Coriolanus (2011) User Reviews (145)

Above-average Shakespeare with flaws

[zevt · 7/10 · 29 July 2017]

First, this is Shakespeare and it uses his original dialogue, so anyone that doesn't appreciate the rich language shouldn't be watching this, never-mind reviewing it. I find it sad that so many negative reviews here revolve around the difficult (wonderful) language. If anything, too much of Shakespeare's writing was cut out in order to make the movie shorter, and some scenes and characters suffer because of it.

Second, it is transported to a modern setting despite the language, in order to demonstrate its universal themes. Sometimes this works quite well (see Richard III with Loncraine/McKellen). Here, the result is a mixed bag. The modern settings with news-rooms, tanks and trucks work very well, but the war-action scenes sometimes feel shoe-horned in just to try to make Shakespeare more thrilling and pander to audiences, and a key plot element that involves the Roman practice of a hero showing the people his physical wounds in order to gain their trust, doesn't work anymore.

The acting is generally good, although the wide range of accents are too distracting, and Azabal chews the scenery and ruins her scenes. The direction is passable.

As mentioned, some scenes suffer from too much cutting of dialogue. I found the key scene involving the turning of the crowd against Coriolanus, too awkwardly staccato. Where the original writing had speeches that sway people's emotions, this has abrupt statements and declarations, and many of the characters lose their dimensions as a result.

But all these can be overlooked and the movie enjoyed despite these flaws. The one flaw I was not able to overcome is Fiennes characterization of Coriolanus. He portrays him as way too contemptuous and angry, a spiteful man beyond sympathy that basically brought the tragedy on himself. Whereas my impression while reading the play was of a socially awkward, hard, but basically honorable and good man led astray by politics and pressure. Including more of Shakespeare's colorful dialogue and soliloquies could have helped.

From man to dragon

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 9 October 2020]

'Coriolanus' is not an easy play to perform or stage, with Coriolanus not being easy to identify with, and dramatically is not as concise or as consistently gripping as other Shakespeare plays. One of Shakespeare's most compelling and more complex titular characters is one of the main interest points, regardless of whether he is likeable or not (more the latter), as well as it emphasizing a class divide that wouldn't be too out of date today, relevant politically and financially too.

Ralph Fiennes is a wonderful actor, with experience in Shakespeare including this role, and is just as talented a director. 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' particularly shows that off. And then we have a talented cast alongside him, including Vanessa Redgrave in a role that sounded perfect for her. 'Coriolanus' was his directing debut. To me, it was a most credible one in a surprisingly very strongly executed film that is to me one of the better recent cinematic Shakespeare adaptations and almost as good as the 1984 BBC Television Shakespeare and 2014 National Theatre Live productions in its own way.

By all means 'Coriolanus' is not a film exempt from flaws. The momentum does sag at times, especially in scenes that are particularly talky. Count me in as another person that didn't care for the news footage-like parts, Jon Snow's involvement has a disconcerting amount of unintentional humour that doesn't gel with what is going on and they just felt very heavy handed and out of place. The film would have been a lot better without them, maybe they were put there to make the story more relevant but there was no need for that as thematically the story is relevant today already.

Not all the cast work. Gerard Butler struck me as somewhat bland as Aufidius and too subdued. The role needs charisma and brutal intensity and Butler lacks both, or certainly the kind needed for the role as he didn't strike me as brutish enough. And of course Snow's involvement should have been left on the editing room floor.

Actually liked Jessica Chastain as Virgilia and thought that she brought a touching tenderness to her. Volumnia is one of 'Coriolanus' more complex characters and Redgrave gives a very powerful and both nuanced and firey performance, didn't think it was overcooked at all. Brian Cox is dignity and clever wit personified as Menenius. Best of all is a truly ferocious Fiennes, there is a lot of intensity to his performance in the difficult title role but he also brings vulnerability to the softer moments.

His direction is most credible, much of the character interaction sears, there is plenty of intrigue and the action is truly exciting and unyielding. That he did well at making the story accessible was appreciated while still having a very pull no punches approach. The visuals are grandiose and rich in style, the setting not looking ugly despite being suitably unforgiving as ought. The film is hauntingly scored and Shakespeare's text still resonates and while it is wordy it is mostly not overkill on that. Despite it being in old English, Shakespeare's work has always to me been accessible with so many interesting characters, themes and speeches and is fascinating to study, and the mix of his language and the non-traditional setting here in 'Coriolanus' actually work better than most Shakespeare cinematic adaptations to have a modern setting mixed with the original text.

Overall, didn't blow me away but impressive in a lot of areas. 7/10

Coriolanus will have Shakespeare enthusiasts chomping-at-the-bit, students scrambling for the exits.

[jackharding89-1 · 7/10 · 9 April 2012]

A modern-day spin on one of Shakespeare's lesser known plays, Coriolanus is an ambitious and lyrical Greek tragedy that has everything you'd expect from the mind of the Bard; betrayal, revenge, pride, conflict, monologues, dilemmas, death- it's all in there. The only thing missing is a star-crossed lover or two.

Both its star and director, Ralph Fiennes follows past masters Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh onto the breach in this doomy and demanding directorial debut that may signal a new and exciting direction for the steely-eyed actor.

Set in a city on the verge of collapse that resembles Tripoli but calls itself Rome, the film charts the rise and fall of general Coriolanus (Fiennes); a fiery soldier of war-torn Rome who earns his stripes in a bloody battle against an insurgent army lead by Turrus (Gerard Butler). In the aftermath of a brutal bullet storm and knife fight, Coriolanus emerges victorious and is branded the symbol of a new and prosperous empire. It doesn't work out. The decorated vet is more brawn than brains; his strong sense of pride coupled with the dirty work of corrupt bureaucrats and advisors lead to civil unrest and, in turn, a verbal attack by Coriolanus' on the people of Rome which results in his banishment from the city. Bitter, betrayed and hell- bent on revenge, the spitting outlaw seeks refuge and redemption in who else but his sworn enemy, Turrus.

Swapping the frantic razzmatazz of Baz Lurhmann's Romeo and Juliet retool for a far more gritty and paced approach, Fiennes has crafted a brave and bombastic drama that'll probably find its way onto a school curriculum or two before the year is out. And why not. His contemporary vision of a 300+ year old morality play is one awash with thought, feeling, values, complexities, politics and emotion- pure, unadulterated Shakespeare.

Coriolanus is far from the vision of just one man, though. Gladiator screenwriter Josh Lucas lays the necessary footing for Fiennes and Hurt Locker cinematographer Barry Ackroyd to bring the tale to life. Stirling support also comes in the shape of seasoned thesps Brian cox, Vanessa Redgrave, James Nesbitt and....Gerard Butler; all of which are new to big-screen Shakespeare yet convincing nonetheless. Even Butler.

The screen belongs to a raw and rampant Ralph Fiennes, though. More than just a noseless sorcerer, Fiennes is an exceptional actor and, now, promising director whose verbose and gung-ho approach from both behind and in front of the lens makes for a fascinating commitment. "Such is the work of a man". Olivier and Branagh would be proud. Coriolanus will have Shakespeare enthusiasts chomping-at-the-bit, students scrambling for the exits.

Theatrical and violent Shakespeare drama in a brilliant film version.

[info-16827 · 5 November 2011]

Coriolanus (Ralph Fiennes) uses military force against people's uprising when they demonstrate against oppression and starving in Rome. Coriolanus is first declared as a hero but later relegated from the city by the Senate for his brutality. He then allied himself with its former enemy Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler) and they march together to Rome to destroy the city. Coriolanus's mother, wife and son plead for peace and reconciliation and when he gives up he is murdered by Tullus Aufidius.

Shakespeare's dramas may well be set up in a contemporary set, because the content is timeless. Here the screenplay drama is performed in its original text. The old lines sometimes are in conflict with the modern outfit, but you are quickly caught back to the drama by the violent intrigues and you become strongly affected by the deep conflicts between power and love. The war scenes are realistic and bloody. It is exciting and the outcome uncertain for the uninitiated.

Ralph Fiennes both directs and plays the title role and succeeds well. He has got a star team both in front and behind the camera. The film photo by Barry Ackroyd is brilliant. The set and costumes are next to perfection. The 74-year-old Vanessa Redgrave portrays Coriolanus' mother, Volumnia, powerful and convincing. Gerard Butler as the rebel leader acts with strong charisma and realism. Additional casting is also very good.

The staging reminds strongly of the NATO's efforts in the Balkan War. Military leaders are wearing American uniforms and the recordings are made in the environments of Belgrade and in Serbia.

Eight of ten for a masterful direction, brilliant acting and a clever staging.

Coriolanus

[henry8-3 · 6/10 · 29 September 2020]

Modern setting is applied to Shakespeare's play about a warrior (Fiennes) unable to settle into people politics is banished from the city and joins his long term enemy (Butler) to seek his revenge.

Classic, compelling tale brought extremely well to the screen by director Fiennes. The strength of this though lies in the performances. Whilst Fiennes in the lead is the real powerhouse character - note his piercing eyes and furious anger - Redgrave as his mother and Cox as his diplomatic friend are just as vital.

Shakespeare after 400 years still is contemporary at Coriolanus's play!!!

[elo-equipamentos · 7/10 · 28 March 2020]

Even 400 years after his death William Shakespeare is an unknown character, due has doubts about where he was born, who was him actually, has many theory about that, but somehow his literally works is immortal and still contemporary, Coriolanus is lesser known work, here adapted by nowadays, sounds a bit weird, shall be correct set place at Roman Empire's days, in my opinion bring it to present days reduce the impact on the audience, whatever Ralph Fiennes made a good job, it's necessary hear in English with subtitles to try understand the hard dialogues wrote by Shakespeare, I already watch Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Macbeth just named a few, it's heavy movies, often quite boring, weren't allowed to all tastes, poetic and hard to understand at first watch, a low budge movie, but a strong supporting casting , deserves a look, how I said wasn't to everybody!!!

Resume:

First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7

Where Art Thou Translation?

[snowman418 · 1/10 · 11 May 2012]

The entire movie is word for word Shakespeare, sans about 20% of the lines. It completely misses the point of why William was as brilliant as he was. Shakespeare is rolling in his grave on this one. I can completely understand the intentions of the movie; to stay true to the exquisite language and brilliant wordplay. The only problem is that it completely misses the point. The brilliance of Shakespeare is that he wrote language for the common people that they could understand. Modern day people don't speak like this and they don't understand language like this. Not because they're stupid but because they're not used to it. If the director and script writers truly wanted to pay homage to Shakespeare, they would've adapted the script to modern, powerful dialogue befitting the contemporary environment.

Thou shalt not watch this movie without subtitles. And even then you might need to rewind a few times. If English is not your primary language, you will most likely not understand this movie. Roll credits early on this one.

AMAZINGLY relevant - even in 2011

[dbaggett1 · 9/10 · 14 November 2011]

I had the pleasure of seeing Ralph Fiennes's "Coriolanus" at the St. Louis International Film Festival, on Nov 11th, 2011. I was on the edge of my seat through the entire film. Needless to say, the filming, production values, etc., were fantastic; but it was the relevance of the film that kept me glued to the screen.

Ralph Fiennes captured the timeless concepts that Shakespeare expressed in his play brilliantly - so much so that I feel there will be strong/visceral audience reaction to the film's depiction of themes that reflect in today's front page stories.

The theme of a military officer's political role resonated with me as a retired Navy Officer. The theme of the contrast between "high society" and the proletariat resonates in the "Occupy XXX" protests occurring today. The conflict between liberal and conservative (dare I say Democrat vs. Republican) ideals played very loudly in this film. Even the issues in European politics reflected themes we see in today's news.

The acting by Ralph Fiennes, Vanessa Redgrave & Gerard Butler propelled the story and kept it moving swiftly. Some have panned the use of Shakespeare's original language. I, for one, had no trouble following the language. This film ranks with Kenneth Brannagh's "Henry V" and Baz Luhrmann's "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" for making a film in Shakespearean English accessible by 21st Century Man.

I've always believed that some folks in the U.S. malign William Shakespeare's writings today, because they were forced to read his plays in a cold classroom setting in their youth. Shakespeare didn't intend his works to be read. He meant them to be performed and watched. This film proves the power of a good telling of a Shakespeare tale.

Tough

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 27 September 2011]

And it is tough, not because it brutal and/or violent (it is that too). But because it uses Shakespearean English in modern times. While it has been done before, it is definitely not something for everyone. It won't appeal to people who are looking for a quick snack. A movie they can just pop in (their player), watch and get out of the player/local cinema, after watching it.

You really have to follow what people are saying. This of course means, while it does appall some, it also appeals to others. Myself I wouldn't count me in either of those leagues. I did find the premise interesting and I though Fiennes did a fine job directing (it looks really good). I still didn't feel a great impact. The actors were phenomenal too btw.

Modern Shakespeare war ... is that your cup of tea?

If one could understand what they're talking about...

[dilip-muralidaran · 1/10 · 29 January 2012]

Holy Mother of tap-dancing Jesus! Can someone figure out why the hell they speak in old testament language throughout this movie. I cant say that it was an overkill. It was a bloody nightmare. Considering half the folks walked out of the theater i guess one should know what to expect from this movie. If you aren't acquainted with Shakespearean mode of English let me give you some advice. Save the money. Go watch something else. Grab a drink. You are going to need one after watching this. Make that two and avoid this movie and you will be alright. Whatever made the people make this kind of movie I'm sure it wasn't in any remotely good intentions. I mean, why suit people up and give them automatic weapons and make them speak Shakespearean? Whats the big idea? Confuse the living daylights out of the audience? Because the language has nothing to do with how the characters look on screen? The arrogance of Hollywood to experiment with the patience of movie goers is appalling. No wonder piracy is rampant and they need lousy laws like SOPA and ACTA to force garbage like this down our throat.

Spectacular

[laurenchide · 9/10 · 20 January 2012]

A jaw-dropping interpretation of Shakespeare's Coriolanus. I was literally in awe when I left. Admittedly, I know my way around the story, I've read Coriolanus a few times. But I have to say that this adaptation is so well executed that I caught myself discovering incredible lines and themes and ideas to which I had never paid attention before. Ralph Fiennes' interpretation of Coriolanus is solid. The pride, the wrath, the one-track-mindedness are all very palpable. And one couldn't wish for a better Volumnia. Terrifying. Fascinating. I've always been reluctant to modern settings, but this time, I loved it. It just worked. Go and see for yourself. As for me, I'm definitely going to watch it again.

Low budget, but good

[kaaber-2 · 7/10 · 4 July 2012]

If one can't have Hollywood epic AND Shakespeare (as it seems one can't, barring Branagh's Henry V) this is probably ideal. A play like "Coriolanus" cries out for bigger battle scenes when filmed, but all the scenes in the field seem rather cramped. Apart from that, it's brilliant. The cast is excellent, and the handling of the blank verse expertly. Missing out on the credits, I had a feeling that it was directed by Julie Taymor who did that brilliant "Titus" some years ago, and was surprised that Fiennes himself did the thing. But good show of a rarely staged and even more rarely filmed play from Shakespeare's dark streak in the first decade of the 1600s, and as in "Julius Caesar" Shakespeare really has it in for the common people in this number - feckless and fawning to a man. I can't put a finger on Fiennes' Coriolanus or Redgrave's Volumnia, but Gerard Butler stands out as Aufidius. I've always felt that "Coriolanus" is really his tragedy; I believe this character makes the longest journey in the play, emotionally. Hard at his heels is Brian Cox's Menenius. Capital bit of acting that squeezes every bit of tragedy out of the part.

No, it doesn't work that well in a movie

[dmuel · 3/10 · 31 May 2012]

I'm truly enjoy Shakespeare, and particularly seeing it on stage, or even listening to it performed on audio. But, somehow seeing this powerful drama transferred to a movie screen, and re-set in a modern day conflict, was not the same experience. For me, the visual distraction of the movie sets detracted from Shakespeare's art, which has always been literary and oratory, not visual.

I worried that I was the only reviewer who felt this way when first scrolling through many of the laudatory reviews for this film, but then I noted that a good number agree with my response. The movie fails to preserve the art of Shakespeare, and it certainly will not appeal to those merely looking for war drama.

provocative

[Kirpianuscus · 22 December 2015]

at first sigh, translation of Shakespeare's play in contemporary formulas. in fact, high performances, fresh spirit of original, Rome in a credible and strange images who remands wars and crisis, politic errors and hypocrisy. a film who explores roots, solutions, emotions, fake options . a film about heroes and their failure. about contemporary politic life because the laws, tricks are the same. result - a kind of House of Cards. not very different essence. only forms who reminds art of theater, an ambiguous genius , actors who gives proofs of admirable manner to resurrect a text and its substance. a provocative film. because it is not exactly adaptation of a play on screen. but a provocative portrait of power, duty and force of fundamental decisions.

Brilliant Merging of Shakespeare and a modern wartime

[ten-often · 7/10 · 27 September 2015]

Hearing the poetic portrayal of medieval war laid over a stark portrayal of modern war was fascinating. Remove the trappings, costumes and swashbuckler weaponry and we are left with a story of modern oppression, elite privilege while warfare strikes both.

Do the lyrics move us the same as with medieval settings? Are the heroes, heroines and villains of the traditional play viewed with the same reactions?

I give it a 7 because it is a good movie, but one which appeals to limited audiences, which has nothing to do with intelligence but preferences. You must be at least neutral regarding anything Shakespeare to possibly enjoy this.

Shakespeare Meets CNN

[orinocowomble · 7/10 · 21 August 2012]

People who complain about this play being set in modern times are missing a vital fact about Shakespeare himself: he set Julius Cesar in Roman times, but yet his soldiers yell "fire" in battle, the actors often wore Elisabethan battledress, not togas, and they speak of the "clock striking"...long before Rome had striking clocks. If William were alive today, his actors would wear modern dress. There's nothing sacred about chainmail and doublets.

Now for the film. It's a pared-down streamlined version of the play, which as Fiennes himself says was done to get to the story and circumvent somewhat what he called "the density of the language." I found some of the camera work jittery and annoying, particularly when the jumpy scenes occur outside the context of media reporting. However, within the context of the production, it worked. I found it gripping, in that it made the brutality of war and rebellion a reality for the viewer.

I have studied Coriolanus at university and it was never one of my favourite Shakespeare plays, nor even my favourite of the tragedies. However in this production it's plain that Coriolanus' arrogance and self-righteousness is his downfall; as someone once said: God deliver us from men who "know" they're right! There's a definite resonance Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" in several scenes.

Vanessa Redgrave gives a sterling performance as Volumnia, the she-wolf who whelped the dragon. You can definitely see where Sonny Boy got his pride. Their face-off is a wonderful piece of staging.

Brilliant...

[Thanos_Alfie · 6/10 · 25 May 2020]

"Coriolanus" is a Drama - War movie in which we watch Coriolanus who is a hero of Rome, an amazing soldier and a man who despises the citizen of Rome while they are hungry and they do not have many options except to riot against him. After that Coriolanus is banished from Rome and he goes to his enemy Tullus Aufidius.

I did not know what to expect from this movie but I was happily surprised by it. It's a very interesting movie which is based on William Shakespeare's play, it has a very interesting plot and much of suspense. The direction which was made by Ralph Fiennes was simply amazing and it was obvious in the whole duration of the film that he did a great job on it. Regarding the interpretations, I have to mention both interpretations of Gerard Butler's who played as Tullus Aufidius and Ralph Fiennes who played as Caius Martius Coriolanus because they were simply amazing. Some other interpretations that have to be mentioned were Brian Cox's who played as Menenius, Jessica Chastain's who played as Virgilia and Vanessa Redgrave's who played as Volumnia.

Great potential lost in translation

[andrewbk-1 · 2/10 · 10 January 2012]

I love the modern takes on Shakespearean plays , but this was really hard work , i'm sorry the original dialogue just doesn't fit, it's far to wordy for modern audiences , Should have been a very relevant film for the recent financial troubles in Europe and great powerful performances from Ralph Fiennes and Gerard Butler, along with superb action sequences and cameos from various actors did make me want to stay till the end , but i couldn't and for only the second time in my life walked out an hour in , along with others at the same showing , I have no doubt some that know the story will love this . but a very Limited audience i'm afraid .

Fiennes has made Shakespeare not only accessible but utterly thrilling

[Greigx3 · 9/10 · 23 January 2012]

Shakespeare isn't Shakespeare without Shakespearean language. It might be difficult to understand exactly what the dialogue is during parts of Coriolanus, but there's no difficulty following the meaning. The action, the direction and some powerful performances – most notably from Ralph Fiennes and Vanessa Redgrave – carry the film and more than compensate for the language barriers. Some people walked out about halfway through but the climactic third act made it well worth the perseverance – especially Redgrave's moving monologue as the formidable matriarch Volumnia.

Gerard Butler was pretty forgettable in this. Whether that's because he isn't exactly of thespian discipline or because his character isn't particularly pronounced in this play, is up to you to decide. Perhaps he and Jessica Chastain are nothing more than a bit of totty to sell the film? Perhaps that's just a bit cynical.

James Nesbitt added an interesting, somewhat unexpected dynamic to the play with his enigmatic nuances of jest and malice. Also worth a mention was the little-known Dragan Micanovic who played a minor character, Titus, but delivered a couple of pivotal lines with engrossing presence.

The real star of the show is obviously Shakespeare. His poetic prose courses through your mind and adds fuel to the fires of his drama. His characters are bold and consistent, truly agents of their own destinies. The subject matter resonates with political allegory and the film's release is timely and relevant. The play set in a present day context highlights the tribal social system which still dominates our affairs. The story also works to express the futility of war.

Fiennes has done well to translate Coriolanus from the stage to the screen and he hasn't stretched it too far so as to alienate it from the original text. Stylistically, the film is quite gritty. The focus is mostly on the actors, their eyes, their expressions and their delivering of lines, but there are a few purely cinematic moments (fight scenes in particular) which justify the adaptation to the screen. There are a couple of truly violent moments in the film which blast the cobwebs off the old play and hook the modern, desensitized audience into the story.

Coriolanus is a tense and violent political wartime thriller which makes Shakespeare not only accessible but utterly captivating. A credible directorial debut from one of the industry's finest working actors.

http://ionlyaskedwhatyouthought.blogspot.com/

Lots of guts, tension and drama; short on heart.

[david-meldrum · 7/10 · 12 April 2014]

Coriolanus is a long way from being one of Shakespeare's most accessible plays. The Roman plays in general have a not entirely fair reputation for being full of long speeches and low on plot; it's tempting to meet the title with a shrugged 'who' (or 'what'?); it's not a very regularly performed play anyway, so it doesn't have many opportunities to make a bid for the limelight.

So on the face of it this is strange choice of material for Ralph Fiennes on his directorial debut; especially when you consider that he's also the star. In Fiennes and his adapter's hands the play becomes a sleek, streamlined political drama with visceral action sequences Transported to "a place calling itself Rome" that plays more like a wartime Bosnia. Coriolanus is heroic general, feted with praise and encouraged, or forced, by his mother (Vanessa Redgrave) to seek the powerful position of Consul. He finds himself unable to play the political games with the people required to get the post; his anger on not getting the position leads to a riot and exile. In exile he forms an alliance with former enemy Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler) in order to take revenge.

It's a tense and gripping watch; the new setting lends greater immediacy and sense of threat, the edits give clean lines a plot that fairly zips along. The action sequences are fine; not outstanding, but suitably brutal to maintain the law of the jungle sense of ancient Rome. The air is suffused with testosterone, with men not backing down from each other. The female characters are cleverly dressed to look more military, if not masculine then at the least not emphasizing femininity. This is a male environment, with the smoke of combat never far away. That approach explains the choice of Gerard Butler for the role of Tullus; which would make sense if he didn't appear so dramatically out of his depth. He alone amongst the cast doesn't seem comfortable with the language, brooding too much and forgetting to back-up his physical presence with words that are threatening or venomous.

Which is a huge contrast to Fiennes in the lead role. Battle-scarred and, for most of the film, bloodied, when he's not fighting he's a caged tiger. It's clear why men will follow him into battle; haranguing bullet-ridden corpses for a lack of commitment, his men fight for and with their leader. It makes sense of his unwillingness to stay around to hear the story of his exploits; this is a man of deeds, not words. When he's finally bought face-to-face with his estranged family in a climactic showdown he's largely silence, trying to keep a crumbling facade in place.

Which all works well as far as plot and the themes of power and alpha masculinity go, but does mean that the film has precious little emotional heft; even in a denouement which should at the least brush the heart, it becomes more of an action movie showdown with much better dialogue. It seems a hard criticism, but ultimately it's the fruit of the understandable choices made with the plot and style of the film. The updating convinces; the drama grips; the action impresses. It's just a shame there's not more heart to go with all the guts.

Poor Acting and the reviews that rated this a good rating should not be rating movies

[blaq-iron-302-255916 · 1/10 · 26 February 2012]

The acting was horrible and speaking Shakespearean during modern times seems more moronic than ever.

Whoever gave this movie rave reviews is clearly working for or related tot those who wrote the script. This is a horrible movie and the actors in the movie made poor choices selecting this script.

Thumbs down all the way

Horrible, Horrendous & Heinous is what I call this movie

If I see the directors name on any other movies I will make sure that I don't buy it, rent it or watch it because I wont trust his decisions of directing

The language makes the play.

[kmckeogh2 · 8/10 · 1 February 2012]

I couldn't disagree more with the review that slates Shakespeare's text as 'too wordy for modern audiences'. Viewers may find it challenging, but even those who haven't read his work should appreciate his superb capacity for character, metaphor and sheer innovation. To reduce the play to just the plot with some poor, clichéd and genuinely meaningless Hollywood script is to deprive it of its value, and to do a great disservice to its literary status. The responsibility for understanding the language (which I staunchly believe has a timeless relevance), lies with those who struggle to do so, not with the text itself. I cannot disagree strongly enough with the implication that we should dumb-down Shakespeare.

Dramatically inert

[howard.schumann · 7/10 · 29 April 2013]

The 2011 Ralph Fiennes-directed film of William Shakespeare's Coriolanus is updated from its ancient Roman origins to a modern day battlefield that could easily be Iran or Afghanistan. This is done presumably to try and make it more "relevant" to an audience raised on non-stop mayhem. At the core of the story are several relationships. The main one is between Caius Martius (Ralph Fiennes) and the Roman citizens. Martius, now called "Coriolanus" because of his victory against the Volscians at Corioles, seeks political office as a member of the Roman Consul on the urging of his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave). With less than striking political acumen, however, he dismisses the masses with disdain (perhaps as the 47% who would never vote for him), saying that allowing citizens to have power over the senators is like allowing "crows to peck the eagles," not a sure-fire way of getting elected.

As a consequence of his attitude, two tribunes Brutus (Paul Jesson) and Sicinius (James Nesbitt), stir up the masses against him (not a hard sell), brand him as a traitor, and banish him from Rome. Another relationship is between Coriolanus and his adversary, Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler) whom he seems to admire and who he joins forces with to march on Rome after he is banished. A third is the one between Coriolanus and his mother (Vanessa Redgrave), who is sent, along with Coriolanus' wife Virgilia (Jessica Chastain) and his son, to persuade him not to take up arms against Rome. Coriolanus, on his knees, succumbs to the appeals of "mommy dearest," but it his pride and arrogance that will cause his undoing.

Fiennes does not hesitate to use the equivalent of CNN "Breaking News" to provide the audience with a running television commentary of what is taking place, though one would hope with more accuracy than what we have seen of late from cable news. Ultimately, however, the film seems unable to bridge the gap between the incongruity of AK-47s firing 30-magazine rounds and the eloquence and humanity of William Shakespeare, and Fiennes dramatically inert and mannered performance does not help it out.

Doesn't work, sorry.

[proteusphi · 5/10 · 1 November 2011]

Some stories don't translate to modernity completely, and Coriolanus is a sad example. This is not a movie for the common person, and would really only appeal to die hard Shakespeare fans. Director Ralph Finnes attempts to place the story of Coriolanus in the modern setting of contemporary Rome. So instead of chivalrous sword play, the actors duke it out with tanks and AK-47's. This is intercut with quiet segments bogged down by copious stilted dialogue in a thick Elizabethan voice. What results is a loud, incomprehensible mess that is physically and intellectually difficult to digest, and wholly unbelievable, given its modern setting.

Other filmmakers attempt to snap audiences out of a passive receptive mode of viewing by using unusual visual devices or atypical storytelling. A voice de-synched from the speaker, surrealist imagery, non-linear story lines; these distance the audience while simultaneously encouraging them to actively analyze the film. Coriolanus' is a one trick pony that relies on Shakespeare's eloquence to get it through.

Doesn't work, sorry. Because of the language, none of the characters has any distinct voice or characterization. If everyone wore a mask, you wouldn't be able to tell one character from another. It's unclear why the central event happens, and characters, lacking a rational modern motivation, end up as caricatures.

Performances by Vanessa Redgrave and Brian Cox stand out convincingly. You can't tell what they're saying, but conviction reads intelligibly enough on their faces.

It's freaking war - why don't they just shoot each other, instead of fighting with knives?? Sexual tension, intended or not, comes through quite thick; not that I complain. Enemies suddenly become friends for no apparent reason and vice versa. It works on the stage, but on the big screen it doesn't translate.

Unless you read the play you won't understand a darn thing; 5 out of 10. Screened at the Savannah Film Festival.