IMDb user comments for
Richard III (1955) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

32 comments in total

---

22 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
The best Shakespearean film ever! Unparalleled!, 26 October 2001

Author: Olga Levina from Moscow, Russia

I just can't find words to describe how I like this film. It is the most magnificent film I've ever seen. And it is certainly the best work of Laurence Olivier. I came to learn about this film quite accidentally. I was watching on TV some program about Shakespeare's plays and their adaptations. There were a number of fragments from different films and from this one too… It was the moment where Richard is offered a crown, he refuses at first and then accepts. I was stunned when Buckingham approached Richard to congratulate and Richard suddenly made him kneel down and kiss his hand. The gesture was so majestic, imperative and full of evil triumph. I understood at once that it was a great film. I've bought VHS tape as soon as I've found it and I've already seen it about dozen times. It's superb. Everything is splendid – screenplay, costumes, scenery and acting. I like John Gielgud as noble Clarence and Ralf Richardson as cunning Buckingham, and especially Claire Bloom as gentle and unhappy Lady Anne. However I still admire Laurence Olivier more than anybody else. I just can't forget his terrific voice and acting at the scene of first Richard's monologue that reveals malicious ambitious, mercilessness and devilish ingenuity of the Duke of Gloucester. Another scene I adore is his wooing Lady Anne. Both actors are great. Olivier is so convincing and moving that I believe any woman could surrender. Olivier maintains high standards of these impressive scenes through the whole film until the final battle. Richard is desperate and courageous at the end, he is killed but his spirit is not broken (he can be afraid of ghosts, not real enemies). Shakespearean play is brilliant and the film is worthy of the original. It's the most glorious historical movie of all times. I recommend everyone to see it.

---

19 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
the masterpiece of the master.... phenomenal, 25 June 2004
Author: angel_de_tourvel from surrey, england

Henry V was said to be Laurence Olivier's greatest screen role for British Propaganda reasons... he inspired England etc. during World War 2; there is no denying it, his Henry is brilliant. But he surpasses his own genius as Richard.

"Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York" just seeing Richard's stooped, deformed figure hobble to the camera like some monstrous spider; to hear those bitter words delivered with such articulate power, and to be penetrated by that stony, constant glare is enough to know that this is no ordinary actor... this is a thespian whose legend will leave generations and generations of actors to come hopeless (teeth gritted) Whatever people say, Kenneth Brannagh will NOT be the next Laurence Olivier!!!

This movie has a fantastic cast: get this! Ralph Richardson AND John Geilgud AND Claire Bloom! Claire Bloom is especially exquisite and I think she plays the soulfully lamenting Lady Anne to perfection. Her scenes with Olivier are great; there is such agitation and irony between the two. I especially like it when he woos her by her husband's tomb... just goes to show how even in a tyrannical role Olivier can still steal a woman's heart with his irresistible seductiveness. She is beautiful and a most accomplished actress; I wonder why she is not better known... is Richard the only Shakespeare film she did????

Geilgud is wonderful as the doomed Clarence, done to death by the scheming Richard; my only disappointment was in Buckingham, played by Ralph Richardson. Richardson left me with a completely wrong impression of Buckingham, who (or so I learn from the play) is not all that different in character from Richard; but is scheming and devious also. Sad to say, (and I have read Olivier admits it so himself) Richardson was cast wrongly as the Duke of Buckingham... he acts too innocent and unsuspecting.

I must also give a technical comment on the camera angle; I would have preferred to be nearer Olivier at some parts of his scenes... that said, I must say I liked the scenes theatrical as such... why are other reviewers always moaning about the costumes and the settings? The costumes I liked, the settings I liked, the music by william walton was great (olivier had good taste in music though he was definitely not a musician himself) and really suited the swiftly changing reflective to agitated moods of the characters.

That said, I believe Laurence Olivier's Richard III to be (with perhaps the exception of his Henry V) the most worthily majestic film ever made in England. The greatest of course, would have been to see such a master of his incandescent talent on stage as Richard since Olivier was finest on stage live, but to be realistic, there is not much of his stage performances recorded, if any, and to be left this masterpiece that Shakespeare himself would have been proud to see performed, is a tribute to the most incredible actor of this century, and most probably, of all time.

---

12 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
A bravura vehicle for Olivier, 23 June 1999

Author: Jonathan Boswell (jboswell@sinosa.com) from Sierra Vista, Arizona

Many great actors made their names with this Richard, and it turns out to be Olivier's greatest Shakepearean role as well. He captures the whole production coiling his way around the Crown of England: his asides to us through the camera are lovely. They say all actors love to play a villain. Well, it works for me.

The movie is beautiful, rich; the costumes are awesome; and the dialogue, of course, is wonderful. He patches in that great speech from Henry VI, part 3: "Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile . . .": and the movie wouldn't be right without it.

The other actors, Britain's elite of the time, seem to be tyrannized by the boss; and the text should have been edited better, because if you don't know the play and practically the whole history you'll get lost. Not to worry, though; the subplots here aren't really important (but they should be), and the thundering battle at the end will leave you satisfied. Special mention of Sir William Walton's music, the vibrant colors, and of course, England itself.

---

10 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
The Summit of Acting Nobility, 25 December 2005

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

It's quite a gap that Laurence Olivier covers between his portrayal of heroic Henry V and the evil Richard III. But he certainly does cover it well.

In fact this production boasts the talents of five knighted thespians in its cast, Olivier as Richard, John Gielgud as Clarence, Ralph Richardson as Buckingham, Cedric Hardwicke as Edward IV and Stanley Baker as the Earl of Richmond. That is probably some kind of record.

Once seen you will not forget the heavily made up Olivier with a shylock type nose and hunchbacked form. Unlike in Henry V and in Hamlet the title character's soliliquys are delivered straight to the audience rather than in voice-over. I think Olivier like Shakespeare wanted to emphasize the evilness of Richard as opposed to the tormenting doubts that Henry and Hamlet suffer. No doubts here, he's got his evil course well planned and he's very matter of factly telling his audience what's in store.

Of course when Shakespeare wrote this he was gearing up the Tudor dynasty propaganda machine. Stanley Baker's Earl of Richmond becomes Henry VII grandfather of the Queen whose patronage Shakespeare enjoyed. It was in Tudor family interest to blacken Richard's name to support their own dynastic claims. There have been several plausible theories put forth to claim the murders of Edward V and his brother were done by others.

One guy who in all the stories about Richard III who gets a whitewash is the Duke of Clarence. As portrayed by John Gielgud, Clarence is an innocent sacrificed in Richard's march for the throne. Actually Clarence was quite the schemer himself. He was in communication with Louis XI of France looking for aid in some plotting he was doing. Edward IV overlooked an incredible amount of treachery with him.

One very big flaw is that the film opens with Edward IV being restored to the throne again in 1471 and he has his son with him. Edward IV died in 1483 and the sons have not aged a mite. I believe they were 12 and 9 when they were put to death in the Tower of London in 1483. I'm surprised Olivier had that in his film.

Still and all it's a fabulous production and one should never miss a chance of seeing all that acting nobility in one film.

---

11 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
The Glorious Summer of the Sun of York, 7 January 2006

Author: theowinthrop from United States

It was Olivier's production of HENRY V that led to his showing what a creative producer/director of film he could be. His Oscar came from his "Freudian" interpretation of HAMLET. But I suspect that most people would say his greatest Shakespearean film (both as star and director) was this one - his performing the greatest villainous role in the English language, King RICHARD III.

One can carp about the historical accuracy of RICHARD III from now until doomsday. That monarch was attacked by two of England's leading literary figures: Sir Thomas More (who is also a political/religious martyr), and Shakespeare. In comparison only two literary figures of any consequence ever defended him: Horace Walpole (the 18th Century diarist and letter writer - best recalled, if at all, for his Gothic novel THE CASTLE OF OTRANTO) and Josephine Tey, the dramatist and mystery novelist who wrote a detective story, THE DAUGHTER OF TIME, to defend him. More, a Tudor government official (eventually Lord Chancellor, before he fell from official favor) was close to one of Richard's foes, Cardinal Morton, and so accepted Morton's stories about Richard's murderous guilt. He wrote a HISTORY OF RICHARD III. Shakespeare, to keep official favor with the court, had to placate it with it's glorification of Henry VII, and vilification of the monarch who Henry defeated and killed. Walpole, a student of 18th Century skepticism and scholarship, wrote SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING RICHARD III, which point by point debated the so-called crimes Richard committed. Walpole, however, also was convinced that the pretender, Perkins Warbeck (executed 1499) was actually the younger one of the two Princes in the Tower. Tey used her gifts as a mystery novelist to examine the case as an intellectual puzzle for a recuperating Inspector Adam Grant in the novel. But she is basing her views on work done up to about 1935 or so, especially the Life of Richard III by the exploration historian Sir Clement Markhams. Today we realize more information from contemporary documents have come out. The balanced view is that Richard is truly a usurper (but this was par for the political course of 1483, especially after all of the blood and plotting of the War of the Roses). However, his actual planning of the deaths of Henry VI and his son, of George, Duke of Clarence, of Lords Rivers, Grey, and Hastings, and of his two nephews has never been conclusively shown (it could have been his one time ally the Duke of Buckingham, or his enemy Henry, Earl of Richmond/Henry VII, or even Cardinal Morton!).

But without a dramatist or novelist of Shakespeare's stature, we are left with only Shakespeare's Richard - the finest example of a Machiavellian monarch on stage. So it is that the role can never be played poorly, unless by some stupid concept thrown in by a director (witness Richard Dreyfus's having to play Richard as an over-the-top homosexual in THE GOODBYE GIRLS due to Paul Benedict's idiot scheme of production). An example of the universality of the role was shown by Sir Ian McKellan's version a decade ago, set in the 1930s, suggesting Richard as a potential Fascist leader of Great Britain (complete with his "Hog" symbol used in place of a swastika). That film version too was wonderful.

Olivier is ably assisted by his cast of Richardson, Guilgud, Baker, Hardwicke, Bloom, and the others who show what happens when a power-hungry monster is allowed to divide and conquer his opponents, and then seize total power. There are moments in the film where Olivier's real personality comes out in frightening intensity. One is where he is playing with the two nephews, and when one teasingly refers to his humpback, the camera and lighting shows an intense hatred and anger rising from his eyes (the boys, by the way, notice it and cower). The other is the point when Richard decides to rein in his erstwhile ally in his rise, Buckingham (Richardson) who is at court to present his request for some payment for his assistance. Richard shouts impatiently "I'm not in the giving mood today!", and crashes his scepter down narrowly missing Buckingham's hand. The Duke notices this, and soon is off on his ill-fated rebellion.

RICHARD III was a first rate film - in my opinion it may be the best filmed version of a Shakespeare play made before 1980. It is regrettable that,whatever the reason, Olivier never directed another Shakespearean film (he planned at least one I would have been interested in - CORIOLANUS - which never got beyond the stage production). So enjoy the three we have, and his performances in the films OTHELLO and AS YOU LIKE IT, and the television versions of his THE MERCHANT OF VENICE and KING LEAR. It's all we'll ever have.

---

10 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Sportive Tricks With Sir Larry's Tricky Dick, 13 March 2005

Author: Bill Slocum (slokes@optonline.net) from Norwalk, CT USA

That "Richard III" is one of the all-time great acting performances is hard to argue with. In the title role, Sir Laurence Olivier manages to be rousing and hate-inducing, menacing and amusing, often all at once. He was the world's greatest stage actor of his time, and Shakespeare was the world's greatest stage writer. So how do they do on the movie screen?

Quite well. Because "Richard III," like "Patton" or "Scarface," is essentially a one-man show, and Olivier was the best Shakespearean actor of his time or since, we are in good hands. As a director (and uncredited co-writer), Olivier telescopes the action on screen in such a way as to negate the necessary stageiness of Shakespeare's text. He moves us the audience from one scene to another by pulling back a curtain and nodding to us to come closer, as if we were an old friend. He yells some lines, then coos others, his vocal dynamics challenging even seasoned readers of the play in terms of what he chooses to accent and what he does not. Finally, he finds the ample stores of humor Shakespeare gave this, one of his darker plays.

"A sweeter and a lovelier gentleman...the spacious world cannot again afford," Richard says of one man he killed, and Olivier invests moments like this with a firm tongue in cheek. While wooing that man's wife (strictly for political gain), he actually draws a sword when presenting himself as the widow's new suitor, telling her to plunge it into him if she won't be his bride. She tells him he's a liar. "Then never man was true!" Richard shouts, and Olivier as he says this rolls his eyes shamelessly, like a silent-screen matinée idol. I can't watch that scene without laughing; it's a Mel Brooks moment.

The film does move slowly, despite Olivier's trims. Entire scenes get cut out, yet the first act is drawn on for nearly an hour with the help of some dialogue brought in from another Shakespeare play. Surely Olivier could have set more up as part of the opening text narrative, and gotten down to business with that famous opening soliloquy.

A worse fault is the woodenness of some of the actors, like the ones who play Catesby, Brackenbury, and especially Lord Hastings. It doesn't help that they don't get the same chance to address the viewer that Olivier avails himself. Sir John Gielgud even seems lost playing a naive victim of Richard's complots. Seen to better advantage are Claire Bloom as the woman Richard woos, Michael Gough as a murderer, and Patrick Troughton as the nasty child-killing nobleman Tyrell.

Ralph Richardson gives the second-best performance in the play as the Duke of Buckingham, a half-step behind Richard in guile and cruelty, but trying to catch up in his own cold-blooded way. It's funny to read here that Olivier wanted Orson Welles in the role. Welles would have seemed too crafty. Richardson makes a believable victim as well as conspirator. Also, you have to mention Pamela Brown's Mistress Shore, who has no lines (because Shakespeare wrote none for her) but manages in Olivier's direction to play a central role by currying the bedside favor of King Edward and of Hastings.

But Olivier of course is the only reason this movie is still watched. And he's worth watching as long as movies are seen. Yes, he may have won World War II making his movie version of "Henry V," and his "Hamlet" was when he became Hollywood's favorite emissary of high culture, but "Richard III" is still the thing to catch the conscienceless of the king, his moment of highest dungeon and merriest perversity. It's movies like this one that remind us why acting can be a noble profession, even for those who aren't knighted for their excellence in it.

---

10 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
The absolute actor. The absolute film., 6 April 2001

Author: Hamlet-30 from Madrid, Spain

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.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Bear Him My Head. They Smile At Me Who Shortly Shall Be Dead, 19 February 2004
Author: J. Wellington Peevis from Malltown

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.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
First Rate Production! A Classic Film!, 11 December 2005

Author: Sylvia Marciniak (sylviastel@aol.com) from United States

It is kind of sad to know that this was Lord Laurence Olivier's last film by the works of William Shakespeare simply because it failed in the movie theaters. Besides Olivier's performance, there was Sir John Gielgud, Sir Cedric Hardwicke, and Sir Ralph Richardson in supporting roles. The color is first rate for its time period. The costumes are gorgeous. Claire Bloom gives the best female performance in the film as Lady Anne. This film should have allowed Olivier to do more Shakespeare films like he wanted to do. Instead, he went on to do other roles. This film is worth viewing for the stunning interpretation of William Shakespeare's works. If you seen Olivier's films like Hamlet, he does give remarkable attention to detail. Olivier reminds me of Orson Welles who produced, wrote, directed, and even acted in the number one film of all time, Citizen Kane. I believe Olivier was trying to capture that by doing Shakespeare. I am sure William Shakespeare is proud of the work done by actors like Olivier, Gielgud, Richardson, Welles, Hardwicke, and hundreds of others. This film would be suitable for the classroom and worthy for viewing for historic and entertaining purposes. Please give it a chance.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
The DEFINITIVE "Richard III" Unless Kenneth Branagh Does His Own Film Version. Sir Laurence Olivier's Greatest Masterpiece After "Hamlet.", 1 July 2006

Author: hamletmusketeersbond (hamletmusketeersbond@yahoo.com) from North Miami, Florida

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Sir Laurence Olivier's classic film version of "A warped hunchback who sought solace and glory in being a king" is arguably the BEST film (some may prefer the modernized 1995 film done in a "Nazi-Britain" setting, a very poor film by comparison and utter waste of celluloid and talent, if you ask me). Olivier was the BEST when it came to translating the immortal and prolific Bard of Stratford-Upon-Avon (37 plays, 154 sonnets and 4 poems) to the silver screen. His Freudian interpretation of "Hamlet" (for which he won Best Picture and Best Actor, in addition to the film's other two wins) is a cinematic wonder and his "Richard III" is a towering epic cinematic achievement. When Richard exclaims, "Now is the winter of our discontent turned glorious summer by this sun of York, and all the clouds that lour'd upon our house in the deep bosom of the ocean buried," the viewer is immediately drawn into his "Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, by drunken prophecies..." Though in retrospect he regretted casting his old friend Sir Ralph Richardson as the Duke Of Buckingham instead of Orson Welles ("Citizen Kane," "Jane Eyre," (1944) "Macbeth," (1948) "Othello," (1952) etc), I can't imagine a man of Orson Welles' stature and deep voice literally cringing before Sir Laurence Olivier's evil Richard when he strikes his staff in anger, snarling, "Well then, let it strike!! Thou comest 'twixt me and my meditation. I am not in the giving vein today." The DEFINITIVE "Richard III" unless Kenneth Branagh, himself a great Shakespearean actor, comes up with his own film version. Not Rated. AVOID the 1995 film AT ALL COSTS!!!

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history