IMDb user comments for
Titus (1999) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 28:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

275 comments in total

---

85 out of 95 people found the following comment useful :-
gripping, absurdist view of Shakespeare, 17 August 2000
Author: Roland E. Zwick (magneteach@aol.com) from United States

In recent years, a new fashion has sprung up among filmmakers who have attempted to bring Shakespeare's works to the screen. No longer content to keep the plays bound to the historical eras in which they are set, many an adapter has chosen to transport the plots and dialogue virtually intact to either a completely modern setting or a strange never-never land that combines elements of the past with elements of the present. In just the last few years, we have seen this done with `Romeo and Juliet,' `Richard the Third' (albeit this one made it only as far as the 1940's) and even Kenneth Branagh's `Hamlet,' which, although also not exactly contemporary in setting, did at least move that familiar story ahead in time several centuries. Now comes `Titus,' a film based on one of Shakespeare's earliest, bloodiest and least well known plays, `Titus Andronicus,' and, in many ways, this film is the most bizarrely conceived of the four, since it creates a world in which - amidst the architectural splendors of ancient columned buildings - Roman warriors, dressed in traditional armor and wielding unsheathed swords, battle for power in a land disconcertingly filled with motorcycles and automobiles, pool tables and Pepsi cans, punk hair cuts and telephone poles, video games and loud speakers. The effect of all this modernization may be unsettling and off-putting to the Shakespearean purist, yet, in the case of all four of these films, the directorial judgment has paid off handsomely. Not only does this technique revive some of the freshness of these overly familiar works, but these strange, otherworldly settings actually render more poetic the heightened unreality of Shakespeare's dialogue. Plus, in all honesty, Shakespeare's plays are themselves riddled with so many examples of historical anachronisms that the `crime' of modernization seems a piddling one at best.

Those unfamiliar with `Titus Andronicus' may well be caught off guard by the ferocious intensity of this Shakespearean work. Moralists who decry the rampant display of unrestrained violence in contemporary culture and look longingly back to a time when art and entertainment were supposedly free of this particular blight may well be shocked and appalled to see Shakespeare's utter relishment in gruesomeness and gore here. In this shocking tale of betrayal, vengeance and rampant brutality, heads, tongues and limbs are lopped off with stunning regularity and it is a measure of Julie Taymor's skill as a director and her grasp of the shocking nature of the material that, even in this day and age when we have become so inured and jaded in the area of screen violence, we are truly shaken by the work's cruelty and ugliness. Yet, Taymor occasionally injects scenes of daring black comedy into the proceedings, as when Titus and his brother carry away the heads of his sons contained in glass jars while his own daughter, who has had her own hands chopped off in a vicious rape, carries Titus' own dismembered hand in her teeth! There are even meat pies made out of two of Titus's enemies to be served up as dinner for their unwitting mother. Thus, even though we can never take our eyes off the screen, this is often a very difficult film to watch.

`Titus' is filled with elements of character, plot and theme that Shakespeare would enlarge upon in later works. It includes a father betrayed by his progeny (`King Lear'), a Moorish general (`Othello'), a struggle for political power (`Julius Caesar' among others) and - a theme that runs through virtually all Shakespeare's tragedies - the need for revenge to maintain filial or familial honor. Anthony Hopkins is superb as Titus, capturing the many internal contradictions that plague this man who, though a beloved national hero and military conqueror, finds himself too weary to accept the popular acclamation to make him emperor - a decision he will live to rue when his refusal ends up placing the power directly into the hands of a rival who makes it his ambition to bring ghastly ruin upon Titus' family. Titus is also a man who can, without a twinge of conscience, kill a son he feels has betrayed him and disembowel a captive despite the pleas of his desperate mother, yet, at the same time, show mercy to the latter's family, humbly refuse the power offered him, and break down in heartbroken despair at the executions of his sons and the sight of his own beloved daughter left tongueless and handless by those very same people he has seen fit to spare. Jessica Lange, as the mother of the captive Titus cruelly dismembers, seethes with subtle, pent-up anger as she plots her revenge against Titus and his family.

Visually, this widescreen film is a stunner. Taymor matches the starkness of the drama with a concomitant visual design, often grouping her characters in studied compositions set in bold relief against an expansive, dominating sky. At times, the surrealist imagery mirrors Fellini at his most flamboyant.

The fact that this is one of Shakespeare's earliest works is evident in the undisciplined plotting and the emphasis on sensationalism at the expense of the powerful themes that would be developed more fully in those later plays with which we are all familiar. At the end of the story, for instance, many of the characters seem to walk right into their deaths in ways that defy credibility. We sense that Shakespeare may not yet have developed the playwright's gift for bringing all his elements together to create a satisfying resolution. Thus, it is the raw energy of the novice - the obvious glee with which this young writer attacks his new medium - that Taymor, in her wildly absurdist style, taps into most strongly. `Titus' may definitely not be for the faint of heart or the weak of stomach, but the purely modern way in which the original play is presented in this particular film version surely underlines the timelessness that is Shakespeare.

---

55 out of 58 people found the following comment useful :-
A "timeless" retelling, 14 January 2004

Author: shaquanda36 from Little Rock, Arkansas

Titus. Where to begin? Oh yes, at the beginning. William Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus early in his career. VERY early in his career, and such is apparent. On stage, this script as a play must be awful. Character motivations are not explained, there are holes in the action, a character leaves the country and then comes back, seemingly only to set up the climax. There is little explanation of action, and it is less poetic than some of his masterworks (Midsummer, Hamlet, Lear). And yet, Julie Taymor, renowned for her fantastical vision of The Lion King on Broadway, chose this, possibly Shakespeare's most problematic play, to be her introduction to film.

This adaptation is wonderful. Why? Because it fills all the holes of the initial play. She adds scenes without dialogue, she makes the setting timeless and symbolic, and removes it from the realm of reality, wherein the play never worked to begin with. She tranforms a difficult play about revenge into much, much more. It is now a feast for the eyes, a commentary on revenge, power, theatre, film, and villiany.

To be fair, I am not giving Shakespeare enough credit. The play he wrote has many marvelous aspects, mainly the Aaron - possibly Shakespeare's greatest villian. He is unrelenting. And in the film, he is wonderfully acted. Titus is a good character too, and Anthony Hopkins acts him well enough.

It would be easy for a Shakespeare purist to say "eww, what was that," but I would call this retelling a gem. It is moody, gritty, passionate, clever, awe-inspiring, and true to the theme of the original script. It has only added to Shakespeare's words. Is it perfect? No. It does make you stretch yourself, the ending is a head-scratcher, but this will be my favorite Shakespeare adaptation for a long time to come. 9/10

---

52 out of 60 people found the following comment useful :-
Beautiful adaptation, 12 January 2000

Author: katht from Seattle WA

This film demonstrates how a stage director can combine the unique atmosphere of theater with the stark realism--and fantastic effects-- of film and make a beautiful, moving masterpiece. The words are Shakespeare, the staging is fabulous, the costumes and sets are remarkable and memorable. Jessica Lange and Anthony Hopkins and Alan Cummings radiate. Seeing Titus leaves one exhausted and exhilarated, believing one has seen true, gifted, timeless film making.

Titus is one of Shakespeare's little-known, earlier works, and it is a violent, disturbing tragedy. The producer and director took incredible risks to bring this remarkable experience to you. I know you will be moved.

---

40 out of 51 people found the following comment useful :-
Shakespeare's play: brought to a beautiful and other - worldly stage., 23 February 2001

Author: Doctor Froese (boo_@hotmail.com) from Calgary, AB, CANADA

This is something that I just cannot seem to express. First: There is a love for the artistic sense of the movie. Does that outdo William Shakespeare's wonderful scripts? Perhaps (?).

It is one of my favourite things. To sit down and watch a movie, that wants to express so much more through the characters and their surroundings, than simply what they have to say through word and expression. When they themselves are an expression. For me, it feels like a `perfectionist's movie'. I get the sense that every person's face was chosen for their look and how it could help the character's personality that they are meant to portray. While still taking into consideration the competence of the actor or actress.

Every scene is constructed meticulously. Of course, I cannot envy quite so completely, the full out patience and exacting eye that it took to look at the creative genius of each idea. For every room, each building, each camera angle of the few rundown humble city sidewalks, made to contrast the elegance of the royalty, or to add to it's persona. These things are created like any other movie must create its sets. But for me it seems that they may have found the perfect camera angle to film whichever character's scene it was.

Perhaps I delve too deeply into these things, like some attempt at creating meaning for an accidental painting, but I cannot say that this was an accident. Nor should it be compared to one.

The director, Julie Taymor, found perfection in this movie. Although the idea of bringing a Shakespearean play up to date, is definitely not unheard of, this was still a first for me. The artistic beauty of it, was in finding the plot come to life on a surreal and ambiguous stage. Set in no time and no space. We are first presented with an unwatched child, reeking havoc on a cluttered kitchen table, covered in toys and particular action-figures that we will later realize, slightly resemble a portion of our soon-to-be-introduced cast. An explosion abruptly interrupts the child, and a man comes inside, smudged dirty and looking like something that reminded me of a `troglodyte' from the French film `The Delicatessen'. He bundles the young boy into his arms, and takes him down an unrealistically long flight of stairs, into an expansive old Roman coliseum, where our play then begins. You are left pondering the happenings of the film, and I myself thought at one point, that perhaps the entire thing was happening inside of this child's head.

Whatever the case, it was brilliantly done. The unthought-of effect, is perhaps merely the setting of the stage: bringing us from our world, to another. So that we might witness the story completely, out of ourselves.

I will say nothing of the plot. Accept simply, that it is far more gruesome than what you would general expect of William Shakespeare's plays. The gore was somewhat unexpected , and my love for the movie would falter here, if not for the shockingly horrific scenes maintaining that perfect form throughout, that I was so drawn to. I could enjoy both the visually stimulating scenes, and the stimulating script, as completely separate things. Put together they held me in an even more profound state of wonder and. celebration, for sight and sound.

An absolutely fantastic movie. Very well done. Well envisioned and well realized, well filmed, well acted. yes, very well done. Quite artful.

---

29 out of 33 people found the following comment useful :-
Possibly the most faithfully recreated Shakespeare play ever, 27 November 2004
Author: Ex0dus from Seattle, WA

Taken from the Shakespeare play 'Titus Andronicus', A very dark humored and brutal work originally, Julie Taymor isolates and drives upon the very force that brought William Shakespeare to his immortal success: Shock your audience.

A Roman General(Titus) after loosing many of his sons as soldiers in battle returns to a war-hungry Rome days after the death of Julius Ceasar. You're introduced to the story as the two sons of the Emperor petition to succeed their Father. Superficially this story is an all-out-tragedy. Underneath, however, it's a causticly ironic tale to see a man forge the tools of his own suffering through his own arrogant and selfish misdoings, then to eventually find shame and humility.

This movie is so packed with metaphor most viewers find it intimidating. It's an amazingly seamless telling of a story using time-specific visual references to outline the characters and events. i.e. the nazi-esque motorcade, biker costumes appear similar to the Italian fascist movement, evident paranoia. While the rival motorcade appears symbolic of John Kennedy and symbiotic trust.

The costume design is fabulous, obvious 1960's Glam/GlamRock design influences carefully illustrate the vanity and narcissism of Roman culture at the time using flashy wool-lined synthetics. I openly covet the cape Titus wears. Shakespeare took particular pleasure mocking a society with conveniently and easily deniable Gods, such that the Gods themselves treat their fates as tragic playthings.

And I digress... my main point is Shakespeare built his fame on being what has always been considered taboo and edgy: sex, violence, death and profanity. Julie Taymor having not missed a beat with the visuals, which are terrible and powerful at times, only seek to punctuate tragedy, much unlike its 1999 counterpart 'Titus Andronicus' which focused more on hate and revenge making for very unreasonable 1 dimensional characters.

My advice: Watch this movie more than once. Every time I do I glean more from it. Tony Hopkins and Alan Cumming both give some of the best performances of their careers, Moreover one of the best directed films ever IMHO.

---

32 out of 42 people found the following comment useful :-
Simple excellence, 13 January 2004

Author: David Balparda de Carvalho from Belo Horizonte, Brazil

No spoilers here.

This is a Shakespeare play, and this one is no comedy, I must say. Shakespeare liked the Rome background, and exploited it quite, though with some anachronysms, and, in this one, a victorious general, Titus, returns to Rome amidst the succession dispute following the death of the Caesar. Soon he will be entangled in a vicious plot.

Yes, Titus is the early, sensational, Shakespeare play, but, it displays to us what can be most dreadful in human nature. A story of vengeance like I've never seen, I felt myself tossed to the pits of utter filth when I first read it. It's violent, violent, violent and simple, yet, not cheesy. It's a kind of violence that you wouldn't ever see in action-packed movies with bullets afly.

The movie can hold you to your seat if you have watched other Shakespeare play based movies previously, for it is intense. The background and costumes are not genuine Rome, they were modified to something that resembles the movie "Dune", but nothing is ridiculously anachronic, like I thought of that DiCaprio "Romeo & Juliet", which made me leave the seat in the very beginning (the "Sword" scene). This movie Titus doesn't try to be historical or actual, it's more surreal-like, with original, abridged, text. The violence is quite explicit, so have your stomach ready.

Alas, the acting is great! Totally recommended, this story is the Centaurs' Feast! Our journey shall be a very long and ominous journey, but you shall part on it with me.

---

20 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the best Shakespeare adaptations i have seen. Actors are comfortable in the material. **** (out of four), 11 April 2001

Author: Blake French (baffilmcritic@cs.com) from USA

TITUS / (1999) **** (out of four)

By Blake French:

"Titus Andronicus" proves Shakespeare had a dirty, violent mind. The original tragedy, one of Shakespeare's lesser known, plays like a 90's slasher film, with enough blood, guts, decapitations, amputations, murders, and missing limbs for several modern day horror romps. When director Julie Taymor adapted the play to the screen, she proved what a brave, gutsy filmmaker we have working here. It's like watching an on-screen play, with all the guts and glory of Shakespeare; the script does not even feel as if it was rewritten for the screen, but left for a modern dramatization of theater. Her film "Titus," starring veteran actors Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lang, is one of the most bizarre updates of William Shakespeare's work I can remember-and that is a very good thing.

Anthony Hopkins plays general Titus Andronicus, at the heart of the story, who, as the movie opens, returns from conquering the Goths. Ignoring the motives of his mother, Tamora (Lang), and her two lasting sons, Chiron (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), and Demetrius (Matthew Rhys), Titus ceremoniously sacrifices one of the apprehended enemies and supports the scandalous Saturninus (Alan Cumming) who is soon to be emperor.

Saturninus chooses Titus' daughter, Lavinia (Laura Fraser), to be his wife, despite the fact that she has already been plighted to Saturninus own brother (James Frain). The young couple flee after hearing the decision, causing Titus to murder one of his own disputing sons. Saturninus then chooses Tamora as his new bridal choice.

What follows is a series of memorable events that begin as a simple revenge scheme against Titus and his daughter, led by Tamora and her sons, and her secret lover, the sadistic Moor Aaron (Harry Lennix). From that point on, Titus rebels against his alliances and joins his family, including younger brother Lucius (Colm Feore), in a battle against his enemies to seek ever so sweet revenge.

Unlike the modern update of "Romeo & Juliet" in 1996, the actors in "Titus" feel very comfortable with the Shakespearean language. They all do an exceptionally convincing job bringing the beautiful language to life inside their artistic characters. Anthony Hopkins is right at home here, delivering a challenging, particularly involving, and gripping performance. Alan Cumming is perfectly cast as a sleazy slime ball. Jessica Lang takes advantage of capturing such a juicy, extravagant character and is not afraid to overact when necessary.

It is the tone, however, and the atmosphere, that makes the production so captivating. Some scenes feel as if we are in some zany, demented comedy of bleak proportions, often seized by the engaging, although unusual, sound track. In one scene, we feel uncomfortable with the sight of several young men listening to heavy rock music and playing video games in a Shakespearean movie. It is also continuously unique and entertaining. There is an absolutely stunning sequence in an orgy, and the throat slitting, cannibalistic finale seems like something Hannibal Lector would concoct.

"Titus" is a very strange, peculiar picture, often disturbing and cringe-inducing. It is not a movie for everyone. Although the film is made in a way in which I think most intelligent audiences could at least somewhat understand, it is also extremely graphic in its violence and sexual content; it is R-rated and intended for mature audiences only. "Titus" will captivate forbearing fans of its unique genre, but disgust those looking for passionate and a happy ending. I found myself reluctant at first, but once I gave myself over to the characters, story, and motives, I was simply enthralled by the dazzling filmmaking here. "Titus" is one of the year's best films.

---

22 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Madness, 19 December 2004

Author: Thomas Honoré Nielsen from Ho, Denmark

Titus Andronicus is the strangest of Shakespeare's tragedies and the tragedy which most underlines the modern day observation that his tragedies are often comic and his comedies fairly tragic. Particularly the final chain murder has always made me laugh in the theatrical renditions and this one is definitely up to par. As for the rest of the movie, it is a mix of beautiful images, wonderful acting, rotten acting and failed attempts to surrealize an already surreal play. Anthony Hopkins is almost perfect as Titus, Colm Feore pretty good as his righteous brother and Jessica Lange intolerable as Tamora, while most of the rest range from mildly indifferent to pretty okay. As for Aaron in the shape of Harry Lennix he is actually quite convincing albeit not quite in the same league as Kenneth Brannagh who did the all time finest Shakespeare mischievery playing Iago in Othello. But Brannagh as a Moor would be downright laughable - so a compromise well turned out.

The modernisation of Shakespeare is in my opinion an impossibility. Some of his plays have a plot which makes a good basis for a modern production, but Shakespeare's absolute forté is his language and his linguistic jokes and acting in old English requires settings true to the play. That said, I think some of the scenes worked better in this surrealistic environment than they would have - scenes like Titus assembling his men for the shot at the Gods, or the messenger returning his sons' heads in a theater truck. That was novel.

As for the overall feel of this movie, only one word suffices: Madness.

- Thomas Nielsen

---

15 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Freakishly beautiful and the best villains in Shakespeare, 23 May 2004

Author: Julie Hoverson from Seattle

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The production in this movie is wonderful - particularly if you're able to accept the strange cross-genre world the movie is set in. Much like the world of Tim Burton's Batman was sort of the 40s and sort of the future, this takes modern day and mixes it with touches from ancient Rome, to make a weird fantasy realm where anything can happen. A DARK fantasy realm.

This serves a couple of really good purposes - first, some of the touches are inherently humorous, thus lightening a play which could be called "the Texas Chainsaw Massacre of Shakespeare." Far more importantly, however, is the visual cues which it gives a modern audience.

The average person, even someone fairly versed in Shakespeare like myself, sees two guys walk into the Roman senate, dressed in togas, and orating, and there is NOT A SINGLE visual cue to tell me who these guys are. I don't know toga styles! On the other hand if one of them (Bassianus) is progressing to the senate, chilling in the back of his convertible, wearing a leather jacket, addressing his followers with a bullhorn, and his brother Saturninus is encased in a full-on pope-mobile with a leather greatcoat and a greased-down forelock - that tells me something about these guys!!!

OK, the plot - nearly everybody dies. I would call this a spoiler, but anyone who knows that (a) this is Shakespeare and (b) this is considered a tragedy, then knows that - by definition - nearly everybody dies. The cool thing is the plots and counter-plots as the various characters try to take down, take out, or take on the others.

The basic premise is, however, that Titus Andronicus is a great general who has just returned from war with captives, including defeated Queen Tamora, her three sons, and her servant Aaron (ooh, is he evil!!). Despite the queen's desperate pleas for mercy, Titus sacrifices Tamora's oldest son to the gods, as a thank you for victory, and thus starts the chain of back and forth murdering which goes on for the rest of the film.

Two things which will probably be of interest to no one but myself, but I have to express are the theme of the play/film and Titus' fatal flaw.

First, in screenplay classes you work hard to get "theme" - some concept which is not necessarily brought out in the plot, but is supposed to be woven throughout your movie and generally never is, or is something really simplistic and obvious. However, the theme of Titus is actually exquisitely done, and was in the original play, which makes me wonder quite why people generally regard it as a throw-away piece among Shakespeare's works.

The theme I see is "what we do for our children", which seems an odd one for such a bloody play, but it is the killing of Tamora's son which sets off the maelstrom. When her sons attack and mutilate Titus' daughter Lavinia, he gets his revenge, and then does for Lavinia the greatest, most honorable thing he can - kills her. The two sons of the recently deceased emperor, the aforementioned Bassianus and Saturninus, have no father to look out for them, and he didn't name a successor before his death, which is what leads them astray, and finally, Aaron, despite being a self-proclaimed villain (and who tricks Titus into cutting off his OWN FREAKING HAND - now THAT'S a villain!), kills whoever he has to in order to protect his own progeny.

Now for the fatal flaw - again, a fascinating concept which struck me like a ton of bricks when I "got it". (For those how don't know, each of Shakespeare's tragic heroes is fatally flawed in some way, and when I was in high school our teacher made us always write essays on these, which is why I look in the first place - Hamlet's, for instance, is indecision, while Macbeth's is being "wife-"whipped.)

Titus's fascinating flaw is "Tradition". Every decision he makes, until he goes mad (or pretends to), is entirely dictated by tradition, and every decision is a bad one. He is offered the job of emperor and turns it down, then selects Saturninus to take the job - on the grounds that he is the dead emperor's eldest son, despite the fact that he is obviously going to be a petty despot. Then, when Saturninus asks for Titus' daughter in marriage, Titus agrees, even though she's already betrothed to (and in love with) the younger son, and when her brothers "rescue" her so she can run off with her true love? Titus kills one of his own sons - executing him as a traitor.

Time after time, tradition and "the right thing to do" is Titus' downfall. By the end of the story, he deliberately turns his own flaw back on himself by asking Saturninus what should happen to a woman who has been dishonored and damaged - should she be killed, as set forth in historical precedent? When the emperor flippantly agrees, Titus kills his own daughter, right there at the dinner table. To her, it is a mercy, but to everyone else, it's a real eye-opener!!!

OK, enough ranting. THIS time...

---

29 out of 44 people found the following comment useful :-
What Shakespeare is bad Shakespeare?, 8 November 2004

Author: steveweing from Minneapolis

I liked this movie a lot. Shakespeare is the only profound person I've ever come across and this movie did him justice.

If you like Shakespeare and aren't hung up on the need of Shakespeare plays / movies to use English accents, then watch this movie.

Brilliant acting, brilliant production. This isn't the typical low budget Shakespeare movie that hurts the eyes. It's an unsettling movie which is good because it's an unsettling play. The movie did a good job of expressing the feeling that is hidden within the text.

Anthony Hopkins is an amazing actor, backed up by other actors who are almost as impressive.

---

---

Page 1 of 28:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

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