Just watched this movie for the third or fourth time and can't understand it's relatively low rating. The acting, the direction, just the sheer scale of the adaptation is simply stunning.

There are artsy movies, and then there's Titus. Titus was like to the movie "Fountain" directed by Aronofsky. It focused so much on visuals that the plot and substance of it was more of an undertone to the monstrosity that it was. Titus made everything that happened symbolize something greater, which is a horrible offense to a movie. Symbolism, when used sparingly, can convey themes much larger than the medium that they exist in. However, if everything that happens in a movie conveys that symbolism, it makes even the most meaningful parts of the movie meaningless. Another major problem I had with this movie was the pseudo realism. Not only were there roman-style soldiers all over the place in the beginning, but there were also 40s styled cars and motorcycles, along with microphones from the same era. This only adds to confusion, it conveys little meaning to the actual movie. It only succeeds in annoying the viewers- or at least the viewers who aren't into pretentious art- movies. All of the characters seemed flat, even those played by big-name actors like Anthony Hopkins. Part of the problem with this is, admittedly, the script. It takes impeccable acting and directing to create complex characters out of the script that was written by Shakespeare. If the directing and/or acting is poor, then the dialogue will sound awkward, because nobody speaks in Shakespearean English now. As the directing and the acting was poor, the entire movie was just one awkward transition to the next. From what I was told about this movie (I saw it in a Drama class after we finished reading the play) the budget was relatively low, so the visual effects were, as expected, not that great. But the thing is, the only visual effects that you would really need in making this movie would be what it would take for the gore scenes. The beginning choreography with the roman soldiers was unnecessary and confusing, the explosion in the opening scene was confusing, and all of the over-the- top costumes were annoying, especially Saturninus', Tamora's, and Chiron and Demetrius'. Really, this movie would've been so much better if the visuals conveying characters' thought were scratched, and if the director had chosen which time period the movie would take place in. Another huge problem that this movie had was the scene where Marcus finds Lavinia. There was surprisingly little blood (except for when she did this weird thing where she turned around and spat blood at Marcus in slow-motion), and her hands had been replaced by branches. I found this odd, because I don't think that Chiron and Demetrius would bother with doing this. I know hat this is supposed to be a take on the line saying, more or less, that she had been rid of her branches (meaning hands), but if she had lost her hands, and the text says branches, how does it make sense to put actually branches on her arms instead? "Titus" also over-glorified the character of Young Lucius. I've been told by many of my friends who were in the same class that this character is supposed to show how this kind of tragedy affects someone, and to make it less confusing when Young Lucius first shows up, but both are invalid arguments. It only makes things confusing. First of all, I would like to point out that it's not really that weird that Lucius "randomly" shows up halfway through the play. It actually makes sense, because a child would not be present at the ceremonies occurring in scene one of the text, the hunt, or the trial of the other two sons (the ones who were executed, I forgot their names). Young Lucius' omnipresence actually makes thing more confusing, because he doesn't talk until much later, and even the quietest kids would speak after seeing many of the things that happened, especially Lavinia after she's raped. One of my least favourite parts of the movie was the opening scene. When the movie starts, you think you're watching the wrong one, because it's some kid in a 40s or 50s style kitchen, making a mess of things with some action figures that resemble the characters that you meet later on. Then, there's an explosion, and some hulking guy just appears out of nowhere, and carries this kid down this really long staircase that likewise appeared out of nowhere, that leads to the Colosseum. This leaves you wondering as to what had just happened. Is the kid in some kind of coma? Has this actually happened? Is it all a dream? When is the movie going to start? It takes about 7 minutes of opening credits and marching soldiers in pseudo Ancient Roman armour, marching around in a display at, what you find out to be, their return from war against the Goths. I already had taken issue of the sudden switch from 40s/50s to Ancient Rome in such a bizarre way, that the existence of mummies in ancient Rome really annoyed me. I found the entire movie to be filled with annoyances like that. Basically, this was a horrible movie that no one should ever have to see, unless they want a movie filled with bad visuals, "artsy" cello music, and horrible acting and directing.

It took 2 nights (not sequential) to get through the entire film.What stood out in my mind, was that it appeared to be a combination of the orgiastic scenes from Bob Guccione's "Caligula" and the 'period shifting' element from Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet".I have mixed feelings about it, ranging from the 'lowest' (vocalizing, out loud, pure disgust that someone spent money to make this film) to 'highs' (being impressed with certain actor's scenes that stood out, and should have been employed in a better film). I especially appreciated Harry Lennix's moments on screen, who's dialogue had the most 'character' and best portrayed the words spoken.I'm not sure what the intention of the direction was, but feel that it was either just some San Francisco ("Frisco") Bay Area crap, which many other reviewers have also stated as being 'artsy' and 'high minded'. Or, that it was an attempt at allegory to display the decadence of the portrayed Roman period in relation to more contemporary times (again related to the "Frisco" culture). One should wonder what would result from a choice to give control of the nation, to the former mayor (Gavin Newsom).Though other reviewers have stated that 'this' is the worst film they've ever seen, I know that there are many more that would exceed it in that category. I would rate it as being alongside "War Horse", though I spent most of my time viewing 'that' film 'laughing out loud' at its absurdity, as apposed to 'cringing' at the bad elements of this one.The best thing I can say about the movie, is that the DVD quality was exceptional, which along with the modern upscaling of my Blu Ray player and LED television, presented an HD-like picture quality with beautiful color and clarity.

I love Shakespeare's plays. I hated this film. I found it static, boring, and lacking any sort of substance. The characters, including the main characters, were very one-dimensional. The film was poorly structured, tediously drawn out, and confusing.Taymor's attempt at placing her cast in multiple time periods was distracting. The film opens with a child playing in a mid-twentieth century inspired kitchen. When I watched this film, I thought I was watching the wrong one at first because of this particular scene. Throughout the film, scenes would spontaneously jump from one time period to the other. I will say this: motorcycles, cars, techno music, and twentieth century weapons do not belong in an adaptation of Shakespeare's work. Characters should not be wearing Roman fashions one moment, and looks ripped off of Christian Dior's "New Look" of the postwar era the next. It comes off as nonsensical garbage. The content, albeit using the original dialogue, is a mishmash of sex, obnoxious violence, and serves as a poor attempt at creating a psychological thriller. The film only proves to be another failure at "modernizing "Ancient Roman society, and Shakespeare himself. I viewed the interview with Taymor regarding the film's production, and believe that she views this film as an artistic masterpiece. This is a shame. There is no artistry in this movie. This movie is only an insult to history and to Shakespeare. How pitiful.