HD · HDR
Richard III
Overlook Pick

Richard III

I can smile, and murder while I smile
68
User Score195 ratings
TMDB 6.816+19951h 44mEnglish
DramaWar

Synopsis

Having helped his brother King Edward IV take the throne of England, the jealous hunchback Richard, Duke of Gloucester, plots to seize power for himself. Masterfully deceiving and plotting against nearly everyone in the royal court, including his eventual wife, Lady Anne, and his brother George, Duke of Clarence, Richard orchestrates a bloody rise to power before finding all his gains jeopardized by those he betrayed.

Director
Richard LoncraineFrom TMDB credits
Studio
Mayfair Entertainment International6 production companies
Release
December 29, 1995Released
Box Office
$3M

Top Cast

8 of 32
Ian McKellen
Ian McKellen
Richard III
Annette Bening
Annette Bening
Queen Elizabeth
Jim Broadbent
Jim Broadbent
The Duke of Buckingham
Robert Downey Jr.
Robert Downey Jr.
Earl Rivers
Kristin Scott Thomas
Kristin Scott Thomas
Lady Anne
Adrian Dunbar
Adrian Dunbar
James Tyrrell
Maggie Smith
Maggie Smith
Duchess of York
Tim McInnerny
Tim McInnerny
William Catesby

Trailers & Photos

Reviews

From TMDB users
tmdb28039023
Aug 27, 2022

Co-writers Ian McKellen and Richard Loncraine (who also directs) set their Richard III in 1930s Britain, and make the infamous hunchback a fascist warmonger plotting to usurp the throne. Today's English monarchy is, at best, nominal, but even way back in the 1930s there wasn't much to be gained by usurping it. Then again, the film takes place in an alternate reality where the War of the Roses occurs 450 years after the true historical conflict did. I don’t mind so much that royalty has endured those four centuries and a half; what does bother me is that language has not evolved in the interim at the same rate as, say, warfare. Why on Earth would Richard (McKellen), who is neither dumb nor crazy, use the expression “my kingdom for a horse” when he could be asking for a tank instead? This line is only in the movie because it’s in the play – but then, a great many things that are in the play aren’t in the film, and viceversa, so why keep this particular bit? I mean, it couldn’t be because the audience is expecting it, even though it makes zero sense given the circumstances, could it? Did they think diehard Shakespeare fans would riot otherwise? Well, if there were such a thing as hardcore Shake-heads, I assure you they would have rioted long before this point. Similarly outdated is a scene in which several characters who have been at each other’s throats are compelled to swear mutual oaths of loyalty. As Al Pacino’s superb documentary Looking for Richard rightly points out, at the time that the original play is set this would be serious business, because only people who want to go to hell would swear an oath and not keep it. Ditto the scene where Richard blames his deformity on Queen Elizabeth's witchcraft; this is an accusation that would have been given credence in the 1470s, but not so much in the 1930s. All things considered, it’s somewhat ironic that McKellen had a hand in the script, because his performance is worthy of much better material. His body language, in particular, is priceless – this Richard looks like a super-intelligent ape masquerading as a British Army field marshal. And when he breaks the fourth wall – another device that works better on a theater stage –, it feels as if Richard is letting the viewers in on that the entire movie is a sick joke he's playing on the other characters. If only.

More Like This

Browse all