Richard III

Personally, I think this is Shakespeare's most entertaining work. The evil but brilliant Richard has got to be a favorite for any actor. License to really go nuts and just be pure villain. Olivier's interpretation dwells on the cerebral side, and as usual for him, lends little or no mirth to the subject. I always think Shakespeare is best played when the humor which is present in all of his tales, is shone in full light. Olivier must have disagreed. But I do like this interpretation, and it probably still stands as the best film version as such. It was carefully produced to attract all audiences, not just fans of the Bard. Olivier jukes up the dialogue, curiously interchanging verses out of order for cinematic effect I suppose. He also pedantically pounds home and over-dramatizes the key plot points. As if to say, 'Pay attention dopes, this part is critical!' But he omits nothing, and the surrounding cast is simply phenomenal. Its a celebration of 50s color photography and looks like only films from that era do. The tale of Richard III however truthful Shakespeare was in relating it, represents a crucial period in British history. The War of The Roses is finally ended and the modern dynasty from which the Royal family of Britain today is directly descended, is established in Richmond's victory at Bosworth.

The only positive thing that i can say has come out of having seen this film is the confirmation that Sir Laurence really has no idea how to act beyond well rehearsed fakery and has frankly no understanding of Shakespeare. The text has been edited, the sets are ridiculous, the location/studio continuity laughable, the directorial gimmicks cheap and superficial, and the motley crew of British "shakespearian" actors enough to send anyone to sleep. This knight of the realm enjoyed a reputation as a great actor. How this reputation was foistered on an unsuspecting British public provides much cause for wonder. The most pathetic acting moment is saved for the very end; smile or grimace, laugh or cry, in that moment you have discovered the essence of Sir Laurence as an actor.

I frequently find Olivier's performances of leading Shakespearian characters rather stilted and dated. However, in Richard III he manages to capture something important in the character of the man with only an occassional over dramatization and a little posturing. Unfortunately, this fine performance is marred by some quite stilted direction, poor sets and an embarrassingly inadequate performance from Claire Bloom as Lady Anne. By contrast the rest of the talented cast manage to perform well and generally overcome Olivier's weak directorial skills. One of the better Richard III films, but still one which has many inadequacies which cannot be adequately excused even considering the films age.

I always feel a little cheated watching Olivier knowing that we, as a film audience, are really getting a second-rate performance from a brilliant actor. "Hamlet" hinted at a more interesting use of inner architecture, but his "Henry" and "Richard" are mere attempts at spectacle, although entertaining and capable attempts. Him speaking directly to the camera for the soliloquies kind of gives away Olivier's cinematic ignorance. Amidst all these brilliant stage actors is Gielgud, who shines out in his brief role as Clarence. He has a better persona for film, something more visceral, and would later give two of the greatest performances in all Shakespearean film (Henry IV in Welles' "Chimes at Midnight" and Propsero in Greenaway's "Prosepero's Books"). 3 out of 5 - Some strong elements

One of Olivier's most notable performances which set a precedent for how the role should be played. The eccentricity of the ambitious, crippled and sadistic, Richard of Gloucester makes for a surprisingly funny yet dark tragedy. Olivier's expertise in stage technique, married with an exceptional talent, makes for shots that last for more than a minute before the cut while he delivers the goods to camera.Set mainly in a castle ,simple but true to stage, with powerful monologues from all concerned.The dialect used is easier for the novice Shakespearian to understand than it is in some other such plays. The ultimate treacherer who can,"add colours to the camelian and set the murderous Machiavelli to school".He makes no secret to the audience of his villainous disposition.Likewise the role makes no secret of Sir Larry's brilliance. Filled with classic lines such as,"a horse ..my kingdom for a horse!" and ,"Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer..." . this film ,true to Shakespeare's other work has the mixture of tragedy and comedy, historic fact meets convenient fiction with a splash of romantic betrayal.. Utterly outrageous !

Richard III is a wonderful film. I love the play too, it is not my favourite of Shakespeare's plays but it does have some memorable scenes and lines and Richard III himself is a character you are unlikely to forget. This 1955 film is for me one of the Shakespeare films ever made. Why? Because it does have some wonderful production values. The cinematography is marvellous to look at and the scenery and costumes are impeccable. Sir William Walton's score is also superb, I am becoming much more receptive to Walton's music and the music here is a big reason why. The story is compelling and the dialogue and direction are wonderful. The cast give it their all. John Gielgud is especially wonderful and very memorable as Clarence, but Laurence Olivier is absolutely brilliant and gives one of his best and most charismatic performances ever here. Overall, a fantastic film. 10/10 Bethany Cox

It is hard to criticise such a wonderful cast and it is true that the theatrical delivery of the "greats" (Richardson, Olivier and Guilgud) is a joy. Their speach alone is to the ear what great wine is to the tongue. But, ultimately this is unsatisfying other than anything else than for historical interest. The problem for me is that Lord Olivier's Richard is just too one dimensional. Sure, he gets the evil Richard down to "a tee" but Shakespeare's Richard is so much more than this. Shakespeare's Richard is at his most dangerous when he smiles. He is able to woo not one, but two women (with varying success) and he is able to get people "on-side" despite his self-evident evil - not least because he is able to disguse it, at least in the first half of the text. For Shakespeare, only the audience truly sees his evil for much of the play - from the opening "winter of discontent" speach through to other asides. Olivier's Richard is evil to anyone who cares to glance at him. This makes it almost impossible to understand HOW he could have done what he did. It is certainly worth watching this but it is misguided to take it as a definitive version, despite the cast.

The class watched this film for our Shakespeare on Film course and by the time the final battle was about to start on film, we were all screaming for the movie to end. Yes, it was that horrible. With all the discussion in class and the extra reading material, the whole class came up with the reasons why the movie didn't work. The first is the Olivier, for some strange reason, chose to make this movie in a very short time. I forget how long, but as a result, the set looks fake, the costume sucks, the camera angle is too plain for a talented director like Olivier. The second is his attempt to "talk" to the camera. This is most evident in the scene after his brother's coronation where he paces up and down the empty throne hall talking. He is too small on the screen because the camera doesn't follow him. As a result, the audience cannot see his face and cannot identify with Richard at all. To see a better way to "talk to the camera" try Mckellen's Richard III. I think it is a far superior film,

Although I liked this movie, I still prefer the McKellen/Loncraine version of 'Richard III'. First of all, Olivier is more of a stage actor and director than a filmmaker. This movie seems a lot like the recording of a stage performance and contains few elements that make up a 'real' movie. There are almost no powerful images: The only one that comes to mind is Richard's shadow that is featured in some scenes. Secondly, Olivier's acting feels strangely detached and emotionless. This works very well when Richard is talking to the audience, coolly commenting and reflecting on the situation, but it fails to capture both his charisma and his self-destructive ambitions. It remains a mystery how this Richard could successfully woo a widow over her husband's dead body and how he could be haunted by the specters of those he killed. Nevertheless, the performances of Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud are good, and Olivier's monologue on 'the winter of our Discontent' is great. This alone makes the movie worth watching.

I think that there is one of the greatest masterpiece of the cinema through the ages, even the first time of the ages of silent movies, like masterpieces than ‘The Battelship Potemkin', for example, and a few several ones. When an actor, like Laurence Olivier, it makes all his performance in the movie (or it is better to speak about a pure stage?) a complete treatise of the perfect actor: soliloquies of several minutes ‘in crescendo', looking at the camera and sharing with the audience his diabolic tricks, one and more time and making captivate to us... Would Shakespeare himself wanted anybody better than Olivier if he could see him?. I don't know, but I can say by myself that Olivier made with Shakespeare's work that me, and I suppose thousands of people, and I'm speaking about people from abroad about England, English literature, History and customs, we love Shakespeare's work at all times. Like you know, here in Spain we ‘ve got several excellent writers, and we had them in the past... But with Olivier first, and Kenneth Branagh later, they have remembered to the rest of the people of the world, outside England and not anglo-saxon talking people, who is, who were the biggest Shakespeare. Thank you both of you.