Looking for Richard

I can't wait to use this film as a teaching tool.


Mildly entertaining but also pretty deliberately dumbed down   May 2, 2004
inframan (the lower depths)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful

I like Al Pacino in many movies, especially, of course, Godfather 2. I've seen him on the stage & enjoyed his performances in O'Neill & Mamet.

But to me Shakespeare is not his forte. In this film which I find to be mostly an exercise in actorly self-indulgence, he comes off sounding like Mel Brooks both as narrator & especially in character.

I also find the intent rather condescending & for the most part irrelevant. The gap between English & American actors doing Shakespeare has to do with Language & History. I didn't hear much commentary on these issues. Mostly the film sounds like a treatise for making Shakespeare palatable to grade schoolers.


Pacino's best film ... where's the DVD?   August 11, 2003
Marc E. DiPaolo (Kutztown, PA USA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful

Although Richard III is one of Shakespeare's most violent and Gothic plays, Pacino's loving and intelligent exploration of the classic tragedy - and the legendary bard who penned it - emerges as one of Pacino's most compelling and inspiring films. A movie that makes me proud to be an Italian-American studying for his Ph.D. in British literature.


Pacino Found Richard alright!   May 15, 2003
Adam Bernstein (Northwest, USA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful

This 1996 part documentary part Richard III drama takes one of Shakespeare's greatest plays and makes it accessible. Al Pacino has a mission: to bring his love of Shakespeare to the mainstream. This film shows him on the streets of New York City mainly in Central Park and the Cloisters. He talks to people on the street about Shakespeare, acts the role of Richard III on the street, and even instructs a high school class. The documentary intersperses these street scenes with scenes of the actual film performance and of the actors rehearsing and discussing the play, in a way reminicent of "The French Leutenant's Woman", but this one is actual documentary.

Also included is a trip to England where Pacino visits Shakespeare's birthplace in Stratford-upon-Avon as well as the Tower of London. We get a new respect for Pacino as he puts his all into this role, and his passion rubs off. And we get to see the likes of Kevin Spacey and Winona Rider in roles alongside some British greats. The discussion focuses on whether Americans can really grasp or act Shakespeare, and though perchance many Americans cannot, Pacino CAN. Another discussion ponders whether actors like Pacino know more about Shakespeare than scholars who are interviewed, and the judgement is in some ways yes, in some no. I do disagree with Al that you don't really have to know the meaning of ALL the lines, just the gist of it. I really believe grasping the complete meaning will make it all the more valuable.

But it is disheartening to know that after this great film came out we saw Pacino revert to stuff like "The Devil's Advocate" and more cops and robbers junk; on the other hand if they paid me millions I can't say I'd turn the stuff down myself.

But one really covert irony to the whole thing is that there are some real parallels between Richard (off with their heads)the third and Michael Corleone. Both tyrants who kill off the opposition (or possible opposition) including their own family members. I'm sure this wasn't lost on Pacino....is it possible he took some of Shakespeare into his Corleone role?

And of course Pacino nails Richard III, and with great sets and ominous music to contrast the lighter off the set stuff the most interesting aspect is his transformation from actor working on the role to becoming the role. See this film and then read the world's greatest writer, preferably all his plays.


All you British snobs are missing the point   February 26, 2003
This movie isn't historically accurate, Americans can't do Shakespeare, blah, blah, blah. That's what some people who reviewed this movie are saying. These are probably the same people who insist that Shakespeare must be performed in the Queen's English- which is ridiculous, as the English accent during Shakespeare's time is rather similar to the accent still preserved in Appalachia, and, which, dare I say, is closer to the American accent than the British! I'll be the first to admit that as a result of several hundred years worth of linguistic evolution, much of Shakespeare IS hard to understand. It's unreasonable to assume that people watching a production will understand it. But this film helped to bring me to Shakespeare: it understood where I was coming from, and, more than offering in-depth explanatory notes on "Richard III," which would have been incredibly boring, it tried to simplify the Bard and explain his magic. I saw lively scenes of a production, and actors enjoying themselves during it. Shakespeare is done well when done by actors who care about it (like these), so that, at best, it becomes wonderful- and understandable- drama and comedy, and, at worst, it is not understood by the audience, but is treated passionately enough that the audience might enjoy it without full understanding, much like when going to an opera.