The third, last and by far the weakest of the three Shakespearean films directed by Laurence Olivier. I have to admit that, of the Bard's plays with which I am familiar, "Richard III" is my least favourite. It largely lacks the subtlety, strong characters, superlative characterisation, wonderful exploration of themes and beautiful language that define his later plays, particularly "Macbeth" and "Hamlet". That said, the play is far more subtle than the film. I wish that Olivier had made "Macbeth", which would have starred himself and his wife Vivien Leigh, instead.As both an actor and a director, Olivier failed to live up to the high standards that he set for himself in both "Henry V" and "Hamlet". His performance as the title character is too over the top, too obviously villainous, though he is very good in the quieter moments. The fake nose that he wears is unintentionally comical. This is the first time that I've ever been disappointed with one of Olivier's performances, though he is still one of my three favourite actors (the other two being Christopher Lee and Don Ameche). In contrast to the first two films, his direction is pedestrian. It feels like a filmed stage play rather than the film adaptation of one. It looks dull. This is particularly disappointing after the beautiful, vibrant Technicolor of "Henry V" and the even better black and white cinematography of "Hamlet". The Bosworth Field scenes are the best looking ones in the film but still fall far short of those films. At 2 hours and 38 minutes, it's far too long and not very well paced.Unfortunately, it seemed that Olivier set the tone for much of the acting in the film. Claire Bloom (who later matured into a very good actress) and Cedric Hardwicke both devour the scenery as the Lady Anne and King Edward IV respectively. I wish that Olivier had cast either Jean Simmons (who played Ophelia in "Hamlet") or Vivien Leigh as Anne. Ralph Richardson is just dull as the Duke of Buckingham. Olivier had considered casting Orson Welles as Buckingham and I wish that he had. The best actors in the film are the only ones who give consistently subtle performances such as Andrew Cruickshank as Brackenbury, Alec Clunes (Martin's dad) as Lord Hastings, Laurence Naismith as Lord Stanley, Norman Wooland (who previously played Horatio in "Hamlet") as Sir William Catesby, Stanley Baker as the soon to be Henry VII and the great John Gielgud as the Duke of Clarence. It also has many appearances from great characters actors such as Michael Gough, Michael Ripper, George Woodbridge, Patrick Troughton (who, unlike in "Hamlet", actually has some lines), Esmond Knight, John Laurie and Russell Thorndike. Knight, Laurie and Thorndike are the only actors other than Olivier himself to appear in all three of his Shakespearean films while Knight and the latter sister's Sybil Thorndike appeared in his next film "The Prince and the Showgirl".

Laurence Olivier garner the reputation as the greatest actor of the 20th century. However, he was not very fond of film acting, calling "an inferior medium." On film, Olivier did some performances that were not very good. I thought he sucked in The Merchant of Venice. I thought he was bad in some parts in Rebecca. But there were some instances where he was at the level of his stage acting. He was awesome in Marathon Man, he owned Henry V, and his Hamlet is still the best portrayal and the best Shakespeare movie ever made. Thing is, his version of Hamlet was heavily condensed. If he included more parts, everyone would agree that his Hamlet was the best movie and portrayal. Luckily, his Richard III makes up for it. Hamlet and Richard III are the hardest characters to play and Olivier nails both, but is slightly better in this. Richard III follows a man that does all he can to become king, be it murder, extortion, framing, robbery. But he is also supposed to be a sympathetic and admirable character. How a character can be evil and likable is what makes him so interesting and so hard to play. Olivier does it to a T. There are moments in the film where Richard speaks to the camera looking deep into it with a freaky look on his face as if he is about to kill you. The opening soliloquy is enough to make the viewer uncomfortable. Olivier must have done this many times on the stage. Now, you can see just how good Olivier was on stage by watching this. Very, very, very few film performances are superior to Olivier as Richard III.

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.

Although I liked this movie, I still prefer the McKellen/Loncraine version of 'Richard III'.First of all, Olivier is more of a stage actor and director than a filmmaker. This movie seems a lot like the recording of a stage performance and contains few elements that make up a 'real' movie. There are almost no powerful images: The only one that comes to mind is Richard's shadow that is featured in some scenes.Secondly, Olivier's acting feels strangely detached and emotionless. This works very well when Richard is talking to the audience, coolly commenting and reflecting on the situation, but it fails to capture both his charisma and his self-destructive ambitions. It remains a mystery how this Richard could successfully woo a widow over her husband's dead body and how he could be haunted by the specters of those he killed.Nevertheless, the performances of Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud are good, and Olivier's monologue on 'the winter of our Discontent' is great. This alone makes the movie worth watching.