by his brother, Edward IV, in 1461, accompanied him into exile (1470), and played a key role in his restoration (1471). Rewarded with part of the Neville inheritance, he exercised vice regal powers, and in 1482 re-captured Berwick-upon-Tweed from the Scots. When Edward died (1483) and was succeeded by his under-age son, Edward V, Richard acted first as protector, but within three months, he had overthrown the Woodvilles (relations of Edward IV's queen), arranged for the execution of Lord Hastings (c.1430-83), and had himself proclaimed and crowned as the rightful king. Young Edward and his brother were probably murdered in the Tower on Richard's orders, although not all historians agree. He tried to stabilize his position but failed to win broad-based support. His rival Henry Tudor (later Henry VII), confronted him in battle at Bosworth Field (August 22, 1485), when Richard died fighting bravely against heavy odds. Though ruthless, he was not the absolute monster Tudor historians portrayed him to be, nor is there proof he was a hunchback. Cleverly, this film begins with the final scene of Henry IV, Part III, the coronation of Edward IV (Cedric Hardwicke). Locating himself at a strategic distance from the throne, the Duke of Gloucester (Olivier) carefully observes those around him. He shares with those who see this film or read the play his most private thoughts and feelings, many of which are as deformed as his body. Gloucester's "winter of discontent" will soon end. With a systematic tenacity unsurpassed by any other of Shakespeare's villains, Gloucester's coronation as Richard III (his own "glorious summer") will be the fulfillment of his royal ambition. The acting throughout the cast is outstanding. I do not recall another film in which Olivier, John Gielgud (George. Duke of Clarence), and Ralph Richardson (Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham) all appeared together, joined by Claire Bloom (Lady Anne Neville) and Stanley Baker (Henry Tudor). Special note should also be made of Otto Heller's cinematography which is integrated seamlessly with their performances. It is a pleasure to have this film now available in a DVD format, one which offers much sharper images and much clearer sound. Other special features of this DVD version include high-definition digital transfer; newly discovered footage; a commentary by playwright and stage director Russell Lees and John Wilder, former Governor of the Royal Shakespeare Company; 1966 BBC interview with Olivier hosted by Kenneth Tynan; a 12-minute television trailer; a theatrical trailer; and an essay by film historian Bruce Eder....more info - Olivier's Master performance
This old classic has netted so many sterling tributes on the net review site - it seems pointless trying to cap them with more superlatives, much as the film - and Olivier's acting deserve them. Olivier's performance in this film absolutely electrified me as a young boy, and it still does.It turned me on to Shakespeare - and what a great thing acting can be, as a way of exploring the multi-faceted mysteries of human nature.
The only thing I would wish to add - to what other reviewer's have had to say, concerns Olivier's adaption of Shakespeare to the screen/film medium. Some feel that Olivier's Richard III is a bit 'stagey' - that Olivier failed to make maximum use of the camera, technically. It is surely obvious that Olivier expressly intended the film to look 'stagey' - to convey the feeling of theatre. The make-up is purely 'Stratfordian' and traditional. Admittedly, it comes over different - on film, but satisfying, because it still feels 'Stratfordian' (you can almost smell the grease-paint, and imagine nose extensions being applied in the dressing room). In key respects, Olivier made intelligent use of the camera - bringing a greater intimacy between the audience - and Richard's scheming soliliquies - than would otherwise have been the case - watching the play in a theatre. Otto Heller's camera-work and lighting has generally been praised, satisfying the requirements of Olivier's instincts - as a director. This film dates back to 1956 - and yes, it was a 'low budget' movie, compared to Hollywood productions, past or present. Britain wasn't that wealthy in the 1950's (t.v. had barely arrived, for most people). Buying tickets for the theatre in Stratford would have made a large hole in most pockets, so the advent Henry Vth and Richard III - at the cinema, was the first chance many had to see Shakespeare's 'plays' in action. What with the addition of William Walton's music, the extra pageantry afforded by the use of film - this was a real treat to watch, and it still is! ...more info - A horse , a horse , my kingdom for a horse!
Laurence Olivier at the top of his form with this sublime performance about Richard III the wicked deform king and his conquests . This is the definitive and greatest adaptation of this magnificent work of William Shakespeare . If you liked the acting of Olivier in Hamlet , this is much more compelling , beside the fact that Olivier did not win the Academy Award with this movie .
A superb triumph . Watch for the cast : Ralph Richardson , John Gielguld , Claire Bloom . ...more info - Mesemerizing, frightening and memorable
One of the greatest movies of the 1950s and in fact of all time, Laurence Olivier took Shakespeare's historic classic and turned it into a stunning masterpiece.
As for those who criticize the movie for it's slight departures from the written play, they obviously do not understand the versatility inherent in Shakespeare which allows for rich adaptation.
The movie begins with the last scene of Henry VI, with a fawning Richard, Earl of Gloucester (Laurence Olivier) ingratiating himself with the new King Edward IV (Cedric Hardwicke).
It is in the next scene where we view Richard's famous soliloquy: "Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this sun of York, And all the clouds that glower'd upon our house in the deep bosom of the ocean buried".
Olivier is both frightening in his superb theatrical portrayal of the total evil of Richard, and blends Richard's wickedness with such wit that his plotting becomes a delight to watch.
His speeches to the audience about his own wickedness born of the resentments from his deformity, and the focus of the camera on his clawed hand are memorable.
What stands out are the scene where he tries to woo the grieving Queen Anne (Claire Bloom) by the coffin of her husband, and she unleashes her contempt. Later after being forced to be Richard's bride we can see Anne's sadness that she knows she will die at Richard's hands. Richard's rage at a childish remark by one of the child-princes, his nephews, referring to Richard's shoulder (his frightening reaction accompanied by the child look of pure terror) where we know that the fate of the young princes has now been sealed. And who can forget the beautiful performances by Paul Huson and Andy Shine as the handsome little princes, so clearly born to one day be leaders (dying tragically at the hand of a tyrant reminding one of the later cruel murder by the Jacobins of the ten year old Louis XVII of France and by the Bolsheviks of the children of Tsar Nicholas II).
Richard III's quips about his own villainy:
"Shine out, fair sun, till I have bought a glass; that I may see my shadow as I pass".
The banner of Gloucester's Boar give background to the comments by The Lord Hastings that "The cat, the rat, and Lovell the dog / Rule all England under the hog".
And then there are the chilling visits on the night before the Battle of Bosworth of a few Richard's victims: The young princes, the Duke Of Clarence, King Edward and Queen Anne.
The last battle sequence pits the forces of the Duke of Richmond's dragon against Richard's boar, and the final scene of Richard's killing by Richmond's forces, where Richard writhes like a rattlesnake before dying.
A splendid and sterling masterpiece, full of majesty and colour.
...more info - Olivier's Richard
I have noticed that it is fashionable in some circles (particularly in the 'acting community') to be highly critical of Laurence Olivier and his interpretation of Shakespeare... While I have no credentials to speak of myself, I find these sorts of criticisms to be misplaced and they tend to unfairly take on Olivier without considering his times - Olivier was something of an outsider in his approach to Shakespeare - and the task of transfering his ideas of shakespeare into a rigid studio film (which nevertheless Olivier brilliantly succeeded in doing) would put Olivier right into a very vulerable place for an actor/director to be in.. Olivier was a believer in the human aspects of Shakespeare - he radically saw the possibility of a modern shakespeare - a shakespeare one could consider alongside the advent of modern psycohology and literature.. a sort of Freudian Shakespeare.. Now that Freud is also out of fashion it is easy to judge.. But the most important thing Olivier did had nothing to do with theories - he brought shakespeare to a larger audience - he made shakespeare more accessible.. He also did something only the best actors can do - he put his own personal stamp on the character of Richard III..His Richard is a serpentine feminine richard.. You clearly see a man who suffers within his body and mirrors this malace on to the world he confronts.. Olivier's Direction is also something remarkable - he combines the stage with celluloid in a way few have been able to manage... Criterion's transfer of this classic film is brilliantly crisp -you can't help but think of walt disney when you see this (or maybe powell and pressburger) - this is a perfectly legitimate portrayal of richard III and one that people will watch for years to come - what more could an actor achieve?...more info - Gutsy film with a truckload of good meaningful extras
I had never seen a Shakespeare film with Laurence Olivier with him also directing . I already liked Shakespeare and had heard about this play . I took a chance on this expensive DVD and was very happy with it .
Apart from the incredible film , which has helpful subtitles , you have an interview with Olivier on the second disc .
The Shakespearian actor can be a bit haughty and snobby , thinking they are as important as the words they are saying .
Olivier comes across as very thoughtful and is pleasant to watch as he makes his way through his own career .
This DVD is good value , which is not always the case with Criterion titles .
If unsure , rent it first .
I still recommend it however .
...more info - A beautifully restored film about the hideous human nature
No one could rival Laurence Olivier (Hamlet, Henry V, Richard III) as the scheming, ruthless youngest son of the 3rd Duke of York, who stopped at nothing to be King Richard III. His first appearance was deceptive. I noticed only a big nose and recognized him only after he spoke. Burdened with a crooked back, limp and shrunk hand, his ambition for kingship only burnt more feverishly. With disguised humbleness, he made peace with other royalties. His words were sugar-coated and gay. He killed Warwick, the 'KingMaker' who helped enthrone his elder brother as King Edward IV, and wooed Warwick's daughter Anne(the beautiful Claire Bloom) to marry him shortly after killing her husband. His planned murders of his elder brother Duke of Clarence, Lord Hastings, his young nephews (heirs-to-be), his wife Anne made even today's politics pale and unexciting.
Yet the movie about such a dark character was beautiful in VistaColour, set and costumes, cinematography. Scenes of executions, na?ve Lord Hastings (Alec Clunes) walking into his death trap, innocent heirs-to-be greeting uncle Richard and Richard's final battle are memorable. All the other characters exuded integraity, royality and humanity. They were handsome in appearance and noble in heart, so different from Richard III. Even the once accomplice Duke of Buckingham (Ralph Richardson), without whose help there would be no Richard III, showed a moment of caution in doing any more evil. Perhaps it's this great contrast between Richard and everyone else that made the movie luring and tragic. In his last battle of Bosworth Field, Laurence Olivier showed a more reflective and human side of Richard III. When nearly everything on his side was lost, he marched, with a handful of supporters including his royal page (Stewart Allen), and fought valiantly.
The movie also succeeded in its clarity and fluidity. The powerplay of an excellent cast of experienced actors with great screen presence made 155 minutes fly without notice. With no prior knowledge of the Wars of Roses (House of York vs House of Lancaster), I am not at all lost in the many characters and relationship. And the crowning of Henry Tudor, 2nd Earl of Richmond, as Henry VII marked the beginning of the most filmed Tudor dynasty - a perfect prologue of films about the lives of Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth.
...more info - Acting - Yea; Cinematography - Nay
This is a splendidly acted filmed play - notice how I write "filmed play" for this is by no means a masterpiece in anything but acting. Do not misinterpret what I say - Laurence Olivier's performance is a SPELLBINDING one, and, as with almost all the cast members, is just absolutely magnificent.
However, acting can only hold one's attention for all of "Richard III" if that person is a lover of the stage, because this `movie' feels like nothing more than filmed play. I don't give a damn how good the acting is - I'm a film major and was abhorred at the lack of use of cinematic techniques. Editing, camera angles, lighting, lenses, and so on could have taken this movie to another level.
I do not believe that a film should ever be so bland in its making - Technicolor is invariably the wrong choice for this, although that probably reflects the public's demand of it, so I'll let that slide. The fact of the matter is, filming techniques COMBINED with those stellar performances would have made a knock-out hit. Even if I attended theater performances regularly, I would still have disliked this movie, because it is not a movie and does not deserve that title. This could have been one of the greatest films of our time (it was, after all, originally written by the greatest author of ALL time), but instead I found myself looking at my watch because it failed to glue my eyes to the screen.
If you want a glimpse of combining technique with acting, watch Al Pacino's "Looking For Richard" (1996). It is filmed documentary style with handheld cameras and luminous lighting, which, although may not be the best way to film it, at least is one way to FILM it, creating a FILM. I happen to believe that Pacino's film is a great movie and a must see for anyone who purchases this film.
So, if you love the theater or are a Shakespeare nut, go ahead and buy it - you'll love Olivier's performance (it's almost impossible not to). But if you are a film lover first-hand, you will undoubtedly be disappointed.
...more info - If the Devil will reign...
Every time I see this movie have the same feeling: if the Devil will reign, it will be this way!
Opera lovers knows that one of the worst things ever is the fact that Maria Callas never recorded a full version of Verdi's Macbeth; luckyly, the olympic talent of Laurence Olivier created this jewel.
For me, it goes ahead even before Olivier's Hamlet: this very personal approach of the Duke of Gloucester goes surrealistic enough to be modern. I saw it first when I was a child and I will never forget the impression that Olivier's eyes caused.
Cast, with Gielgud, Richardson, Bloom and Hardwicke among others, supports Olivier's experiment transforming the text of Shakespeare almost in a modern thriller about the corruption of a soul obsessed with power beyond all limits.
It was necessary the maturity of another great stage and cinema actor (Al Pacino) to almost reach Olivier, but this one is still a landmark....more info - Better than the real thing. A blend of Shakespeare plays.
I have to admit that I only seen a couple of Richard III plays but his presentation stands out as it is the unique blending that explains the history and purpose of Richard III (Laurence Olivier) for those of us that only have a cursory knowledge of English history through film. We also get a look at the major players in the War of the Roses.
The presentation at times comes from our world and at others seems surreal. Therefore, I suggest you watch the presentation as designed, and then watch with the commentary and again without. You will find yourself periodically re-watching this Criterion version and each time finding nuances' that were missed on the original viewing.
This film also give a lot of know actors a chance to express their talent and show that they do not out shine their character. Even though Claire Bloom (The Lady Anne) has been inserted in the play she adds significantly to the understanding of the events.
The Illustrated Man ~ Claire Bloom ...more info
|
|
