Watch Richard III For Free

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

How many times have we seen a version of Shakespeare's 'Richard III'? Probably more times than we can count. In 1995, director Richard Loncraine and Sir Ian McKellan (Gandalf the Grey) wanted to adapt 'Richard III' into a modern film. And since McKellan already was in the stage play, which he helped get off the ground, this match made in heaven seemed like the perfect fit. McKellan even served as a big consultant and writer on this unique adaption of Shakespeare's work.Over the past twenty years, a lot of Shakespeare enthusiasts and followers have expressed negative reviews of this film, because it is not true to Shakespeare's work. Even in college, I remember discussing with my fellow film and theatre peers why this version of 'Richard III' is so good and unique. Most people seem to forget that the real Richard III was alive more than a century before Shakespeare came along and started writing about him. This tells me that Shakespeare was in the game of entertaining and captivating his audience, rather than tell something of historical fact from top to bottom.First and foremost, most movies are here to entertain us, and if they're based on true events, which most films are these days, there are usually some part of this realistic story that actually happened. However, a lot of these films or stories have been embellished and created to entertain us. If we really wanted to adapt the real life story of Richard III or even just take the exact story from Shakespeare's words, we'd be in front of a stage or screen for hours and hours on end, which is why most adaptations we've seen have excluded many scenes and characters from the play.This 1995 film does that, but plays out like a cohesive WWII film with the same overall characters from Shakespeare's mind. It's impressive feat and film for sure with stellar performances from McKellan as Richard the Duke of Gloucester, Robert Downey Jr., Annette Bening, Jim Broadbent, Maggie Smith, Kristin Scott Thomas, and a young Dominic West. This film takes place in a fictional fascist England, where Richard (McKellan) is on a destructive path to destroy almost everything. What is so interesting about this film is the strange social and political climate it instills that happened during these years, as it doesn't quite go with Shakespeare's original vision or even history.But that's the point here. 'Richard III' is a creative adaptation of what some veteran Shakespeare scholars wanted to portray for a modern audience. I know it's weird, but I'll compare 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' to this. That iconic horror movie was based off a couple of real life serial killers, specifically Ed Gein. In order to tell a story of something that might have happened in actual history, an indie filmmaker decided to take elements of these true events and turn it into a crazy family in Austin, Texas, but still showed some of the facts of this killer's life.It made for a brilliant film that still scares audiences today. This 1995 version of 'Richard III' is far from the 1955 version that starred Laurence Olivier, but it still stands on its own. It's a fantastic war film with brilliant performances and set pieces, and is a very welcome addition into the Shakespeare realm.

As I said in my review of Laurence Olivier's 1955 film version, "Richard III" is my least favourite of the Shakespearean plays with which I am familiar as I don't think that its language and exploration of themes are on the same level as his best work such as "Hamlet" or "Macbeth". When it came to the Olivier film, I think that he forgot that he was a great actor and director while he was making it as his performance is too over the top and hammy and his direction is pedestrian. He failed to live up to the high standards that he set for himself on both fronts in "Henry V" and "Hamlet". Thankfully, this is a far, far superior version which has served to increase my appreciation for the play. As with most Shakespearean films, it makes changes to the play, the Bard's longest after "Hamlet". It only incorporates about half of the text, conflates several characters, cuts out others and reorders some of the events. At only 100 minutes, it's a very fast paced film.Of the eight Shakespearean films that I have watched this year, this is the first in which the lead actor was not also the director. However, Ian McKellen did play another important behind the scenes role as he and the director Richard Loncraine wrote the screenplay. Loncraine does a wonderful job in the director's chair. The film has a great atmosphere and I love the cinematography. The film takes place in an alternate history fascist version of 1930s Britain. This is an excellent creative decision as Richard's rise to and consolidation of power is highly reminiscent of the Night of the Long Knives and, on the other end of the political spectrum, Stalin's Show Trials, given that he frequently uses trumped up charges to get his enemies out of his way. In the visual sense, many of the costumes are obviously based on Nazi uniforms and the scene in which Richard's accession is announced looks like something out of "Triumph des Willens". On an even simpler level, Richard has a moustache! In reality, Elizabeth Woodville belonged to a minor aristocratic family and was the first commoner to become queen. In the film, she is depicted as an American socialite reminiscent of Wallis Simpson and she and her brother Lord Rivers are looked down on because of it.As the title character, Ian McKellen is absolutely remarkable. While Olivier's Richard was too obviously villainous, McKellen portrays him as a Machiavellian manipulator who skilfully moves all of the pieces into place to secure his accession to the throne without ever tipping his hand. He uses guile and subtlety to achieve his ends, playing the role of a loving brother to Edward IV and Clarence and a loving uncle to Edward V and the Duke of York. As in real life, it's not the villains who wear black hats and twirl their moustaches that you have to worry about; it's the one who take a more subtle approach, at least initially. In private, however, he relishes his status as a villain, delivering his soliloquies to the camera with a smirk. He even jumps for joy after he asks the Lady Anne, the widow of Henry VI's son the Prince of Wales whom he murdered days earlier, to marry him.The film has a very strong cast overall. After McKellen, I thought that the strongest performer was Annette Bening as his sister-in-law Elizabeth Woodville, who has a large role in the film as opposed to the character's fleeting appearances in the Olivier version. She is a very strong woman who, in one of the film's best scenes, openly accuses Richard of murder and refuses to allow her daughter Elizabeth to marry him. Bening is more than a match for McKellen in their scenes together. Another strong female character is Richard's mother the Duchess of York, whose role is merged with Henry VI's widow Queen Margaret. She grows to despise her son as the film progresses and his villainy becomes all the more apparent. I have to admit that I've never thought of Maggie Smith as highly as I think of other British actresses of her generation such as Judi Dench, Vanessa Redgrave or Glenda Jackson but she is excellent in the film. Kristin Scott Thomas has less screen time but she excels in the aforementioned scene in which Richard proposes to her, delivering a wonderfully understated performance in contrast to Claire Bloom's caterwauling in the 1955 film. Jim Broadbent, in particular, and Tim McInnerny were cast against type as Richard's lackeys Buckingham and Catesby but they're both very good. Nigel Hawthorne is downright brilliant as Clarence, who is blind to his brother's true nature until it is far too late. He particularly excels in his monologue in the rain on the roof of the Tower of London. John Wood is excellent as the easily manipulated king Edward IV who trusts the wrong brother. One thing that is quite funny about the film is that Maggie Smith plays McKellen, Hawthorne and Wood's mother in spite of the fact that she is not only a mere five years older than McKellen but five years younger than Hawthorne and four years younger than Wood! Bill Paterson, Donald Sumpter, Jim Carter and Edward Hardwicke (whose father Cedric played Edward IV in the 1955 version) are all very effective in comparatively small roles. The weakest link acting wise is Robert Downey, Jr. I don't think that Shakespeare is really his forte but he's quite good. It's certainly not a disaster on the same level as Keanu Reeves' performance in "Much Ado About Nothing".Overall, this is a brilliant film which offers fresh insight into both a 400 year old play and some of the worst moments of the 20th Century. It's a shame that McKellen and Bening didn't receive Oscar nominations for Best Actor and Best Actress.

Now I have heard it said that the beauty about Shakespeare is that you can take it out of the setting in which the original play was written in, place it in a new setting, and it will still be a brilliant play. Now this is something that I do not necessarily agree with, namely because while up until the 20th Century this could be the case, the world has changed and a lot of the dialogue simply does not fit. Now the events of this film are set in the 15th Century, however the film itself is set in the 1930's. This in itself worked well (and as I argue, made for a very original film) but it falls apart at the end when Richard, after his jeep is bogged, cries out 'a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse'. This, personally, does not really make any sense on the modern battlefield (not that horses aren't used, back in 2004 or 2005, I can't quite remember when, the capital of Kyrgistan was stormed by men on horseback), however I really do not want this minor problem destroy a good film. What this film is doing, is taking the story of Richard III out of the historical content and simply turning into a play about a tyrant.Now, it is debatable as to whether Richard III was actually a tyrant. He was the last of the Plantagenet dynasty, and was deposed at the battle of Bosworth field, after Henry Tudor defeated him and claimed the English throne for himself. This was considered to be the end of England's medieval period and brought not only stability to the country, but also ushered her into the Modern Era. Beforehand, England has just come out of a 100 year war with France (on the losing side) and this sent the country into civil war (the War of the Roses) in which the houses of Lancaster and York fought over the English Throne. The beginning of the play has Edward assume the throne after his predecessor, Henry VI is defeated in battle, however Edward is not on the throne for long and after he dies his son, Edward, takes the throne with Richard as Lord Protector. However, the barons vote to give the throne to Richard, and the crown prince and his brother then disappear.What is not clear is whether Richard was actually responsible for Edward's death and his children's disappearance, and whether his took the throne through manipulation and stealth (something which had been happening since the close of the 100 years war). What Shakespeare does though is turn Richard into a villain. It appears that Richard's deformity was a creation of Shakespeare, and the rumour that the princes were murdered in the Tower of London is also said to be of his creation. In fact, it is suggested that the princes simply vanished from public life after Richard was crowned.One might raise the point that the princes were imprisoned in the Tower of London. While these days the Tower of London is seen as a prison, back then this wasn't the case. The Tower, along with numerous other castles, were originally built by William the Conquerer to protect his newly conquered realm, and later reinforced by Edward III. The Tower of London in Richard's time was simply another castle, and it was only after this incidence that it inherited its reputation. It should also be remembered that in those days royalty, when imprisoned, were held in the castles, but not in the dungeons as we imagine. Castles were luxurious (and the Tower of London was no exception) and while one may have been imprisoned, imprisonment meant that one simply could not leave the castle.Another thing that stood out with this movie was how Richard came to the throne. We have the nobles and barons all pressuring him to take the throne, and in the end he relents. However, this film (and I suspect Shakespeare as well) manipulate this to make it appear that it was all a part of the plan between Buckingham and Richard. However, once Richard is on the throne, he becomes even more wretched and corrupt, in then end killing children and rejecting his friends, until he is left alone on Bodsworth Field. It is funny that when he does cry out 'a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse', he really did not have a kingdom left to give. He had already lost. As for the horse, well if you led an army and you lost your horse, then you were in trouble.It is a shame that this film is very difficult to come by because I really do like this movie. I found it original, and the setting in the 1930's with Richard taking on a fascist mantle upon assuming the throne worked very well. While fascism did not exist in the 15th Century, and while Richard was strictly not a fascist, he was a tyrant (and least as the play portrays him) and to put him in the uniform of a fascist simply adds to the impression of tyranny that the play creates.

The 1995 film is a masterpiece. I'm not familiar with Richard Loncraine, the director, but the cast includes such luminaries as Ian McKellan, Annette Bening, Jim Broadbent, Robert Downey, Jr., Kristin Scott Thomas, and Maggie Smith.McKellan adapted the play to a modern England where it has become a fascist state. King Richard is a kind of Hitler, and the wars are fought with modern equipment. We are sucked into McKellan's version so completely that the anachronisms between the language and the time don't matter. McKellan is excellent as the mad would-be dictator, and the rest of the cast is lifted to his level. As with all Shakespeare's work, I recommend reading the work before seeing the movie. I'd suggest a copy of the Folger's or Arden editions (either or both probably available from your local library for free) with explanations of the more obscure words and phrases. The language of Shakespeare is beautiful, and the cast here is equal to the words.McKellan is a superbly evil and maniacal Richard as he murders his way to the throne, and his death is one of the best on film. He nails the role; he nails the look as a sordid, dissolute tyrant.This adaptation is similar to July Taymore's adaptation of "Titus Andronicus" to modern times in her 1999 film "Titus." Taymore and McKellan have both done excellent jobs of introducing modern elements into classical tragedies from Shakespeare. They showcase the incredible genius behind the works, still relevant today.A reminder that this film is an adaptation and that McKellan rearranged scenes, removed characters, and rewrote dialogue. I have not seen Olivier's "Richard III," but it gets high marks as the best on film for the true play, not an adaptation.