Amazon.com

In the opening scene of Hamlet (1948), Laurence Olivier's voice-over describes the play as "the tragedy of a man who couldn't make up his mind." But Olivier's screen adaptation is considerably more thoughtful and complex than this thesis would suggest. Drawing on his experience playing the prince on stage at Elsinore in 1937, the legendary thespian provides the film with the patina of greatness and shows how the constitution of the formerly cheerful prince weakens increasingly under the burden of his own thoughts and inability to accept his mother's hasty marriage to uncle Claudius (Basil Sydney). As Ophelia, Jean Simmons captures the character's early spirit better than her gradual disintegration. Purists may bemoan the loss of Fortinbras, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, but these choices allow Olivier to focus more squarely on Hamlet's plight. The winner of four Oscars^® (Best Picture, Actor, Art Direction, and Costumes), this is a Hamlet for the ages. The rest is silence. --Kevin Mulhall ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Great Dane
Sir Laurence Olivier's 1948 version of Hamlet sets the standard for film version of the play about the Danish prince. Much as he did with Henry V, Sir Laurence exercises some significant plot points and characters from Shakespeare's play, but it is done to concentrate the focus of the film on the brooding prince. Make no mistake about it, this is Sir Laurence's film all the way. He brings an amazing breadth to character who disintegrates from a happy and sensitive man into a tormented and lost soul. There are some other great performances including Eileen Herlie who plays the Queen and is Sir Laurence's mother in the film despite being thirteen years his junior, a young Jean Simmons is luminous as Ophelia and Basil Sydney is effective as the villainous Claudius. Horror film notables Peter Cushing and the now ubiquitous Christopher Lee also appear as does Stanley Holloway. The film was a major success and it helped earn Sir Laurence his only competitive Oscars in 1948 as Best Actor and as producer on the Best Picture award in addition to two others for Best Art Direction (B&W) and Best Costume Design (B&W). He is also the only Best Actor Oscar winner to direct himself to the award.

OLIVIER MASTERFUL IN HAUTING ADAPTATION
There are several film versions of Shakespeare's great play about the troubled Prince of Denmark; Mel Gibson's imbues the drama with a barely restrained mania while Kenneth Branagh's is notable as the most nearly complete version yet made. Still, it is Olivier's production which remains the standard, and justifiably so. His is the performance which I believe most nearly matches the Bard's own vision of how the tormented Hamlet should be played--sensitive, caustic and impassioned yet tortured and lost. Olivier's direction leads the viewer inexorably into the heart of the play, whose characters move through the nearly inescapable walls of Castle Elsinore like sleepwalkers through a lucid dream. But Olivier couldn't do it all himself, and doesn't need to. Felix Aylmer is a likeable wise old fool as Polonius; Eileen Herlie is an appropriately confused queen and mother; Basil Sydney is well-cast as the villain who would rather not be; and Jean Simmons shines as Hamlet's innocent love, whose disintegration is so realistic it breaks the watcher's heart. More, the individual scenes are beautifully orchestrated. Oliver's rendition of the "To be or not to be" soliloquoy is pure magic, and the story's climactic duel is worth the wait, as Hamlet and Laertes (Ophelia's brother, well assayed by Terence Morgan)duel to the death--one unwittingly, and both to the death of more than each other. True, the production is incomplete, and the lack of Rosencranz and Guildenstern is a regrettable omission. But overall, Olivier's film captures the essence of Shakespeare's play like no other. As long as Hamlet is studied in schools, this will be the version most often used to show how the play should be done. A worthwhile addition to even the most discerning video library.

Another good Lawrence Olivier adaptation of Shakespeare
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

In this release Olivier's second adaptation of a Shakespeare play, Olivier again plays the title role. Unlike the previous film, this one is in black and white,

It follows the story of a Danish prince bent on avenging the murder of his father by his uncle.
I would assume that most people know the plot so that is all I will say about it,

The DVD has no special features which is not normal for a Criterion release.

Olivier is fantastic!
A film by Laurence Olivier

The word "masterpiece" is thrown around far too often these days, but for years I have heard that this version of "Hamlet" is Olivier's masterpiece. Recently I had the opportunity to see this masterpiece and for the first time I saw Olivier at work. I was impressed with what I saw. To the modern ear, Shakespearean language can sound awkward and archaic, but with Olivier, much of the dialogue sounded like easy conversation.

I once heard "Hamlet" described as the most structurally perfect play, that every action stems directly from something else in the play and that every action happened in that particular way because it had to, that there was no other way for the actions to work out. I am not enough of a Shakespeare scholar to be able to really speak to this, but I do know that when done well, "Hamlet" is a fascinating play, and a fascinating film. Olivier succeeded at doing this play well.

The story is one that is well known. Hamlet (Laurence Olivier) is a prince of Denmark. His father had died a month prior, and Queen Gertrude (Eileen Herlie) married the dead king's brother, Claudius (Basil Sydney). Hamlet has been brooding, unable to accept either his father's death or his mother's rather quick remarriage. This continues until Hamlet sees the ghost of his father, who tells him that he was murdered, and that the murderer is now sitting on the throne of Denmark. As a character said early in the film, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Hamlet must avenge his father, but in such a way that he can get away with it. As he begins to plot, he pretends to be mad (crazy), so that his excesses can be excused away. So begins the story.

This is an impressive movie, from the acting to the set design. The castle has a dark, gloomy atmosphere and it feels (and looks) real rather than looking hokey (the movie is more than 50 years old, after all). I was most impressed with Olivier, and rather less so with Jean Simmons, as Ophelia. The character (and her motivations) just didn't feel real to me this time. Excellent movie and highly recommended for classic film buffs.

"Dead for a ducket! Dead!!!"
With those words spoken with a maniacal glare, Lawrence Olivier had my complete attention. He is both director and the lead in this classic version of the celebrated play. The direction is smart, reminiscent at times of visual techniques used in "Citizen Kane." Praise, indeed! However, his acting performance is frustrating. He speaks softly, letting the poetry of the language speak for itself, then has a brilliant moment or exceptional scene, only to blaze sensationalistic at the wrong times. One such instance was just after Hamlet slays Polonius. Olivier cries out at the top of his voice, "Is it the King?!" Hamlet states early in the play that he is only playing at madness. Why is he then drawing so much attention to his bloody actions when we all know he just left the King praying on a lower level? He knows it couldn't be the King. Once again, his direction is amazing, but there are some excellent examples of why actors should not direct themselves. Seriously, who's going to tell them their performance needs work? Another scene that had me scratching my head was after the "players" first arrive. Why does Olivier pull the lead player aside, telling him that he has lines for him to memorize, only to have the "play-within-a-play" enacted without any words at all? He should have cut that earlier scene, or let the players have their lines.

The meeting with Hamlet's ghost is incredibly creepy here, with trick camera work, an eerie score, great special effects, and a thudding heart-beat announcing the ghost's arrival. This is my favorite version of this particular scene.

Jean Simmons looks very pretty here, and she does have her moments, but there are better portrayals of Ophelia in other renditions of the play. Both Helena Bonham Carter, in the Mel Gibson version, and Kate Winslet, in the Kenneth Branagh version, are superior. Jean Simmons is good, but not great.

Horatio is wooden for the most part. When will actors learn that one doesn't stop acting simply because it is not their turn to speak. Gestures and expressions, people! Lawrence Olivier uses subtlety in ever scene at ever moment, that is why so many consider him a great actor.

Once again, the character of Laertes is portrayed with only a little passion. Catch the Kenneth Branagh version to see a vengeful Laertes on the verge of exploding with blood-lust!

Overall, I was disappointed with the supporting cast. They have their moments, but none of them can match Olivier's performance. To quote a critical review I read, "Olivier is triumphant!" As both director and actor, his work here, for the most part, shines. Thank you. ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Great Dane
Sir Laurence Olivier's 1948 version of Hamlet sets the standard for film version of the play about the Danish prince. Much as he did with Henry V, Sir Laurence exercises some significant plot points and characters from Shakespeare's play, but it is done to concentrate the focus of the film on the brooding prince. Make no mistake about it, this is Sir Laurence's film all the way. He brings an amazing breadth to character who disintegrates from a happy and sensitive man into a tormented and lost soul. There are some other great performances including Eileen Herlie who plays the Queen and is Sir Laurence's mother in the film despite being thirteen years his junior, a young Jean Simmons is luminous as Ophelia and Basil Sydney is effective as the villainous Claudius. Horror film notables Peter Cushing and the now ubiquitous Christopher Lee also appear as does Stanley Holloway. The film was a major success and it helped earn Sir Laurence his only competitive Oscars in 1948 as Best Actor and as producer on the Best Picture award in addition to two others for Best Art Direction (B&W) and Best Costume Design (B&W). He is also the only Best Actor Oscar winner to direct himself to the award.

OLIVIER MASTERFUL IN HAUTING ADAPTATION
There are several film versions of Shakespeare's great play about the troubled Prince of Denmark; Mel Gibson's imbues the drama with a barely restrained mania while Kenneth Branagh's is notable as the most nearly complete version yet made. Still, it is Olivier's production which remains the standard, and justifiably so. His is the performance which I believe most nearly matches the Bard's own vision of how the tormented Hamlet should be played--sensitive, caustic and impassioned yet tortured and lost. Olivier's direction leads the viewer inexorably into the heart of the play, whose characters move through the nearly inescapable walls of Castle Elsinore like sleepwalkers through a lucid dream. But Olivier couldn't do it all himself, and doesn't need to. Felix Aylmer is a likeable wise old fool as Polonius; Eileen Herlie is an appropriately confused queen and mother; Basil Sydney is well-cast as the villain who would rather not be; and Jean Simmons shines as Hamlet's innocent love, whose disintegration is so realistic it breaks the watcher's heart. More, the individual scenes are beautifully orchestrated. Oliver's rendition of the "To be or not to be" soliloquoy is pure magic, and the story's climactic duel is worth the wait, as Hamlet and Laertes (Ophelia's brother, well assayed by Terence Morgan)duel to the death--one unwittingly, and both to the death of more than each other. True, the production is incomplete, and the lack of Rosencranz and Guildenstern is a regrettable omission. But overall, Olivier's film captures the essence of Shakespeare's play like no other. As long as Hamlet is studied in schools, this will be the version most often used to show how the play should be done. A worthwhile addition to even the most discerning video library.

Another good Lawrence Olivier adaptation of Shakespeare
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

In this release Olivier's second adaptation of a Shakespeare play, Olivier again plays the title role. Unlike the previous film, this one is in black and white,

It follows the story of a Danish prince bent on avenging the murder of his father by his uncle.
I would assume that most people know the plot so that is all I will say about it,

The DVD has no special features which is not normal for a Criterion release.

Olivier is fantastic!
A film by Laurence Olivier

The word "masterpiece" is thrown around far too often these days, but for years I have heard that this version of "Hamlet" is Olivier's masterpiece. Recently I had the opportunity to see this masterpiece and for the first time I saw Olivier at work. I was impressed with what I saw. To the modern ear, Shakespearean language can sound awkward and archaic, but with Olivier, much of the dialogue sounded like easy conversation.

I once heard "Hamlet" described as the most structurally perfect play, that every action stems directly from something else in the play and that every action happened in that particular way because it had to, that there was no other way for the actions to work out. I am not enough of a Shakespeare scholar to be able to really speak to this, but I do know that when done well, "Hamlet" is a fascinating play, and a fascinating film. Olivier succeeded at doing this play well.

The story is one that is well known. Hamlet (Laurence Olivier) is a prince of Denmark. His father had died a month prior, and Queen Gertrude (Eileen Herlie) married the dead king's brother, Claudius (Basil Sydney). Hamlet has been brooding, unable to accept either his father's death or his mother's rather quick remarriage. This continues until Hamlet sees the ghost of his father, who tells him that he was murdered, and that the murderer is now sitting on the throne of Denmark. As a character said early in the film, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Hamlet must avenge his father, but in such a way that he can get away with it. As he begins to plot, he pretends to be mad (crazy), so that his excesses can be excused away. So begins the story.

This is an impressive movie, from the acting to the set design. The castle has a dark, gloomy atmosphere and it feels (and looks) real rather than looking hokey (the movie is more than 50 years old, after all). I was most impressed with Olivier, and rather less so with Jean Simmons, as Ophelia. The character (and her motivations) just didn't feel real to me this time. Excellent movie and highly recommended for classic film buffs.

"Dead for a ducket! Dead!!!"
With those words spoken with a maniacal glare, Lawrence Olivier had my complete attention. He is both director and the lead in this classic version of the celebrated play. The direction is smart, reminiscent at times of visual techniques used in "Citizen Kane." Praise, indeed! However, his acting performance is frustrating. He speaks softly, letting the poetry of the language speak for itself, then has a brilliant moment or exceptional scene, only to blaze sensationalistic at the wrong times. One such instance was just after Hamlet slays Polonius. Olivier cries out at the top of his voice, "Is it the King?!" Hamlet states early in the play that he is only playing at madness. Why is he then drawing so much attention to his bloody actions when we all know he just left the King praying on a lower level? He knows it couldn't be the King. Once again, his direction is amazing, but there are some excellent examples of why actors should not direct themselves. Seriously, who's going to tell them their performance needs work? Another scene that had me scratching my head was after the "players" first arrive. Why does Olivier pull the lead player aside, telling him that he has lines for him to memorize, only to have the "play-within-a-play" enacted without any words at all? He should have cut that earlier scene, or let the players have their lines.

The meeting with Hamlet's ghost is incredibly creepy here, with trick camera work, an eerie score, great special effects, and a thudding heart-beat announcing the ghost's arrival. This is my favorite version of this particular scene.

Jean Simmons looks very pretty here, and she does have her moments, but there are better portrayals of Ophelia in other renditions of the play. Both Helena Bonham Carter, in the Mel Gibson version, and Kate Winslet, in the Kenneth Branagh version, are superior. Jean Simmons is good, but not great.

Horatio is wooden for the most part. When will actors learn that one doesn't stop acting simply because it is not their turn to speak. Gestures and expressions, people! Lawrence Olivier uses subtlety in ever scene at ever moment, that is why so many consider him a great actor.

Once again, the character of Laertes is portrayed with only a little passion. Catch the Kenneth Branagh version to see a vengeful Laertes on the verge of exploding with blood-lust!

Overall, I was disappointed with the supporting cast. They have their moments, but none of them can match Olivier's performance. To quote a critical review I read, "Olivier is triumphant!" As both director and actor, his work here, for the most part, shines. Thank you. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The third and final entry in Laurence Olivier's Shakespeare triptych, Richard III (1954) is an audacious portrait of a man determined to prove himself a villain. As the personification of evil impudence, Olivier portrays the Duke of Gloucester with such aplomb that he brings the audience onto his side. This is true even as Richard engineers plots to murder his brother Clarence (John Gielgud), betray his cousin Buckingham (Ralph Richardson), and seduce his niece Lady Anne (Claire Bloom). From the play's famous opening lines ("Now is the winter of our discontent"), Olivier delivers every speech with truly Machiavellian splendor, and his superb staging of the climactic battle rivals his work on Henry V. Regrettably, this would be Olivier's last Shakespeare film, as a planned adaptation of Macbeth was abandoned for financial reasons. Olivier justly received an Oscar® nomination for his performance; and believe it or not, this film was the inspiration for the original Blackadder! --Kevin Mulhall ... Read more

Reviews (19)

One of the greatest Shakespeare films...
Only two of Orson Welles' Shakespeare films rival "Richard III" for the title of greatest Shakespeare movie ever made. That said, Olivier's film may contain the most sheerly enjoyable performance any actor gave on film. His Duke of Gloucester is the definitive performance. Elia Kazan once said Olivier had a certain girlish quality, and that quality is used in the film: His Richard is seductive--a prancing, charming monster whose voice sounds like "honey mixed with razor blades." But one look into his black eyes, framed by false hawk nose, violently angled eyebrows and fright pageboy wig, will tell you that he's also stone-cold pure evil. Richard enacts all our homicidal, plotting fantasies as he cheerfully knocks off all his stuffy relatives and rivals.

Olivier emphasizes the black comedy and wittiness of Shakespeare's play, which he cut and refashioned into a star vehicle for himself. Though Sirs Gielgud, Richardson and Hardwicke co-star, they don't make much of an impression. (Blame that on Shakespeare too) Interestingly, Olivier later regretted not having cast Orson Welles as Buckingham.

You experience two major innovations concerning the filming of Shakespeare: the first is Olivier's old custom of using extremely stylized, artificial sets, thereby making Shakespeare's stylized, artificial verse fit in with the settings. The second is the source of Olivier's triumph: he delivers his soliloquys directly to the camera. This daring move destroys the fourth wall and takes true advantage of what the movies offer. He becomes our friend and confidante and we become complicit in his mounting evil. The production values are top-notch: we get deliriously vibrant technicolour, William Walton's pompous, irresistible music of pageantry, and the book-of-hours sets. And through those sets Olivier's camera subtly glides and skulks like the snake Richard himself is. Olivier is still an underrated director, and his grasp of the frame's spatial properties is excellent: he knew how to move the camera into and out of the frame for maximum impact. For an example, look at the moment Richard finally becomes King, and his satanic powers become unbottled: He slides down the bell rope to greet his minions, and expecting to shake his hand they approach, only to fall on their knees when Richard silently demands they kiss it. As they sink downward, the camera flees backward until the awful composition is complete, with half a dozen men in black on their knees as Richard presides all in the center of the frame: on twisted and bent legs as the bells announce the triumph of evil.

Machiavellian cunning and ingenius
In what I deem Laurence Olivier's finest Shakespearean performance, Richard III is quite simply an absolute must see for any true Shakespeare aficionado. Having just read the play and viewed the movie subsequent to the reading, I was afraid I might be somewhat disappointed after such an enjoyable read. Not the case.

From the word go, or rather the words "Now is the winter of our discontent," Olivier adroitly plays a most egregiously evil, yet sinfully likable, villain. Olivier's skillful mastery of the soliloquy is readily manifest as he conspiratorially confides in the audience his countless connivances and sordid schemes as he maniacally murders and manipulates all of those unfortunate enough to be in his way on his morbid quest for the crown. He's so good you'll find yourself rooting for the dastardly villain that is Richard III. Pop some popcorn and sit back and enjoy.

Excellent acting but overrated as a film
I must disagree with the reviewers who praised this as one of Shakespeare's best movie adaptations. Sorry, it's not. The main strength of the movie is the acting, and for that alone it's a must-see. Yet, as a movie it has many stylistic and visual flaws.

The camera shots are very long and there are very few shifts in angles, there are almost no close-ups, the settings, costumes and makeup are overdone and look too fake and low-budget (perhaps on purpose?), and it's done almost entirely in a studio (the outdoor battle scenes feel like a Western..). The result is that you feel that you're watching a two-dimensional play. Perhaps black-and-white would have been a more suitable vehicle.

I'm also annoyed with the liberties the movie has taken with the text, shifted scenes around, chopping lines, etc. I didn't like that it begins with a scene from Henry IV. The Bard's original structure is better. Stick with it!

Also, for the first half of the movie I felt distant from Richard, possibly because until then we almost always see him from a distance and rarely up close. That changes once he become king. Overall, the second half is much better.

If you want to see a truly great Shakespeare adaptation, watch "Julius Caesar" with Marlon Brando and James Mason, even though the play itself is not as good as Richard III.

In spite of all this, I recommend it. Certainly worth seeing Olivier in action.. and it has some great moments.

A must see!!
I won't rehash the plot. Suffice to to say the Olivier's performance is magnificent. Also magnificent in this Criterion collection edition, is the addition of a top notch commentary which explores both Shakespeare's structure of the play and Olivier's decisions in bringing the character to the screen. Also interesting is a 1960's era interview with Olivier that reviews his acting career.

Even More Impressive in the DVD Format
Those who criticize Laurence Olivier and Alan Dent -- co-authors of the screenplay -- for taking certain liberties with Shakespeare's play should also criticize Shakespeare for taking certain liberties with the historical material on which he often relied so heavily. In this instance, Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, Vol. 6, and various Tudor Historians. In my opinion, such quibbling is a fool's errand. This much we do know about the historical Richard III. He was born in 1452 in Fotheringay Castle, Northamptonshire, the youngest son of Richard, Duke of York. He was created Duke of Gloucester by his brother, Edward IV, in 1461, accompanied him into exile (1470), and played a key role in his restoration (1471). Rewarded with part of the Neville inheritance, he exercised vice regal powers, and in 1482 re-captured Berwick-upon-Tweed from the Scots. When Edward died (1483) and was succeeded by his under-age son, Edward V, Richard acted first as protector, but within three months, he had overthrown the Woodvilles (relations of Edward IV's queen), arranged for the execution of Lord Hastings (c.1430-83), and had himself proclaimed and crowned as the rightful king. Young Edward and his brother were probably murdered in the Tower on Richard's orders, although not all historians agree. He tried to stabilize his position but failed to win broad-based support. His rival Henry Tudor (later Henry VII), confronted him in battle at Bosworth Field (August 22, 1485), when Richard died fighting bravely against heavy odds. Though ruthless, he was not the absolute monster Tudor historians portrayed him to be, nor is there proof he was a hunchback.

Cleverly, this film begins with the final scene of Henry IV, Part III, the coronation of Edward IV (Cedric Hardwicke). Locating himself at a strategic distance from the throne, the Duke of Gloucester (Olivier) carefully observes those around him. He shares with those who see this film or read the play his most private thoughts and feelings, many of which are as deformed as his body. Gloucester's "winter of discontent" will soon end. With a systematic tenacity unsurpassed by any other of Shakespeare's villains, Gloucester's coronation as Richard III (his own "glorious summer") will be the fulfillment of his royal ambition. The acting throughout the cast is outstanding. I do not recall another film in which Olivier, John Gielgud (George. Duke of Clarence), and Ralph Richardson (Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham) all appeared together, joined by Claire Bloom (Lady Anne Neville) and Stanley Baker (Henry Tudor). Special note should also be made of Otto Heller's cinematography which is integrated seamlessly with their performances. It is a pleasure to have this film now available in a DVD format, one which offers much sharper images and much clearer sound. Other special features of this DVD version include high-definition digital transfer; newly discovered footage; a commentary by playwright and stage director Russell Lees and John Wilder, former Governor of the Royal Shakespeare Company; 1966 BBC interview with Olivier hosted by Kenneth Tynan; a 12-minute television trailer; a theatrical trailer; and an essay by film historian Bruce Eder. ... Read more

Reviews (19)

One of the greatest Shakespeare films...
Only two of Orson Welles' Shakespeare films rival "Richard III" for the title of greatest Shakespeare movie ever made. That said, Olivier's film may contain the most sheerly enjoyable performance any actor gave on film. His Duke of Gloucester is the definitive performance. Elia Kazan once said Olivier had a certain girlish quality, and that quality is used in the film: His Richard is seductive--a prancing, charming monster whose voice sounds like "honey mixed with razor blades." But one look into his black eyes, framed by false hawk nose, violently angled eyebrows and fright pageboy wig, will tell you that he's also stone-cold pure evil. Richard enacts all our homicidal, plotting fantasies as he cheerfully knocks off all his stuffy relatives and rivals.

Olivier emphasizes the black comedy and wittiness of Shakespeare's play, which he cut and refashioned into a star vehicle for himself. Though Sirs Gielgud, Richardson and Hardwicke co-star, they don't make much of an impression. (Blame that on Shakespeare too) Interestingly, Olivier later regretted not having cast Orson Welles as Buckingham.

You experience two major innovations concerning the filming of Shakespeare: the first is Olivier's old custom of using extremely stylized, artificial sets, thereby making Shakespeare's stylized, artificial verse fit in with the settings. The second is the source of Olivier's triumph: he delivers his soliloquys directly to the camera. This daring move destroys the fourth wall and takes true advantage of what the movies offer. He becomes our friend and confidante and we become complicit in his mounting evil. The production values are top-notch: we get deliriously vibrant technicolour, William Walton's pompous, irresistible music of pageantry, and the book-of-hours sets. And through those sets Olivier's camera subtly glides and skulks like the snake Richard himself is. Olivier is still an underrated director, and his grasp of the frame's spatial properties is excellent: he knew how to move the camera into and out of the frame for maximum impact. For an example, look at the moment Richard finally becomes King, and his satanic powers become unbottled: He slides down the bell rope to greet his minions, and expecting to shake his hand they approach, only to fall on their knees when Richard silently demands they kiss it. As they sink downward, the camera flees backward until the awful composition is complete, with half a dozen men in black on their knees as Richard presides all in the center of the frame: on twisted and bent legs as the bells announce the triumph of evil.

Machiavellian cunning and ingenius
In what I deem Laurence Olivier's finest Shakespearean performance, Richard III is quite simply an absolute must see for any true Shakespeare aficionado. Having just read the play and viewed the movie subsequent to the reading, I was afraid I might be somewhat disappointed after such an enjoyable read. Not the case.

From the word go, or rather the words "Now is the winter of our discontent," Olivier adroitly plays a most egregiously evil, yet sinfully likable, villain. Olivier's skillful mastery of the soliloquy is readily manifest as he conspiratorially confides in the audience his countless connivances and sordid schemes as he maniacally murders and manipulates all of those unfortunate enough to be in his way on his morbid quest for the crown. He's so good you'll find yourself rooting for the dastardly villain that is Richard III. Pop some popcorn and sit back and enjoy.

Excellent acting but overrated as a film
I must disagree with the reviewers who praised this as one of Shakespeare's best movie adaptations. Sorry, it's not. The main strength of the movie is the acting, and for that alone it's a must-see. Yet, as a movie it has many stylistic and visual flaws.

The camera shots are very long and there are very few shifts in angles, there are almost no close-ups, the settings, costumes and makeup are overdone and look too fake and low-budget (perhaps on purpose?), and it's done almost entirely in a studio (the outdoor battle scenes feel like a Western..). The result is that you feel that you're watching a two-dimensional play. Perhaps black-and-white would have been a more suitable vehicle.

I'm also annoyed with the liberties the movie has taken with the text, shifted scenes around, chopping lines, etc. I didn't like that it begins with a scene from Henry IV. The Bard's original structure is better. Stick with it!

Also, for the first half of the movie I felt distant from Richard, possibly because until then we almost always see him from a distance and rarely up close. That changes once he become king. Overall, the second half is much better.

If you want to see a truly great Shakespeare adaptation, watch "Julius Caesar" with Marlon Brando and James Mason, even though the play itself is not as good as Richard III.

In spite of all this, I recommend it. Certainly worth seeing Olivier in action.. and it has some great moments.

A must see!!
I won't rehash the plot. Suffice to to say the Olivier's performance is magnificent. Also magnificent in this Criterion collection edition, is the addition of a top notch commentary which explores both Shakespeare's structure of the play and Olivier's decisions in bringing the character to the screen. Also interesting is a 1960's era interview with Olivier that reviews his acting career.

Even More Impressive in the DVD Format
Those who criticize Laurence Olivier and Alan Dent -- co-authors of the screenplay -- for taking certain liberties with Shakespeare's play should also criticize Shakespeare for taking certain liberties with the historical material on which he often relied so heavily. In this instance, Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, Vol. 6, and various Tudor Historians. In my opinion, such quibbling is a fool's errand. This much we do know about the historical Richard III. He was born in 1452 in Fotheringay Castle, Northamptonshire, the youngest son of Richard, Duke of York. He was created Duke of Gloucester by his brother, Edward IV, in 1461, accompanied him into exile (1470), and played a key role in his restoration (1471). Rewarded with part of the Neville inheritance, he exercised vice regal powers, and in 1482 re-captured Berwick-upon-Tweed from the Scots. When Edward died (1483) and was succeeded by his under-age son, Edward V, Richard acted first as protector, but within three months, he had overthrown the Woodvilles (relations of Edward IV's queen), arranged for the execution of Lord Hastings (c.1430-83), and had himself proclaimed and crowned as the rightful king. Young Edward and his brother were probably murdered in the Tower on Richard's orders, although not all historians agree. He tried to stabilize his position but failed to win broad-based support. His rival Henry Tudor (later Henry VII), confronted him in battle at Bosworth Field (August 22, 1485), when Richard died fighting bravely against heavy odds. Though ruthless, he was not the absolute monster Tudor historians portrayed him to be, nor is there proof he was a hunchback.

Cleverly, this film begins with the final scene of Henry IV, Part III, the coronation of Edward IV (Cedric Hardwicke). Locating himself at a strategic distance from the throne, the Duke of Gloucester (Olivier) carefully observes those around him. He shares with those who see this film or read the play his most private thoughts and feelings, many of which are as deformed as his body. Gloucester's "winter of discontent" will soon end. With a systematic tenacity unsurpassed by any other of Shakespeare's villains, Gloucester's coronation as Richard III (his own "glorious summer") will be the fulfillment of his royal ambition. The acting throughout the cast is outstanding. I do not recall another film in which Olivier, John Gielgud (George. Duke of Clarence), and Ralph Richardson (Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham) all appeared together, joined by Claire Bloom (Lady Anne Neville) and Stanley Baker (Henry Tudor). Special note should also be made of Otto Heller's cinematography which is integrated seamlessly with their performances. It is a pleasure to have this film now available in a DVD format, one which offers much sharper images and much clearer sound. Other special features of this DVD version include high-definition digital transfer; newly discovered footage; a commentary by playwright and stage director Russell Lees and John Wilder, former Governor of the Royal Shakespeare Company; 1966 BBC interview with Olivier hosted by Kenneth Tynan; a 12-minute television trailer; a theatrical trailer; and an essay by film historian Bruce Eder. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Sophisticated Drawing Room Fare
This is not one of Marilyn Monroe's most entertaining pictures; it's not fast-moving and it's not flashy, nor does it contain any extravagant musical production numbers, but it does boast a fine, subtle performance from the actress. During the 1911 coronation of King George V, an American showgirl in England (Monroe) matches wits with the Prince Regent of Carpathia (Laurence Olivier) in what is a charming drawing room comedy. Monroe gives a delightful, sweet, comedic performance against Olivier's austere, gruff prince. The two fall in love throughout the course of the film while at the same time Monroe helps mend the relationship between Olivier and his son (Jeremy Spenser), the future king of Carpathia. Dame Sybil Thorndike also appears in the film as the Queen Dowager and steals every scene she's in! She's an absolute delight. This is also a beautiful film to watch and was stunningly photographed by renowned cinematographer Jack Cardiff. Also be advised that the then modern appearance of the two stars on the cover of the DVD do not reflect how they appear in the movie; this is a period picture that takes place during 1911 and all of the performers are appropriately costumed.

A Royal Bore!
His Highness Grand Duke Charles, Regent of the Balkan state of Carpathia, with the fake, unintelligible accent (Laurence Olivier) meets Elsie Marina of Wilwaukee (Marilyn Monroe) in what has to be the longest, dullest 1 1/2, 2, 3 hours I have spent watching a movie in a very long time. He may have been the best actor of his generation, but you would be hard pressed to prove it from Olivier's performance here. Monroe, of course, plays the role she was usually assigned, the sexy dumb blonde.

I suppose Olivier should get most of the blame for this fiasco since he directed the movie in addition to starring in it. In Olivier's defense, however, I recall that he wanted his wife Vivian Leigh to play the role of Elsie rather than Ms. Monroe. Of course Ms. Monroe could have turned the offer to play Elsie down.

There are occasionally mildly funny scenes in the movie, but they are few and far between. After all a comedy should be funny.

Oh, 3/4 of the way through the movie, Elsie breaks out into song! Do I need to say more?

Both these actors made many good movies. This is not one of them.

Marilyn Monroe is perfect in this 1957 comedy, now on DVD!
Warner Brothers gives us an outstanding remastered video & sound DVD. The Technicolor Full Feature picture quality and clarity are eye candy to watch.

Marilyns co-star Lord Lawrence Olivier also Directed & Produced this satarical comedy of royalty meets show business.

Summary: The year is 1911 Olivier a touring European Prince meets a showgirl (Monroe) backstage in a London theatre. His immediate attraction to her prompts an immediate invitation for a midnight dinner back at his royal suite. Her beauty & candid wit keeps the prince off guard. A romance begins and the reality of royal service constantly interfere. Will they find happiness ever after?

Marilyn as always is beautiful and her comedy skills are unmatched. The Special Features include; Cast & Crew, Trailer and Announcement Newsreel.

This is a fun movie especially for Monroe fans. Enjoy.

So Boring!! I would rather have been at the dentist
I love Marilyn and she was beautiful and charming as ever in this, but that could not save it. This never should have been made. I was asleep within the first fifteen minutes. I painfully forced myself to watch it out of respect for Marilyn. It was a very very painful and probably one of the longest two hours of my life.

Showgirl meets rude Prince. They fall in love? When did this happen? I never saw any indication of this in the film. I also could not for the life of me see why she would want such a rude person!

The movie takes place mainly in one room of the Prince's manor. I will probably have nightmares of that room for the next year!

You have been warned! View at your own discretion!

"What's not to like"
I thought "The Prince & The Show Girl," (DVD) was about as good as it gets with MM. A fun tale of opposites attracting. Monroe in one of her finer films. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

terrible sound, decent performance
Terrible sound quality is obvious - you'd better have book with you while watching. Despite great names, there are no great performances - except, probably, Natasha. Decent rendering of the great Chekhov's play, but I definitely prefer taped Broadway 1965 (?) performance. BTW revolutionary "International" at the very end is, mildly put, not a good idea.

A very significant record of a great production
The other two reviews of this DVD seeem to me to have missed the point somewhat. Yes, on a purely technical level The Three Sisters print is certainly inferior. What must be remembered is that it is an archival print of a low-budget film that succeeds through its wonderful performances and vibrant authenticity. The film captures some wonderful performances by some wonderful actors, and was very obviously devised primarily as a means of preserving the original theatrical production whilst intelligently incorporating elements of cinema. Where else are you going to see Alan Bates, Derek Jacobi, Joan Plowright AND Laurence Olivier in the one cast?! Fascinating and magnificent.

The Sound and the Furious
I agree with the review on poor sound. It echos and is quite difficult to understand; my students would agree. The viewing experience turned out to be frustrating for them, but at times they were able to establish the events for more popular scenes. Recommended if you desire a visual or are a Chekov purist.

Inaudible -- The Worst Sounding DVD Ever
This might be a good film. I found it impossible to tell, due to the incredibly bad soundtrack. At first I thought it was something the matter with my sound system, but no, it was the DVD. It sounds as if several layers of cotton and a few sweaters were put around the microphones during the making of the film. There is absolutely no excuse for the DVD being released with a soundtrack as muddy as this one has.

Don't buy this DVD. ... Read more