User Reviews (58)

Add a Review

  • Many great actors made their names with this Richard, and it turns out to be Olivier's greatest Shakepearean role as well. He captures the whole production coiling his way around the Crown of England: his asides to us through the camera are lovely. They say all actors love to play a villain. Well, it works for me.

    The movie is beautiful, rich; the costumes are awesome; and the dialogue, of course, is wonderful. He patches in that great speech from Henry VI, part 3: "Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile . . .": and the movie wouldn't be right without it.

    The other actors, Britain's elite of the time, seem to be tyrannized by the boss; and the text should have been edited better, because if you don't know the play and practically the whole history you'll get lost. Not to worry, though; the subplots here aren't really important (but they should be), and the thundering battle at the end will leave you satisfied. Special mention of Sir William Walton's music, the vibrant colors, and of course, England itself.
  • That "Richard III" is one of the all-time great acting performances is hard to argue with. In the title role, Sir Laurence Olivier manages to be rousing and hate-inducing, menacing and amusing, often all at once. He was the world's greatest stage actor of his time, and Shakespeare was the world's greatest stage writer. So how do they do on the movie screen?

    Quite well. Because "Richard III," like "Patton" or "Scarface," is essentially a one-man show, and Olivier was the best Shakespearean actor of his time or since, we are in good hands. As a director (and uncredited co-writer), Olivier telescopes the action on screen in such a way as to negate the necessary stageiness of Shakespeare's text. He moves us the audience from one scene to another by pulling back a curtain and nodding to us to come closer, as if we were an old friend. He yells some lines, then coos others, his vocal dynamics challenging even seasoned readers of the play in terms of what he chooses to accent and what he does not. Finally, he finds the ample stores of humor Shakespeare gave this, one of his darker plays.

    "A sweeter and a lovelier gentleman...the spacious world cannot again afford," Richard says of one man he killed, and Olivier invests moments like this with a firm tongue in cheek. While wooing that man's wife (strictly for political gain), he actually draws a sword when presenting himself as the widow's new suitor, telling her to plunge it into him if she won't be his bride. She tells him he's a liar. "Then never man was true!" Richard shouts, and Olivier as he says this rolls his eyes shamelessly, like a silent-screen matinée idol. I can't watch that scene without laughing; it's a Mel Brooks moment.

    The film does move slowly, despite Olivier's trims. Entire scenes get cut out, yet the first act is drawn on for nearly an hour with the help of some dialogue brought in from another Shakespeare play. Surely Olivier could have set more up as part of the opening text narrative, and gotten down to business with that famous opening soliloquy.

    A worse fault is the woodenness of some of the actors, like the ones who play Catesby, Brackenbury, and especially Lord Hastings. It doesn't help that they don't get the same chance to address the viewer that Olivier avails himself. Sir John Gielgud even seems lost playing a naive victim of Richard's complots. Seen to better advantage are Claire Bloom as the woman Richard woos, Michael Gough as a murderer, and Patrick Troughton as the nasty child-killing nobleman Tyrell.

    Ralph Richardson gives the second-best performance in the play as the Duke of Buckingham, a half-step behind Richard in guile and cruelty, but trying to catch up in his own cold-blooded way. It's funny to read here that Olivier wanted Orson Welles in the role. Welles would have seemed too crafty. Richardson makes a believable victim as well as conspirator. Also, you have to mention Pamela Brown's Mistress Shore, who has no lines (because Shakespeare wrote none for her) but manages in Olivier's direction to play a central role by currying the bedside favor of King Edward and of Hastings.

    But Olivier of course is the only reason this movie is still watched. And he's worth watching as long as movies are seen. Yes, he may have won World War II making his movie version of "Henry V," and his "Hamlet" was when he became Hollywood's favorite emissary of high culture, but "Richard III" is still the thing to catch the conscienceless of the king, his moment of highest dungeon and merriest perversity. It's movies like this one that remind us why acting can be a noble profession, even for those who aren't knighted for their excellence in it.
  • It may not be the best film of a Shakespeare play but surely there is no better Shakespearean performance on film than Laurence Olivier's "Richard III". He had already done "Henry V" and "Hamlet" on screen, winning Oscars for both, (an Honorary one for his "Henry V"), but 'Richard ...' was always considered the lesser, more fanciful play with an Elizabethan Godfather in charge yet Olivier made it his own, creating a Richard by which all others would be judged.

    It's less 'cinematic' than either "Henry V" or "Hamlet", (the sets look like sets), but here 'the play's the thing' and Olivier cast it perfectly. Knights Gielgud and Hardwicke are quickly dispatched as Clarence and Edward but Ralph Richardson is a magnificently malevolent Buckingham, Mary Kerridge, a magnificent Queen Elizabeth and Claire Bloom, a sublime Lady Anne. It is also one of the most accessible of all Shakespeare adaptations; Shakespeare for those who don't like Shakespeare and a 'thriller' that genuinely thrills.
  • I just can't find words to describe how I like this film. It is the most magnificent film I've ever seen. And it is certainly the best work of Laurence Olivier. I came to learn about this film quite accidentally. I was watching on TV some program about Shakespeare's plays and their adaptations. There were a number of fragments from different films and from this one too… It was the moment where Richard is offered a crown, he refuses at first and then accepts. I was stunned when Buckingham approached Richard to congratulate and Richard suddenly made him kneel down and kiss his hand. The gesture was so majestic, imperative and full of evil triumph. I understood at once that it was a great film. I've bought VHS tape as soon as I've found it and I've already seen it about dozen times. It's superb. Everything is splendid – screenplay, costumes, scenery and acting. I like John Gielgud as noble Clarence and Ralf Richardson as cunning Buckingham, and especially Claire Bloom as gentle and unhappy Lady Anne. However I still admire Laurence Olivier more than anybody else. I just can't forget his terrific voice and acting at the scene of first Richard's monologue that reveals malicious ambitious, mercilessness and devilish ingenuity of the Duke of Gloucester. Another scene I adore is his wooing Lady Anne. Both actors are great. Olivier is so convincing and moving that I believe any woman could surrender. Olivier maintains high standards of these impressive scenes through the whole film until the final battle. Richard is desperate and courageous at the end, he is killed but his spirit is not broken (he can be afraid of ghosts, not real enemies). Shakespearean play is brilliant and the film is worthy of the original. It's the most glorious historical movie of all times. I recommend everyone to see it.
  • One of Olivier's most notable performances which set a precedent for how the role should be played. The eccentricity of the ambitious, crippled and sadistic, Richard of Gloucester makes for a surprisingly funny yet dark tragedy.

    Olivier's expertise in stage technique, married with an exceptional talent, makes for shots that last for more than a minute before the cut while he delivers the goods to camera.Set mainly in a castle ,simple but true to stage, with powerful monologues from all concerned.The dialect used is easier for the novice Shakespearian to understand than it is in some other such plays.

    The ultimate treacherer who can,"add colours to the camelian and set the murderous Machiavelli to school".He makes no secret to the audience of his villainous disposition.Likewise the role makes no secret of Sir Larry's brilliance. Filled with classic lines such as,"a horse ..my kingdom for a horse!" and ,"Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer..." . this film ,true to Shakespeare's other work has the mixture of tragedy and comedy, historic fact meets convenient fiction with a splash of romantic betrayal.. Utterly outrageous !
  • This excellent production of "Richard III" features a terrific performance by Laurence Olivier in the lead role, plus a fine supporting cast, good color photography, and plenty of color and pageantry to set off the action. Richard III can be one of Shakespeare's most entertaining plays when it is done well, and this version does full justice to this classic play. It's especially enjoyable if you get the restored widescreen version.

    Olivier is unsurpassed at performing Shakespeare, keeping the balance between giving life to his characters while making sure that they remain part of the play as a whole, rather than drawing all the attention to himself. This might be the best of all his screen Shakespearean roles, since Richard gives him so much to work with, and also because he has such an accomplished supporting cast to complement his own performance. Playing Richard gives him a chance to be charming, devious, tyrannical, and more, and the role offers some choice solo speeches plus other scenes that have excellent give-and-take with the other characters.

    The rest of the cast also deserves praise. Ralph Richardson is ideally cast as Buckingham, a character who is so important both to the plot and also to showing us what Richard himself is all about. The rest of the cast includes good performances from Cedric Hardwicke, John Gielgud, Claire Bloom, and others. Olivier's adaptation/revision of the script also works pretty well, maintaining the feel of the play while often highlighting scenes that make for particularly good cinema. It all makes this just what a movie version of Shakespeare should be.
  • Prismark1013 April 2017
    In many ways this is a stage-bound adaptation and with Olivier in the lead role this is not a bad thing. After all he was one of the theatre greats of the twentieth century.

    In Richard III, Olivier constantly turns and talks to the audience with his devilish plans to ascend to the throne of England. Aided by his cousin the Duke of Buckingham (Ralph Richardson) he soon replaces King Edward IV (Cedric Hardwicke), rids himself of his other brother George (John Gielgud) and dispatches his young nephews to the tower and then brings their tender lives to a premature end.

    The deformed, despicable hunchback even seduces the widow of a man he murdered for his own purposes, Lady Anne (Claire Bloom).

    Once Richard ascends to the throne he finds that he has to do battle with a rival who also stakes a claim to the hollow crown.

    This is a chance to see Olivier, still in his pomp speaking the Bard's verse. Unfortunately the accompanying music is too bombastic and Olivier's death scene verges on the ham.
  • It's quite a gap that Laurence Olivier covers between his portrayal of heroic Henry V and the evil Richard III. But he certainly does cover it well.

    In fact this production boasts the talents of five knighted thespians in its cast, Olivier as Richard, John Gielgud as Clarence, Ralph Richardson as Buckingham, Cedric Hardwicke as Edward IV and Stanley Baker as the Earl of Richmond. That is probably some kind of record.

    Once seen you will not forget the heavily made up Olivier with a shylock type nose and hunchbacked form. Unlike in Henry V and in Hamlet the title character's soliliquys are delivered straight to the audience rather than in voice-over. I think Olivier like Shakespeare wanted to emphasize the evilness of Richard as opposed to the tormenting doubts that Henry and Hamlet suffer. No doubts here, he's got his evil course well planned and he's very matter of factly telling his audience what's in store.

    Of course when Shakespeare wrote this he was gearing up the Tudor dynasty propaganda machine. Stanley Baker's Earl of Richmond becomes Henry VII grandfather of the Queen whose patronage Shakespeare enjoyed. It was in Tudor family interest to blacken Richard's name to support their own dynastic claims. There have been several plausible theories put forth to claim the murders of Edward V and his brother were done by others.

    One guy who in all the stories about Richard III who gets a whitewash is the Duke of Clarence. As portrayed by John Gielgud, Clarence is an innocent sacrificed in Richard's march for the throne. Actually Clarence was quite the schemer himself. He was in communication with Louis XI of France looking for aid in some plotting he was doing. Edward IV overlooked an incredible amount of treachery with him.

    One very big flaw is that the film opens with Edward IV being restored to the throne again in 1471 and he has his son with him. Edward IV died in 1483 and the sons have not aged a mite. I believe they were 12 and 9 when they were put to death in the Tower of London in 1483. I'm surprised Olivier had that in his film.

    Still and all it's a fabulous production and one should never miss a chance of seeing all that acting nobility in one film.
  • leami8 August 2003
    It is hard to criticise such a wonderful cast and it is true that the theatrical delivery of the "greats" (Richardson, Olivier and Guilgud) is a joy. Their speach alone is to the ear what great wine is to the tongue.

    But, ultimately this is unsatisfying other than anything else than for historical interest. The problem for me is that Lord Olivier's Richard is just too one dimensional. Sure, he gets the evil Richard down to "a tee" but Shakespeare's Richard is so much more than this. Shakespeare's Richard is at his most dangerous when he smiles. He is able to woo not one, but two women (with varying success) and he is able to get people "on-side" despite his self-evident evil - not least because he is able to disguse it, at least in the first half of the text. For Shakespeare, only the audience truly sees his evil for much of the play - from the opening "winter of discontent" speach through to other asides. Olivier's Richard is evil to anyone who cares to glance at him. This makes it almost impossible to understand HOW he could have done what he did.

    It is certainly worth watching this but it is misguided to take it as a definitive version, despite the cast.
  • 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.
  • Richard III is a wonderful film. I love the play too, it is not my favourite of Shakespeare's plays but it does have some memorable scenes and lines and Richard III himself is a character you are unlikely to forget. This 1955 film is for me one of the Shakespeare films ever made. Why? Because it does have some wonderful production values. The cinematography is marvellous to look at and the scenery and costumes are impeccable. Sir William Walton's score is also superb, I am becoming much more receptive to Walton's music and the music here is a big reason why. The story is compelling and the dialogue and direction are wonderful.

    The cast give it their all. John Gielgud is especially wonderful and very memorable as Clarence, but Laurence Olivier is absolutely brilliant and gives one of his best and most charismatic performances ever here. Overall, a fantastic film. 10/10 Bethany Cox
  • CinemaSerf24 September 2022
    Whilst Laurence Olivier has been acclaimed by many as the greatest exponent of Shakespeare ever, it is pretty clear in this strongly cast adaptation of probably my favourite of his histories, that Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud were every bit as good as he ever was. Add to this excellent cast Sir Cedric Hardwicke (and his instantly recognisable voice) as Edward IV; Mary Kerridge's excellent performance as Queen Elizabeth (Woodville) and a host of accomplished British stage actors and the scene is set for a rousing and luscious depiction of betrayal, lust and power. It is a bit over-theatrical at times, and the stage-bound nature of the vast majority of the production can be a little limiting, but Olivier directs himself and the others pretty much as I imagine the bard himself might have done. The dialogue is delivered in a focused and effective fashion and the "method" acting is largely left at the stage door as this epic tale of treachery and duplicity gathers pace and the internecine nature of the characterisations and their intrigues are readily brought to the fore. It does require a bit of concentration, but I found it positively flew by on a big screen that had me glued from the start. I reckon this is as good an interpretation of William Shakespeare as you will ever see, and is well worth a watch.
  • FilmSnobby19 May 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    Film versions of Shakespeare's plays are almost always lousy, so it's something of a pleasure to encounter one that's watchable. Laurence Olivier's *Richard III* is certainly that, though don't expect the grandeur or cinematic excitement of his own *Henry V*. Much of this has to do with the fact that *Henry V* is simply a better play than *Richard III*, the latter being, in all likelihood, the fourth play Shakespeare ever wrote, immediately following the *Henry VI* trilogy. While *Richard III* is a grand, culminating sequel to that early trilogy, and while it remains the most staged play in the entire canon, the fact remains that it is an apprentice work, heavily tainted with Marlowe's influence. Shakespeare hadn't found his true voice yet.

    Olivier, director and ruthless adapter, seems to instinctively know which parts to cut. He had the good sense to eliminate the part of the tiresome, hectoring Queen Margaret (the widow of King Henry VI), with her reams of Seneca-imitation blank verse and endless imprecations ("O you bloody dog!" etc.). Several scenes in the work by Shakespeare are marred with a Senecan sing-song repetition between the characters; i.e.: BOY. "What child ever suffered such a loss?" / QUEEN. "What wife ever suffered such a loss?" / DUCHESS. "What mother ever suffered such a loss" and so on and so forth. Olivier gets rid of this sort of nonsense, and retains the forceful passages and the overall zip to the piece. For instance, he retains the famous wooing scene between Richard and the Lady Anne, almost uncut. Indeed, all the best scenes are virtually uncut, and Olivier also reaches back into *Henry VI Part 3* to open the movie and extend Richard's opening monologue. What BAD adapters, like Kenneth Branagh, try to do is to cram in the whole play, lightly skimming across each scene, retaining the best nuggets while losing the full richness of a scene's context. Such a method also mangles the majestic rhythm of Shakespearian verse. Olivier, on the other hand, simply excises the bad scenes, and films the good scenes in their entirety. Finally, it's a joy to see Olivier tip his hat to English stage tradition by including some famous interpolations from Colley Cibber ("Off with his head! So much for Buckingham!") and other stage directors from between Shakespeare's time up to 1955.

    One can't discuss a movie like this without mentioning the acting -- which, in this case, means Olivier, solely. Encumbered with a bluish-black page-boy wig and a glued-on long pointy nose, his Richard looks like the Wicked Witch of the West and sounds like her, too: a nasty-tempered old crone. He delivers the verse with a swishy, rat-a-tat-tat petulance. It's a thoroughly amusing performance, marred by the last sequences, when he's on Bosworth Field fighting Richmond: suddenly, Richard becomes a chivalric hero, a jarring switch from what we've seen from him the previous two hours. In fact, the entire film is brought heavily down by the outdoor sequences, which appear to have been shot in central Spain, what with the sand and scrub and occasional cactus. The movie fares much better within its purposely artificial and stagey confines: the drywall castle walls, glowing with Technicolor blue; the ornate and quite accurate costuming; the gloomy dungeons; the princess-palace boudoirs; that gigantic papier-mache gold crown hanging from the roof. Olivier didn't exactly have a big budget, and necessity is the mother of invention.

    One DOES wish the other performers left even half the impression that Olivier leaves on us. Gielgud is evocative as Richard's doomed brother Clarence, but he exits too early. Ralph Richardson is ruinously miscast as political gangster Buckingham, one of Richard's allies. Alec Clunes is atrocious as Hastings. Claire Bloom is adequate -- in that certain Old Vic manner -- as Anne. But in fairness to Olivier, Shakespeare wasn't interested in these other characters, except as they figure into Richard's devious plans for securing the Crown. Later in his career, Shakespeare would grace the titanic figure of Hamlet with a supporting cast including the likes of Gertrude, Claudius, Polonius, Ophelia, Laertes, and Horatio. In *Richard III*, we get . . . Catesby. It's instructive to see that the world's greatest writer had to work hard to become a genius.

    But this is still a good movie, and Olivier (and Richard) are enjoyable enough. 5 stars out of 10.
  • Henry V was said to be Laurence Olivier's greatest screen role for British Propaganda reasons... he inspired England etc. during World War 2; there is no denying it, his Henry is brilliant. But he surpasses his own genius as Richard.

    "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York" just seeing Richard's stooped, deformed figure hobble to the camera like some monstrous spider; to hear those bitter words delivered with such articulate power, and to be penetrated by that stony, constant glare is enough to know that this is no ordinary actor... this is a thespian whose legend will leave generations and generations of actors to come hopeless (teeth gritted) Whatever people say, Kenneth Brannagh will NOT be the next Laurence Olivier!!!

    This movie has a fantastic cast: get this! Ralph Richardson AND John Geilgud AND Claire Bloom! Claire Bloom is especially exquisite and I think she plays the soulfully lamenting Lady Anne to perfection. Her scenes with Olivier are great; there is such agitation and irony between the two. I especially like it when he woos her by her husband's tomb... just goes to show how even in a tyrannical role Olivier can still steal a woman's heart with his irresistible seductiveness. She is beautiful and a most accomplished actress; I wonder why she is not better known... is Richard the only Shakespeare film she did????

    Geilgud is wonderful as the doomed Clarence, done to death by the scheming Richard; my only disappointment was in Buckingham, played by Ralph Richardson. Richardson left me with a completely wrong impression of Buckingham, who (or so I learn from the play) is not all that different in character from Richard; but is scheming and devious also. Sad to say, (and I have read Olivier admits it so himself) Richardson was cast wrongly as the Duke of Buckingham... he acts too innocent and unsuspecting.

    I must also give a technical comment on the camera angle; I would have preferred to be nearer Olivier at some parts of his scenes... that said, I must say I liked the scenes theatrical as such... why are other reviewers always moaning about the costumes and the settings? The costumes I liked, the settings I liked, the music by william walton was great (olivier had good taste in music though he was definitely not a musician himself) and really suited the swiftly changing reflective to agitated moods of the characters.

    That said, I believe Laurence Olivier's Richard III to be (with perhaps the exception of his Henry V) the most worthily majestic film ever made in England. The greatest of course, would have been to see such a master of his incandescent talent on stage as Richard since Olivier was finest on stage live, but to be realistic, there is not much of his stage performances recorded, if any, and to be left this masterpiece that Shakespeare himself would have been proud to see performed, is a tribute to the most incredible actor of this century, and most probably, of all time.
  • I think that there is one of the greatest masterpiece of the cinema through the ages, even the first time of the ages of silent movies, like masterpieces than ‘The Battelship Potemkin', for example, and a few several ones. When an actor, like Laurence Olivier, it makes all his performance in the movie (or it is better to speak about a pure stage?) a complete treatise of the perfect actor: soliloquies of several minutes ‘in crescendo', looking at the camera and sharing with the audience his diabolic tricks, one and more time and making captivate to us... Would Shakespeare himself wanted anybody better than Olivier if he could see him?. I don't know, but I can say by myself that Olivier made with Shakespeare's work that me, and I suppose thousands of people, and I'm speaking about people from abroad about England, English literature, History and customs, we love Shakespeare's work at all times. Like you know, here in Spain we ‘ve got several excellent writers, and we had them in the past... But with Olivier first, and Kenneth Branagh later, they have remembered to the rest of the people of the world, outside England and not anglo-saxon talking people, who is, who were the biggest Shakespeare. Thank you both of you.
  • Laurence Olivier's performance is without blemish. If there is a character more complex in all of literature, I don't know who it is (Hamlet might do for some). Richard is the deformed Duke of Gloucester who connives and murders his way to the throne. He is indeed a ruthless serpent, but he has become this way due to the types of assaults on his physical presence that he has endured. He is a child murderer and a manipulator. He works his will on women and somehow gets them to not abhor him. When he gets what he wants, he tosses people aside. Of course, there are prices to pay for this. The whole thing, however, is that we can't take our eyes off Olivier as he plays the tyrant to perfection. The scene at the end as he fights on Bosworth Field is striking. Of course, it takes more than one person to bring this off. An all-star cast and wonderful settings and, of course, the language is masterful.
  • Richard III (1452-1485) was the last king in the Plantagenet dynasty that had ruled England since 1154. He was also the last English king to die in battle but he is remembered more as a man of unparalleled villainy and treachery as depicted in the play of William Shakespeare. His portrayal by Sir Laurence Olivier in the 1955 film version of Richard III] has left a lasting impression of a bitter, crippled, and deformed man who murdered Henry VI, Henry's son Edward, his brother Clarence, and his nephews Edward and Richard, although the historical truth remains in doubt. The performance by Sir Laurence Olivier was to be the last of his three Shakespearean performances (Hamlet, Henry V). Though likely intentional, I found it to be a manic, one-dimensional caricature that robs Richard of any semblance of humanity.

    The film depicts the events leading up to the crowning of Richard III in 1483, beginning with a disclaimer that the film is part history and part legend but it doesn't say which part is which. Shot mostly inside the castle, by modern standards, its style is dated and uncinematic. The opening scene is the coronation of Edward IV, lifted from the final scene of Shakespeare's "Henry VI: Part III". It is here that the director introduces the king (Cedric Hardwicke) and queen (Mary Kerridge), their two young sons, Gloucester (Olivier) and brother Clarence (John Gielgud), his cousin Buckingham (Sir Ralph Richardson) and his friend Hastings (Alec Cunes). Under Olivier's direction, Richard talks directly to the audience starting with the famous soliloquy "This is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this son of York". In this monologue, Richard of Gloucester, a gruesome looking figure with a deformed shoulder, a withered hand, and a hook nose announces his plans to overthrow his brother, the present King Edward IV.

    Interestingly, Winston Churchill noted that none of Richard's contemporaries ever said anything about the king being deformed and one suspects that it may be the author's way of lampooning Robert Cecil, a hunchback who was an unscrupulous power broker during Queen Elizabeth's last years. Convincing King Edward that his brother, the Duke of Clarence, is after the crown he engineers Clarence's removal to the Tower where he is quickly disposed of, first by stabbing then by being immersed in a barrel of wine. Richard's goal is even closer when Edward is taken seriously ill. Needing a queen, he woos Lady Anne (Claire Bloom) who agrees to marry him even though fully aware that Richard had murdered both her husband and King Henry. Because his claim to the throne is tenuous, the killing does not stop and Richard has the king's two boys imprisoned and suffocated in the Tower and murders Queen Anne.

    After the killing spree leaves London in upheaval, a group of citizens comes to Baynard Castle to request that Richard accept the crown to bring peace to the troubled land. After some initial unconvincing resistance, Tricky Dick finally relents and is crowned King Richard III. This event, however, does not stop young Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, from claiming the throne with strong popular support and a major battle takes place in Bosworth Field as armies of Richard and Henry gather in August of 1485 to settle the issue. After 165 scenes involving thirty featured players, forty actors in bit parts, and hundreds of crowd artists, the film is brought to a rousing conclusion. Richard's defeat and the succession of the Tudor dynasty brought to an end the Wars of the Roses and is marked as a turning point in English history, dividing the medieval from the modern era.

    Shakespeare's play, based on Tudor sources, is an astute propaganda piece whose principal goal in the words of author Mark Anderson was to "legitimize Queen Elizabeth and her house of Tudor by celebrating the Tudor regime's first victory - the deposition of Richard III by Henry Tudor in 1485." The play has an antecedent in the anonymous "The True History of Richard III" first performed by the Queen's Men in 1589, which in its final scene heaps praise on the Tudor queen. It is one of Shakespeare's most popular works but, for me, it is lacking in the usual Shakespearean subtlety, tenderness, and spiritual depth. Perhaps viewing a different performance might allow me to appreciate the work a good deal more.
  • Christopher-17828 December 2006
    I saw Richard III as a child, and was totally mesmerised both by the film and story, and the part played by Sir Lawrence. It's a shame that the story doesn't do justice to Richard III, as it 'demonises' Richard somewhat. However the film justifiably earn its 10! One needs to remember that the film was made long before the modern computer-generated effects, yet the 'ghost' effects before the battle on the field of Bosworth were fantastic, and would not be out of place today in the 21st Century. Olivier's make-up was equally effective, including the hunch-back, the missing fingers and the extended nose. A scene that will always be with me is the murder of the two princes in the tower. This is a Shakespearian film at its best!
  • Well, this is the first Shakespeare movie I've seen that was done by Sir Laurence, he's done others of course, and probably was the first actor to seriously take a shining to filming the Bard's works, before Branaugh, Pacino et al. Richard III is of course about one of the more despicable Kings in Shakespeare history, killing men, women and children to get to his throne and stay there.

    Olivier is fabulous in this role, looking exactly like a crow, he is stubborn, cruel, selfish and barbaric, and Olivier seems to be having a ball reenacting this play for the screen. Unfortunately, except for the end part where we thankfully go outside, this whole thing feels way to stagey, with minimal props and lots of dialogue, this suffers from too much belief that 'The Play's The Thing' unfortunately.

    Also features a rare glimpse of Olivier and John Gielgud together in one scene, for those of you convinced they're the same person.
  • It is kind of sad to know that this was Lord Laurence Olivier's last film by the works of William Shakespeare simply because it failed in the movie theaters. Besides Olivier's performance, there was Sir John Gielgud, Sir Cedric Hardwicke, and Sir Ralph Richardson in supporting roles. The color is first rate for its time period. The costumes are gorgeous. Claire Bloom gives the best female performance in the film as Lady Anne. This film should have allowed Olivier to do more Shakespeare films like he wanted to do. Instead, he went on to do other roles. This film is worth viewing for the stunning interpretation of William Shakespeare's works. If you seen Olivier's films like Hamlet, he does give remarkable attention to detail. Olivier reminds me of Orson Welles who produced, wrote, directed, and even acted in the number one film of all time, Citizen Kane. I believe Olivier was trying to capture that by doing Shakespeare. I am sure William Shakespeare is proud of the work done by actors like Olivier, Gielgud, Richardson, Welles, Hardwicke, and hundreds of others. This film would be suitable for the classroom and worthy for viewing for historic and entertaining purposes. Please give it a chance.
  • frankde-jong4 November 2023
    "Richard III" (1955) is another Shakespeare production in which Laurence Olivier combines the lead actor and directing roles, just like in "Hamlet" (1948).

    I am no Shakespeare expert, but to me the similarities in his royal drama's far outweigh the differences. A pretender for the crown fulfills his ambitions, often with the aid of some murders. Once he is king the spirits of his victims visit him at night (see also "Macbeth") and his enemies still living make an alliance to combat him. The crown, for which such huge sacrifices were brought, suddenly no longer seems worth it (see in "Richard III" the quote "A horse. A horse. My Kingdom for a horse" at the end of the film.).

    In broad terms, the storyline of Richard III follows the above formula, so no surprises here. For this part Olivier is obviously not responsible. Another thing is that the design of the film is very traditional and theatrical (apart from the battle scenes at the end of the movie). For example Laurence Olivier as Richard III often addresses the viewer directly, to explain his hidden purposes, which he of course can't explain in the dialogue with other characters. The only stylistic difference with "Hamlet" seems to be the fact that the film is in color. These colors are however so bright that it nearly requires sunglasses to watch the movie.

    At the American box office the film did not perform well. Olivier never got the chance to direct another Shakespeare adaptation.
  • The war of roses is over, and the once-bitterly opposed houses of York and Lancaster are united in the wedding of their heirs (Edward of York is King). Yet the king's Machiavellian younger brother Richard (Olivier) plots to revive old hatreds and scheme and murder his way to the crown.

    After tackling "Henry V", in a slightly overwrought way, and "Hamlet", for which he was more than a bit too old, Olivier relies on the fruit of past successes and failures for his screen Shakespeare apotheosis. The play itself is indisputably among Shakespeare's finest, using the wonderful plot elements woven together throughout Henry VI (part1 through 3) and offering an epic conclusion that stands on its own, thanks to the wonderful character that is Richard.

    Using some almost theatrical staging at times, Olivier immerses us into the tale by including late scenes from Henry VI to great effect, allowing his audience to understand the context and characters before embarking on his roller-coaster ride. Much has been made of Olivier's sleazy, delicious performance as Richard (inspiring many villainous creations, such as Disney's big bad wolf), but his editing of Shakespeare's text is the real masterstroke. Scenes are omitted, others displaced or broken in halves... what might outrage in principle works wonders on screen, as Olivier's reworking only serves to make the story more clear and cinematic.

    At 160 minutes, "Richard III" gives us a compelling, baffling story that never outstays its welcome, a wonderful edifice marrying Olivier's direction with Shakespeare's art, and propping it up on four sturdy pillars of acting excellence: Olivier of course, but one mustn't forget the superb work by Claire Bloom, John Gieguld, and Ralph Richardson as Richard's confidant Buckingham (whom, rumor has it, Olivier once wanted Orson Welles to play).

    A must-see!
  • Of the three Shakespeare plays that Laurence Olivier directed and starred in, Richard III is my favourite, though I think both Henry V (1944) and Hamlet (1948) are more filmic and wide-reaching visually. Richard III is more stagy, more theatrical. This is not necessarily a bad thing, for it captures probably one of the finest, most delicious performances ever in a context that respects its theatrical heritage (Olivier famously played Richard on stage earlier), and there is something about the very construction of the play that is very theatrical – essentially it is a series of small dramas or set pieces: scenes that in themselves are works of art, and beautifully crafted that way by Shakespeare. The staginess works best when Olivier speaks directly to us, because then he is using an unconventional film device (actors don't normally talk to the camera) to improve upon a common theatrical device, creating a bond between role and audience. That this is not employed throughout the play is as much Shakespeare's fault as Olivier's, because it is written that way –we get no direct address from Richard in the crucial demise at the battle, and are thus relegated back to being observers rather than "confidents".

    Upon re-watching it, I was struck by how much what seeing was itself an historical document –of a style of acting and staging that perhaps to us now seems dated, but which at the time was perfectly relevant and true. When diction counted for something and clarity of expression and utterance was all important. Some of the performances come across as more dated than others, perhaps because of their shameless heightened theatricality. This is particularly true of some of lesser characters whose have no star appeal to buoy them up and are dependent merely upon their craft. Yet someone like Ralph Richardson is such an interesting screen personality that his performance –like that of Olivier's– remains fresh and vivid. Michael Gough does wonders with his small part, and Claire Bloom is marvellous –the scene in which her character is wooed by Richard is one of my favourite in both the film and in all of Shakespeare.

    People have remarked upon the unevenness of the final act, with a sunny Spanish landscape so clearly standing in for soggy England that it distracts our attention away from the narrative; the theatricality is gone and we are suddenly made of this being a film location. The way this necessary shift from studio to outdoors is handled is much more deftly achieved in Olivier's earlier "Henry V", which also has a more satisfying battle scene, but that was written more precisely too; the battle scene in Shakespeare's Richard III only has a few lines and few directions so any film version will have to expand upon these. I think in this case there must have been many logistic difficulties with the location filming because this section of the film is sadly not on par with what has come before.

    Yet, though these points may seem somewhat negative, I am merely pointing things that I feel could have been better. They do not affect my enjoyment of the film, nor my high regard of Olivier as a director and performer. And of all Shakespeare films, this is the one I return to again and again.
  • I frequently find Olivier's performances of leading Shakespearian characters rather stilted and dated. However, in Richard III he manages to capture something important in the character of the man with only an occassional over dramatization and a little posturing. Unfortunately, this fine performance is marred by some quite stilted direction, poor sets and an embarrassingly inadequate performance from Claire Bloom as Lady Anne. By contrast the rest of the talented cast manage to perform well and generally overcome Olivier's weak directorial skills. One of the better Richard III films, but still one which has many inadequacies which cannot be adequately excused even considering the films age.
An error has occured. Please try again.