Genius move to have had the first part of this speech delivered to an adoring public, then have Richard confide in us his real motives...while having a slash, which is about us intimate as you get. So hard to find a new way to deliver famous Shakespeare soliloquies. David Tennant does it very well with 'To be or not to be...'.
@@mushroomhead3619 Shakespeare own, unaltered works is ripe with historical inaccuracies and unrealistic actions. He wasn't a historian, but a director and writer for making what was then "popular" entertainment; plays that were made to be re-adapted by a theater or a troupe see fit as time goes on. To try to shove in "historical realism" in often unapologetically historically inaccurate and unrealistic by design plays doesn't work like you think it would.
This is such a fascinating way to deliver the lines, and such an interesting take on the character. The acting is phenomenal, of course, but that is to be expected, I really think the directing is worthy of credit. I always thought of Richard as being very similar to Shylock as one of Shakespeare's great sympathetic villains, somebody shaped by his conditions to be evil. I find the line "since I cannot play the lover, I am determined to play the villain" to be particularly resonant. Not so with this performance. Here, Richard is an unapologetically evil schemer, the soliloquy isn't a cry of anger and resolution of evil as much as it is a twisted sense of pride in his wickedry that he wants to share with the audience. I love this direction that they took the character, and honestly think this is the best performance on TH-cam, having watched both Cumberbatch's and Olivier's before this.
Shakespeare's historic plays were the 16th century English equivalent of 20th Century American Gangster Movies, on par with 'The Godfather/Goodfella's/Casino etc..' with equally memorable dialogue and scene's
Right, Beek--and perhaps the most chlling scene is the room hung with Richard's banners, a brilliant imitation of Nazi pageantry. Will there even be a greater Shakespeare film? I doubt it.
So many of my favourite actors here (I swear I saw some Hogwarts professors as well) . Looks like a really good movie version. Only one complaint: honestly, why did we need to follow Sir Ian into the bathroom? Give the man some privacy, damn it!
@@323guiltyspark An interesting parallel, sure, but it's in the original. Henry VI. Part Three. Richard's soliloquy, Act III, Scene II: Why, Love forswore me in my mother’s womb, And, for I should not deal in her soft laws, She did corrupt frail Nature with some bribe To shrink mine arm up like a withered shrub; To make an envious mountain on my back...
if it was done well you wouldnt see him as the villain. The bad guy doesnt know he is the bad guy. In his mind he is completely justified. You should fall in love with the bad guy if done right
@@Jelutro well, in richard iii the audience is supposed to fall in love with him, knowing he is a villain, with himself admitting to it, much like lady anne
@@Crichjo32 I have since been studying acting as a career for the past 3 years and I totally take back what I said haha. How naive I was haha. Sir Ian is one of the acting greats and you're right. His sense of self delight is incredible
I always loved the way Jim Broadbent laughs when McKellen delivers the line "...our dreadful marches to delightful measures", as though it's some kind of terribly funny inside joke between the two of them.
The emphasis is on "marches", because the hunchbacked Richard surely prefers his marches in "delightful measures". While the crowd takes it as an ironic jest, McKellen and Broadbent know exactly how much venom it bears.
This film is the perfect hybrid of old and new. It retains the Elizabethan, which a lot of people simply can't deal with. But if you can, the modern day setting and various trappings, and McKellen's fourth wall breaking soliloquies make it so much more accessible!
This is a brilliantly imagined version of Richard III. It almost feels like it was written for an early 20th century Marshal kingdom. Mckellan’s interpretation is inspired, miking it one of the best filmed Shakespeare play ever made.
McKellen is THE modern Shakespearean actor. Many actors, from amateur to professional, can't see past the beauty of Shakespeare's language. So they start with the words, adding emphasis wherever they can and coming across as artsy fartsy. McKellen, on the other hand, starts with the character, breathing actual life into the words, making them seem organic and real. He is a genius of his craft.
That always annoyed me about theater performers. They're always so self absorbed and make no space in their ego for the actual character they're supposed to become. They try to think of how to sound more dramatic than the last person with the words and not become the type of person who might use them.
Yes! A modern Shakespeare - that's exactly what we need! And probably deserve. The original just isn't good enough nowadays - just words! We want organic and real - we want to SMELL those goddamn actors! And have more light-saber battles. Also, a score by John Williams. Shakespeare's text...meh. Soooo overrated, and BORING. Yes, a "modern" Shakespeare is what we DESERVE. LOLZ!!!
I've observed this myself. And I hate to say this, but I think Lawrence Olivier is one counterexample. By all means a fine actor, but some people try to get too technical with the lines. This has the added negative effect of making the lines harder to understand and driving off audiences. As much as I like McKellan, the best Richard III I've seen was Ben Cumberbatch in the Hollow Crown. What's unique about that series is that they're not acting out a play, they're acting out a movie, using gestures and emotion that would be recognizable to everyday people. Olivier spoke the words very well, but came across as focused too much on the words, not enough on, as you say, the beauty behind them.
@@tomservo75 Have to strongly disagree with your assessment of both Olivier’s Richard and Cumberbatch’s CGI-enhanced depiction. The first Hollow Crown series (Richard II, 1 & 2 Henry IV, Henry V) was excellent (especially Richard II and the Henry IV films). The Henry VI and Richard III installments, alas, were a huge disappointment…damnable, I dare say. Stunt casting, anachronisms (ineffective ones at that), and most of Richard’s soliloquies cut from the script. Absurd special effects, an obnoxious score, and weird, obtrusive cinematography. Failure as both film and WS adaptation. I always recommend the “Hollow Crown” Richard II and Henry IV films to everyone I know - they are worthy first choice entries into the WS film canon. Wonderfully acted, filmed, and edited. As good as it gets. Hard pass on Henry VI and Richard III. Olivier owns that role on film…Benedict Cumberbatch perhaps deserved better from the “writers” but perhaps he best stick to playing his sexless, autistic Sherlock.
I watched Romeo + Juliet and this movie back to back. And I must say, it's so much easier to follow the story when the actors obviously know the meaning of what they're saying.
Romeo+Juliet is a very pretty movie. Bas Lurman knows how to set a scene. Harold Perniu(Name Butcher) was amazing in that film. The Queen Man speech was awesome.
@Alan Mundy I do acting, and I have to tell you how much I appreciate this comment! Theatre training IS the best training for an actor, as many professionals will tell you😀
The way he speaks about being "half-made up" is without the resentment shown by Olivier. I saw him saying, "This is who I am and since I can't do one thing, I will do what I am best at."
It's not supposed to be funny; it's there for a very specific reason. Richard says he decides to be a villain because he cannot be a lover, and his reason behind it is that he has a physical deformity which he repeatedly refers to throughout the play. This trait, significant to the most basic plot since it is the motivation behind his actions, is manifested through the hunchback. Not a joke or a slight -- an important part of the play.
Okay now I gotta see this film, if only to see a younger (ish) Galdalf hamming it up. As for Olivier’s performance as others have mentioned it, I’ve seen it, and while it isn’t as zany as this, I think it has its own merit. Olivier gave the monologue as a more cynical but coldly calculating character, who could put a lot of sudden emotion into his words when he wanted to. McKellen takes it to another dimension though, able to publicly portray a smiling face with the confidence of everyone around him while still having a brooding, scheming dark side that seems on the edge of breaking the fourth wall
This film was packed to the rafters with an amazing cast, and with the giga-wattage of pure talent they all brought to this film, they all stood in the shadow of McKellen. As plays go, this one, more than most, makes amazing use of the aside, and in McKellen's hands it is used to maximum effect to illustrate what is created when naked ambition and a brilliant mind can turn into in the face of slights, both real and perceived.
'Well, your imprisonment shall not be long - I will deliver you' . What a marvelous ,darkly funny line from Shakespeare and perfectly delivered with such ironic malevolence by Mckellan who certainly carries out his 'promise'.
Both the performances by sir Ian mc kellen and sir laurence olivier are great. A great learning process by watching the performance of these great and veteran actors. 👍
I saw this on stage 6 times. McKellen is brilliant here. BUT. You MUST see him on stage to understand what a brilliant actor he is; he feeds off an audience. To be blunt, he is 99% better than ever other Shakespearean actor in this film. On stage, he has NO Peers in this role. Oliver, looks like a novice in comparison.
As a trained actor, the greatest revelation of my education was learning that Shakespeare is meant to be heard, not read. Beautiful use of the English language.
I love when the actors talks to us in front of the camera , love this way of filming . Ian McKellen a brilliant actor , he as Max Von Sydow has kinda the same way of playing in the movies . Laurence Olivier version of Richard 3 was different and older . This version with Ian McKellen is a refreshment of Shakespeare . Another actor would have been excellent in the role of Richard 3 was Patrick McGoohan .
I so wanted him to do what he did at the NT; it was machine gun fire. I saw it 4 times. Bluntly! If you've never seen Sir Ian in stage, you've never seen him , trully, act. Live, he is perfect...Mozart perfect.
i wish they would make a new movie about Richard III...maybe based on The Sunne In Splendour...there are so many movies and shows about the Tudor era...yet I find the York and Lancaster era much more interesting...if only they would concentrate on that era for a little bit in the entertainment industry :(
Gandalf/Magneto.....Professor McGonnagle....Professor Slughorn....Tony Stark...Supreme Intelligence...Mr. Carson from Downton....and Sir. Humphrey Appleby of the DAA.
This is one of the finest adaptations of .Richard III in my opinion with many outstanding performances. Nigel Hawthorn's Clarence has never been bettered. McKellen is a revelation, just so much to admire.
They've cut bits out of the source material... the following bit is missing, which is a bit odd because he's pissing whilst it comes up (and its basically a dick joke) "...wants love majesty to strut before a wanton ambling nymph, but was curtailed of this fair proportion; cheated of feature by dissembling nature"
His best performance ever, in my opinion, was in The Madness of King George... Astonishing portrayal of one of history’s most well known, yet least explained monarchs.
@@schwakyl000 I saw the movie. I thought it was fiction. I found it funny that one of the reasons they thought he was mad was because he was faithful to his wife. I was an interesting peek at what goes on behind the glamour and glitz of royalty.
2:39 There's a bit of a James Burke's "Connections" feel about that transition, I mean in terms of editing choices. Never noticed that before. It does detract from the overall seriousness and style of the movie, but it is oddly comical.
@Nicollie1062 That sounds like a very good idea. Richard III does quite well on film, which is why its done so well by so many. By contrast, no film of Macbeth, a far better play than Richard III, works for me, including the recent effort by Patrick Stewart. So there's something about the plot that is suited for this medium. Very likely another version would be a hit.
The problem with Macbeth, if you will, if you could call it that, is that it is a bare bones play. It is much "Shorter" in a sense and gets straight to the point, which works well in a play, but in a film you need several stories to be going on. You could make a good Macbeth, but you'd have to let quentin tarantino do it.
If you haven't seen it, I'd recommended "Throne of Blood" by Akira "Emperor" Kurosawa. It is by no means a straight adaptation. It translates Shakespeare not only into the Japanese language, but into Japanese history with the influence of Japanese art, but I think it's a incredible adaptation to behold, although I understand if you consider it too distant from the source material to include.
See this is one of the few reimagined productions of Shakespeare that I like, setting it in a WWI German Empire style era is genius. Most of the time I absolutely despise modernity in theatre, especially minimalist set pieces.
I love this movie, but the wee bit spoils the whole effect. And shouting for a horse in a jeep. These are the only 2 moments that annoy me in this fantastic movie.
I think there must have been a coach party of casting agents that pulled in to watch this and the Other Boleyn Girl. Ok, we’ll take them. Who? All of them. In what? Everything.
I think this is where the British Civil War vibe came from mixing a variety of inter war clothing and uniforms. I much prefer McKellen’s performance. Olivier’s is simply a speech to camera, (which he directed while acting - no mean feat), but this production maps out the characters and situation so much better.
S.'s immortal speech delivered while taking a piss. Literally. Not "taking the piss" but actually taking a piss. My God, what boldness! There is much to say about this version.. BUT it's a the awful ending where Richard plunges into a fire much like the robot in the second Terminator. Ruined the film for me totally. Sad that. Otherwise a great rendering. Oddly enough around the time period came Branagh's Hamlet where he does a Trazan at the end and skewers his uncle. Again, ruined a fine fine film. Why do they do these things? Producers? Ignorant screenwriters? Or is it perhaps filthy marketing departments? Whatever. It's a shame. "Hey, let's pimp it up for the young folks! Turn some coin! Make some bucks!" Aw, to hell with them.
As good as Sir Ian McKellen was in this version, I think I prefer Benedict Cumberbatch's performance in the Hollow Crown version. I love the menacing tone he has in that version, and the dark forbidding setting works really well too.
There's an Amazing Australian film like this of MacBeth from 2006 They are a Scottish Mob family in Melbourne, the Horsemen are Biker Gang Members, the Witches are Gothic School Girls and the sword fights are Shootouts in the city and tunnels and bushland
"And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds to fright the souls of fearsome adversaires, he..." what? They cut away from his tribute speech before he finished.
McKellan gets Richard's sense of humor much more than Olivier.
Peter Moon. Compelling argument made 2.5 years after the OP.
By far and away the better... a superb grasp of the eloquence of Shakespeare's pen
I wouldn't have thought so neither, but Sir Iain seems to manage it.
Olivier is two pounds of ham in a one pound bag.
Tom Jackson
“I can add colours to the chameleon, Change shapes with Proteus for advantages...”
Yep, that guy is one note. Totally one note.
Genius move to have had the first part of this speech delivered to an adoring public, then have Richard confide in us his real motives...while having a slash, which is about us intimate as you get. So hard to find a new way to deliver famous Shakespeare soliloquies. David Tennant does it very well with 'To be or not to be...'.
Saw him do this on the stage...love the 1930s Third Reich vibe.
The set design of this film is fascinating, and I agree, it feels that vibe of the Third Reich in the 30's.
This is much more the German Empire than it is the Third Reich.
This and Julie Taymor's Titus are my favorite shakespeare adaptations. Poetic, surreal and full of intrigue!
This is a dump of shit on Shakespeare's legacy! At least the Lawrence Olivier version was historically accurate!
+Mushroom Head It's a modern interpretation. Shakespeare would have liked it I think.
@@mushroomhead3619 Shakespeare own, unaltered works is ripe with historical inaccuracies and unrealistic actions. He wasn't a historian, but a director and writer for making what was then "popular" entertainment; plays that were made to be re-adapted by a theater or a troupe see fit as time goes on.
To try to shove in "historical realism" in often unapologetically historically inaccurate and unrealistic by design plays doesn't work like you think it would.
This is such a fascinating way to deliver the lines, and such an interesting take on the character. The acting is phenomenal, of course, but that is to be expected, I really think the directing is worthy of credit.
I always thought of Richard as being very similar to Shylock as one of Shakespeare's great sympathetic villains, somebody shaped by his conditions to be evil. I find the line "since I cannot play the lover, I am determined to play the villain" to be particularly resonant. Not so with this performance. Here, Richard is an unapologetically evil schemer, the soliloquy isn't a cry of anger and resolution of evil as much as it is a twisted sense of pride in his wickedry that he wants to share with the audience.
I love this direction that they took the character, and honestly think this is the best performance on TH-cam, having watched both Cumberbatch's and Olivier's before this.
Shakespeare's historic plays were the 16th century English equivalent of 20th Century American Gangster Movies, on par with 'The Godfather/Goodfella's/Casino etc..' with equally memorable dialogue and scene's
I'm just glad his washes his non-crippled hand afterwards!
Not before he wipes all over his clothes.
"I'm not made of stone!"
that cut from podium to urinal is brilliant.
i love how ww2 is transformed into the war of the roses, with Richard as Hitler
Right, Beek--and perhaps the most chlling scene is the room hung with Richard's banners, a brilliant imitation of Nazi pageantry.
Will there even be a greater Shakespeare film? I doubt it.
Richard takes nothing from no one.
In case you wanted to watch Gandalf read Shakespeare to professor Mcgonagall
And don't forget Professor Slughorn, too!
With Sir Humphrey handy too
trite
And, somewhat, Tony Stark is here.
So many of my favourite actors here (I swear I saw some Hogwarts professors as well) . Looks like a really good movie version.
Only one complaint: honestly, why did we need to follow Sir Ian into the bathroom? Give the man some privacy, damn it!
OK, I've finally watched it. It's magnificent.
I still hate the urinal bit, though.
I like how they modernized his deformity by giving him a withered arm, the same issue as Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany
Holy shit, I didn't realize that until you mentioned it. Same arm too.
@@323guiltyspark An interesting parallel, sure, but it's in the original. Henry VI. Part Three. Richard's soliloquy, Act III, Scene II: Why, Love forswore me in my mother’s womb,
And, for I should not deal in her soft laws,
She did corrupt frail Nature with some bribe
To shrink mine arm up like a withered shrub;
To make an envious mountain on my back...
This is the greatest example of why having the villain as the main character is awesome!
if it was done well you wouldnt see him as the villain. The bad guy doesnt know he is the bad guy. In his mind he is completely justified. You should fall in love with the bad guy if done right
Yup
@@Jelutro well, in richard iii the audience is supposed to fall in love with him, knowing he is a villain, with himself admitting to it, much like lady anne
@@Jelutro I feel like Richard very much knew he was the villain, and he was having a lot of fun doing so.
@@Crichjo32 I have since been studying acting as a career for the past 3 years and I totally take back what I said haha. How naive I was haha. Sir Ian is one of the acting greats and you're right. His sense of self delight is incredible
I always loved the way Jim Broadbent laughs when McKellen delivers the line "...our dreadful marches to delightful measures", as though it's some kind of terribly funny inside joke between the two of them.
It must be an inside joke because it doesn't make any sense to anyone else the way McKellen does it
Kind of a problem I have with Shakespeare is that's how I read EVERY moment where a character laughs. :D
Colin Moore I took it to mean that Broadbent’s character (Buckingham) is just a power hungry sycophant trying to flatter his betters.
The emphasis is on "marches", because the hunchbacked Richard surely prefers his marches in "delightful measures". While the crowd takes it as an ironic jest, McKellen and Broadbent know exactly how much venom it bears.
Wonder what..
This film is the perfect hybrid of old and new. It retains the Elizabethan, which a lot of people simply can't deal with.
But if you can, the modern day setting and various trappings, and McKellen's fourth wall breaking soliloquies make it so much more accessible!
This is a brilliantly imagined version of Richard III. It almost feels like it was written for an early 20th century Marshal kingdom. Mckellan’s interpretation is inspired, miking it one of the best filmed Shakespeare play ever made.
McKellen is THE modern Shakespearean actor. Many actors, from amateur to professional, can't see past the beauty of Shakespeare's language. So they start with the words, adding emphasis wherever they can and coming across as artsy fartsy. McKellen, on the other hand, starts with the character, breathing actual life into the words, making them seem organic and real. He is a genius of his craft.
That always annoyed me about theater performers. They're always so self absorbed and make no space in their ego for the actual character they're supposed to become. They try to think of how to sound more dramatic than the last person with the words and not become the type of person who might use them.
Laurence Olivier is better.
Yes! A modern Shakespeare - that's exactly what we need! And probably deserve.
The original just isn't good enough nowadays - just words! We want organic and real - we want to SMELL those goddamn actors! And have more light-saber battles. Also, a score by John Williams.
Shakespeare's text...meh. Soooo overrated, and BORING.
Yes, a "modern" Shakespeare is what we DESERVE. LOLZ!!!
I've observed this myself. And I hate to say this, but I think Lawrence Olivier is one counterexample. By all means a fine actor, but some people try to get too technical with the lines. This has the added negative effect of making the lines harder to understand and driving off audiences. As much as I like McKellan, the best Richard III I've seen was Ben Cumberbatch in the Hollow Crown. What's unique about that series is that they're not acting out a play, they're acting out a movie, using gestures and emotion that would be recognizable to everyday people. Olivier spoke the words very well, but came across as focused too much on the words, not enough on, as you say, the beauty behind them.
@@tomservo75 Have to strongly disagree with your assessment of both Olivier’s Richard and Cumberbatch’s CGI-enhanced depiction. The first Hollow Crown series (Richard II, 1 & 2 Henry IV, Henry V) was excellent (especially Richard II and the Henry IV films).
The Henry VI and Richard III installments, alas, were a huge disappointment…damnable, I dare say. Stunt casting, anachronisms (ineffective ones at that), and most of Richard’s soliloquies cut from the script. Absurd special effects, an obnoxious score, and weird, obtrusive cinematography. Failure as both film and WS adaptation.
I always recommend the “Hollow Crown” Richard II and Henry IV films to everyone I know - they are worthy first choice entries into the WS film canon. Wonderfully acted, filmed, and edited. As good as it gets.
Hard pass on Henry VI and Richard III. Olivier owns that role on film…Benedict Cumberbatch perhaps deserved better from the “writers” but perhaps he best stick to playing his sexless, autistic Sherlock.
I watched Romeo + Juliet and this movie back to back. And I must say, it's so much easier to follow the story when the actors obviously know the meaning of what they're saying.
Romeo+Juliet is a very pretty movie. Bas Lurman knows how to set a scene. Harold Perniu(Name Butcher) was amazing in that film. The Queen Man speech was awesome.
Kevin Cruz Where can I find the full movie? I've searched on Amazon and TH-cam.
Indeed, it is. I agree
@@josephvickrey5396 By far and away the better... a superb grasp of the eloquence of Shakespeare's pen
@Alan Mundy I do acting, and I have to tell you how much I appreciate this comment! Theatre training IS the best training for an actor, as many professionals will tell you😀
I love how he invites us to be part of the plot. Ian McKellan does an amazing job of letting the viewer come along for the ride.
That is the fucking point of soliloquy at the beginning of a play.
McKellen really brings out the double-faced irony in this monologue.
The way he speaks about being "half-made up" is without the resentment shown by Olivier. I saw him saying, "This is who I am and since I can't do one thing, I will do what I am best at."
I guess it's a weakness, but I would follow this Richard down to Hell, simply because he would be so much fun to be around for all eternity.
It's not supposed to be funny; it's there for a very specific reason. Richard says he decides to be a villain because he cannot be a lover, and his reason behind it is that he has a physical deformity which he repeatedly refers to throughout the play. This trait, significant to the most basic plot since it is the motivation behind his actions, is manifested through the hunchback. Not a joke or a slight -- an important part of the play.
McKellen is astounding. I had the great fortune to see him in Richard III onstage in Denver. I will remember it my whole life.
But who shot JR?
Okay now I gotta see this film, if only to see a younger (ish) Galdalf hamming it up. As for Olivier’s performance as others have mentioned it, I’ve seen it, and while it isn’t as zany as this, I think it has its own merit. Olivier gave the monologue as a more cynical but coldly calculating character, who could put a lot of sudden emotion into his words when he wanted to. McKellen takes it to another dimension though, able to publicly portray a smiling face with the confidence of everyone around him while still having a brooding, scheming dark side that seems on the edge of breaking the fourth wall
This film was packed to the rafters with an amazing cast, and with the giga-wattage of pure talent they all brought to this film, they all stood in the shadow of McKellen. As plays go, this one, more than most, makes amazing use of the aside, and in McKellen's hands it is used to maximum effect to illustrate what is created when naked ambition and a brilliant mind can turn into in the face of slights, both real and perceived.
McKellen is a genius pure and simple. How I love that man.
I have seen him on stage in Melbourne, as Lear, with Sylvester McCoy as the Fool. He is amazing! Both of them, actually!
Simple, plain Clarence, I do love thee so
That I will shortly send thy soul to heaven,
If heaven will take the present at our hands.
0:50 when one of the boys lowkey makes a reference to an inside joke in public
All Hail King Magneto :)
"I can smile,and murder while I smile!"says Richard as he gets even with the snobs in this movie boy he sure is very clever.
'Well, your imprisonment shall not be long - I will deliver you' . What a marvelous ,darkly funny line from Shakespeare and perfectly delivered with such ironic malevolence by Mckellan who certainly carries out his 'promise'.
Both the performances by sir Ian mc kellen and sir laurence olivier are great.
A great learning process by watching the performance of these great and veteran actors. 👍
I really liked this. Ol Ian McKellen could read stereo instructions and hold my attention.
the great sir Ian !!
I saw this on stage 6 times.
McKellen is brilliant here.
BUT.
You MUST see him on stage to understand what a brilliant actor he is; he feeds off an audience.
To be blunt, he is 99% better than ever other Shakespearean actor in this film. On stage, he has NO Peers in this role.
Oliver, looks like a novice in comparison.
olivier seems to be sort of a ham.
Absolutely love McKellan and regret more than ever not having seen him onstage (yet), but Olivier a novice in comparison? Come on...
As a trained actor, the greatest revelation of my education was learning that Shakespeare is meant to be heard, not read. Beautiful use of the English language.
By far and away the better... a superb grasp of the eloquence of Shakespeare's pen
I love when the actors talks to us in front of the camera , love this way of filming . Ian McKellen a brilliant actor , he as Max Von Sydow has kinda the same way of playing in the movies . Laurence Olivier version of Richard 3 was different and older . This version with Ian McKellen is a refreshment of Shakespeare . Another actor would have been excellent in the role of Richard 3 was Patrick McGoohan .
It's Sir Humphrey and Magneto! [Both amazing Lears as well]
Mckellen's performance is delightful... a humorous villain throughout the movie.
I love this rendition of RICHARD III it gave it a interesting twist and made it more realistic …
I so wanted him to do what he did at the NT; it was machine gun fire. I saw it 4 times.
Bluntly!
If you've never seen Sir Ian in stage, you've never seen him , trully, act.
Live, he is perfect...Mozart perfect.
i wish they would make a new movie about Richard III...maybe based on The Sunne In Splendour...there are so many movies and shows about the Tudor era...yet I find the York and Lancaster era much more interesting...if only they would concentrate on that era for a little bit in the entertainment industry :(
Gandalf/Magneto.....Professor McGonnagle....Professor Slughorn....Tony Stark...Supreme Intelligence...Mr. Carson from Downton....and Sir. Humphrey Appleby of the DAA.
it's a difficult monologue, often hard to understand. great arrangement of it.
Very creative interpretation of this speech. Great stuff.
Ian McKellen re-ignited the power and glories of Shakespeare for me 😊
Where was this urinal scene filmed? That is a rather impressive toilet.
This is one of the finest adaptations of .Richard III in my opinion with many outstanding performances. Nigel Hawthorn's Clarence has never been bettered. McKellen is a revelation, just so much to admire.
Can somebody analyse the part from 2:10 to 2:20
They've cut bits out of the source material... the following bit is missing, which is a bit odd because he's pissing whilst it comes up (and its basically a dick joke) "...wants love majesty to strut before a wanton ambling nymph, but was curtailed of this fair proportion; cheated of feature by dissembling nature"
Brilliant!
Sir Ian is my favorite actor.
Sir Nigel, Sir Ian and Dame Maggie in one movie.... Fantastic. Watch "Yes Prime Minister" to see Sir Nigel at his best.
His best performance ever, in my opinion, was in The Madness of King George... Astonishing portrayal of one of history’s most well known, yet least explained monarchs.
@@schwakyl000 I saw the movie. I thought it was fiction. I found it funny that one of the reasons they thought he was mad was because he was faithful to his wife. I was an interesting peek at what goes on behind the glamour and glitz of royalty.
It may be heresy to some but I prefer this version.
What a stunning performance. Mckellen at his best.
Damn! Nigel Hawthorne as Clarence too 👏👏👏👏 I must what this!
This is a master class! Pure delight to watch. Well done, all.
Nobody:
No-one:
Not a soul:
Sir Ian McKellen: *_time to take a piss_*
A stunningly brilliant example of how to express the lines in a natural spoken delivery
2:39 There's a bit of a James Burke's "Connections" feel about that transition, I mean in terms of editing choices. Never noticed that before. It does detract from the overall seriousness and style of the movie, but it is oddly comical.
God save King Edward !
.... FROM ME !!!!
I need it for school
COVID is the SUMMER of our discontent
0:45 I see young Tony Stark.
I love the casting of Americans for the parvenus Woodvilles. Genius.
He's got a lot of balls of killing the woman's husband and then ask for her for her hand.
+gbonkers666 Well, it is rather awkward and pointless asking her while she is married.
@Nicollie1062 That sounds like a very good idea. Richard III does quite well on film, which is why its done so well by so many. By contrast, no film of Macbeth, a far better play than Richard III, works for me, including the recent effort by Patrick Stewart. So there's something about the plot that is suited for this medium. Very likely another version would be a hit.
Dr. Samuel Johnson always said that Macbeth is a play that reads better than it can be acted out.
The problem with Macbeth, if you will, if you could call it that, is that it is a bare bones play. It is much "Shorter" in a sense and gets straight to the point, which works well in a play, but in a film you need several stories to be going on. You could make a good Macbeth, but you'd have to let quentin tarantino do it.
If you haven't seen it, I'd recommended "Throne of Blood" by Akira "Emperor" Kurosawa. It is by no means a straight adaptation. It translates Shakespeare not only into the Japanese language, but into Japanese history with the influence of Japanese art, but I think it's a incredible adaptation to behold, although I understand if you consider it too distant from the source material to include.
gooood acting!!!
This is real bruh
Did McKellen completely delete the banter with Hastings?
always thought that framing richard III as dark comedy was brilliant
Gandalf was good, but the villians are much more entertaining.
Gandalf would be saying to Richard "you are a very bad boy!"and Richard would say."i do not care!"
See this is one of the few reimagined productions of Shakespeare that I like, setting it in a WWI German Empire style era is genius. Most of the time I absolutely despise modernity in theatre, especially minimalist set pieces.
Winter is coming! 😂
I love this movie, but the wee bit spoils the whole effect.
And shouting for a horse in a jeep.
These are the only 2 moments that annoy me in this fantastic movie.
I don't know how they were able to film a scene in the Little Wizard's room at Hogwarts.
Sir Ian Sir Ian Sir Ian
ACTION!!!! GANDALF: YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!! CUT!!!! Sir Ian Sir Ian Sir Ian
Too much iron in your blood!!!!
Wow lots of lines cut up missing and rearranged. Still works, though.
But I can smile...and murder while I smile...wet my cheeks wit artificial tears, and shape my face to all occasions.
....and want to dearly let my family know how much they really suck! Is what Richard is really saying.
now this what i call i cast of major actor/ess set in the in 1930,s all star cast here
Shakespeare did the Henry's and the richard Kings any
Other ones?
The greatest film of any of Shakespeare's plays.
He would've been great in. HARRY POTTER
yo who directed this? the cuts and framing are brilliant
Bruh
~ Go on Gandalf !!! . . .
3:15 Maester Luwin?
+empchampion40k Yep he is.
Haha, pause at 2:52, he has a fake hump back. But then, that's kind of not funny because I do have a hump back.
I wonder what Sir Branson, thinks of this? Perhaps he could become Richard the 5th?
Some OUT there conspire!
Amazing how adaptable the speech is!
I think there must have been a coach party of casting agents that pulled in to watch this and the Other Boleyn Girl. Ok, we’ll take them. Who? All of them. In what? Everything.
He’s good… but Olivier is still the best.
I think this is where the British Civil War vibe came from mixing a variety of inter war clothing and uniforms. I much prefer McKellen’s performance. Olivier’s is simply a speech to camera, (which he directed while acting - no mean feat), but this production maps out the characters and situation so much better.
S.'s immortal speech delivered while taking a piss. Literally. Not "taking the piss" but actually taking a piss. My God, what boldness! There is much to say about this version.. BUT it's a the awful ending where Richard plunges into a fire much like the robot in the second Terminator. Ruined the film for me totally. Sad that. Otherwise a great rendering. Oddly enough around the time period came Branagh's Hamlet where he does a Trazan at the end and skewers his uncle. Again, ruined a fine fine film. Why do they do these things? Producers? Ignorant screenwriters? Or is it perhaps filthy marketing departments? Whatever. It's a shame. "Hey, let's pimp it up for the young folks! Turn some coin! Make some bucks!" Aw, to hell with them.
4:17 Oh perfection, I adore these lines!!
As good as Sir Ian McKellen was in this version, I think I prefer Benedict Cumberbatch's performance in the Hollow Crown version. I love the menacing tone he has in that version, and the dark forbidding setting works really well too.
There's an Amazing Australian film like this of MacBeth from 2006
They are a Scottish Mob family in Melbourne, the Horsemen are Biker Gang Members, the Witches are Gothic School Girls and the sword fights are Shootouts in the city and tunnels and bushland
"And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds to fright the souls of fearsome adversaires, he..." what? They cut away from his tribute speech before he finished.