Placing one of Shakespeare's history plays in another specific historical period is always a bit of a risky thing. Such a ploy more frequently works better on stage than on screen –our suspension of belief being somewhat more liberal in a theatre than in front of a screen. Often the transfer in time is to a "generic" future historical setting, with a bit of this period and a bit of that. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. The reason I think placing this version of Richard III in the 1930s works so well is the faithfulness to that conceit, which is carried through impeccably in every detail, though never in a forced or laboured way. It is a clever, often witty, adaptation of Shakespeare's masterly examination of one man's relentless pursuit of power –and has both elegance and a style of its own aside from the play it is based on, and a healthy respect of Shakespeare's glorious language and characters.Perhaps the language is what may deter some people from fully enjoying this, though I would argue that it merely demands paying a little more attention to what is being said than when watching a "normal" film. Contrary to what many may think, Shakespeare's language is not difficult or obscure –quite the opposite– but you do need to listen to it! Here, of course, you are helped by having some of the finest actors around, with not only great command of that language, but the ability to present clearly defined yet complex characters, so that we are able to keep track of who is who in the web of family connections and intrigue. The film is much shorter than the play (Shakespeare's longest), and does away with some characters and combines others into one figure. This polishes the narrative somewhat, but does not take anything vital away from the unfolding tale. I do, however, recommend going back to the original play if you enjoy this film, because it will give an even broader appreciation of the story. And what a story!Centre-stage (or centre-screen, in this case) is Ian McKellen as Richard. It is surely his finest screen performance, and is certainly the one that really made me appreciate his work when I first saw the film upon its original release. Like Olivier before him, his Richard is a performance perfected through countless performances on stage in the role, and with devilish charm he milks each ounce of scheming, determination and wickedness from his scenes. Yet, unlike Olivier, he also shares with us a certain clumsiness and even pathos, which though it does not excuse in any way his actions does give us some understanding of why he has become the grotesque figure he is.Of the other performances I particularly like Jim Broadbent's take on the Duke of Buckingham –his beaming face has eyes of steel, and he seems to be silently scheming, listening, and judging in every scene in which he appears. Anette Bening also does a terrific job and makes more much of her part than is written. But all the actors do wonders in conveying their own particular "angsts" and concerns. Seeing the film again now, I only wish it was longer and we saw even more of some of them.Finally I must applaud the designers of the production –both visual and aural– who have created a totally believable alternate English setting of the 1930s. It is both familiar and alien at the same time –which is what makes the film's central idea so chilling: That such a thing could have happened in England at this time as it did in Germany and Italy and Spain. Shakespeare may have been writing about the 15th century, but the scheming of despots, hungry for power, goes on and on and on.I rate this as one of my favourite Shakespeare films!

When I first saw this adaptation of Richard III, I didn't care for it. I hated the way Shakespeare's dialogue is chopped into bits and scattered around randomly. I thought the period details were crudely overdone. (Must every character smoke cigarettes in every scene?) And I just couldn't picture an aging, feeble Ian McKellen as a brutal rampaging tyrant like Richard III.Over time, though, I've come to appreciate the little things. The amazing supporting cast and the sexy background moments, like Robert Downey's fling with the stewardess that ends like it's Friday the 13th! And the happy ending for Richmond and young Princess Elizabeth.And by the way, it's not one moment, but the whole character arc for Lady Anne (Kristin Scott Thomas) who falls under Richard's spell and gradually fades away into a swoon of almost living death. The way she's always in the background, taking pills at one moment, then gulping down liquor, then at the end actually injecting herself with drugs in the limousine, you sense how she just wants to forget everything and fade into sweet oblivion. Yet you also sense she would have loved Richard if he could have shown her any kind of human feeling. Kristin Scott Thomas is perfectly cast as the exquisitely frail and helpless beauty.

An anachronistic performance of Shakespeare's play, using most, if not all, of the lines from the original. As I understand it, some characters have been combined, but that's the nature of adaptations.It's basically the same play, in other words, only the settings and the costumes are from the 1930s/40s. I think that helps make the play less distant, though I don't have any firm evidence to back that up. Also, there are some fantastic performances here. Ian McKellen is wonderfully villainous as Richard. And if you want to see Robert Downey, Jr. stabbed in the back while "in the throes of passion", if you know what I mean, this is the movie for you.One last thing: I've both read and seen performances of multiple Shakespeare plays, and I would definitely recommend watching a performance, if you can, because this performance made it much easier to see all the Tudor propaganda that Shakespeare stuffed into the play (Richard is a hunchbacked, crippled sociopath who murders his way to the top and tries to marry his niece, while the Duke of Richmond, the future Henry VII, is a really nice guy whose heirs will, according to Shakespeare, bring peace to England; also, Richard is associated with lots of Hitler-esque paraphernalia). I enjoyed it very much.

It's unfortunate more people don't know about this film and what a treasure it is. In fact, I think I almost relish when people are not aware of a small film like this, because I can introduce it to them. A similar small, great film that people have never heard of is "Glengarry Glen Ross." I am a Shakespeare fan, and think updating the period to the modern era should have made this more accessible to the general populace, but unfortunately it didn't register with them.Everyone knows the plot--about a deformed man with an insatiable lust for power who is able to overcome his physical handicap with a silver tongue (hmmm, I think I met some of these people before...).There are many superlatives about this film--the cast, the cinematography, the music--but what can't be said of Ian McKellan's performance? He was simply amazing, and seemed to have a devil of a time in his quest to reach the throne. The scene when he's walking the hall of the military hospital after successfully wooing Elizabeth is hilarious. How he wasn't nominated for an Academy Award I'll never know.The cast is worth mentioning, such a great compilation of actors: Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, John Wood, Kristen Scott Thomas and of course Nigel Hawthorne. The cast also included two Yanks: Annette Bening and Robert Downey jr. I liked Downey's inclusion more than Bening's, since Bening's reading of the lines sounded well, just like that.Broadbent is great as Richard's willing accomplice and Adrian Dunbar is also excellent as another willing participant in Richard's evil deeds.This is a must-see for all Shakespeare fans.