BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Stephan Hammond It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Zev 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.

JaydoDre I don't like Shakespeare.I tried him on multiple occasions and in multiple forms and by now I could write an essay on all the reasons why.However, Coriolanus the movie, is very palatable and the lack of popularity this movie has puzzles me as much as the popularity that Shakespeare has.There are some familiar core problems. Some of the dialogue is poetic nonsense, for which you have to pause and rewind so as to try grasp for some meaning. There are some issues with the story as the wordy dialogues sometimes ignore to explain some basic story aspects, motivations or fail to concentrate on the plot making the movie feel on the slow side. Again, not sure that is the movie's fault rather than Shakespeare's (or the source Shakespeare ripped off). For example, the two main men of this film state that they want to be together and then repeatedly say that they hate each other, with no clear explanation for either of those polar opposite attitudes.The general dialogue is nonetheless understandable so that one can follow it. It is helped by the good acting of everyone involved. Ralph Fiennes in the main role portrays the Roman general Coriolanus with his overly proud screws loose. His eyes alone could cut you. Good casting there.The main hook of the movie is that the it is Shakespeare in modern times where Rome is shown in the style of a Western country while the Volsci neighbors are shown in the cultural style of the Balkans. This is not completely novel but it works well and the cultural styles are portrayed well, interesting to look at. There is a lot of hand held camera (but not shaky cam) and it makes things look more gritty and personal. Good cinematography overall, though the real action is not well shot as the cuts are too fast..The overall plot is interesting. There are no real villains, which is always refreshing. There is no cheesy love interest or a hero. The movie instead explores the clash between patriotism, personal pride and duty to your people. It is an off-beat story.With so many movies being a copy of the same 4-chord pop song formula, this Shakespeare based film is like a breath of fresh air. And on top of that, it is well-acted and for most part well shot.

douglas lally The fact that Shakespeare remains the most studied, influential, and produced playwright in the modern world is testament to the genius of his storytelling and it's transcendent, universal narratives. His plays remain timeless for this reason. Coriolanus, however, one of the last composed by Billy Shakes, is not one his more popular plays and consequently doesn't see the stage time of his other Histories. There are really four reasons for this. The title character is lacking the emotional range, depth, and just plain interestingness of say a Hamlet, Lear, or Macbeth. He is pretty much single minded and predictable. Reason two is there is no love interest to speak of, although he has a wife, she does not play a compelling influence on his life or events of the story. Reason three, the topicality emphasizes the political rather than humanistic. Reason four is it's an intense, humorless, dark play. In essence, Coriolanus is a heavily flawed man who doesn't know it and for many that makes him boring. There are no internal conflicts, only external. The play is really a commentary on the bearing of social class on the general welfare of any given nations citizenry and the toxicity of political privilege and hubris. Many theater goers, even in Shakespeare's time, were uneasy with the subject matter. Aristotle asserted that theater should serve two functions, entertain and instruct,but do so evenly. Coriolanus does more instruction where an escapist audience wanted to be entertained. Let's call Coriolanus, then, a Shakespearian political PSA. But...this re-imagining of Coriolanus is spectacular. Like many modern adaptations of Shakespeare it has been modernized to suit the times, making it more accessible to audiences unfamiliar with the Elizabethan English or even the story itself. There are no robes, tights, or rapiers. There are instead tanks, helmets, and helicopters. There are suits and ties and cars and televisions and a contemporary cultural backdrop that could be literally any one of thousands of locales in our present time. Ralph Fiennes direction really drives home that this could be you, which I thought worked exceptionally well. The use of modern media, such as television talk shows and news broadcasts to deliver dialogue originally intended for an ancillary character was both clever and useful in keeping the flow of the story as well as staying true to the spirit of the original work.Coriolanus is a general, a politically valued but socially inept political figurehead central to the corruption of the Roman government and the chief architect of that government's subversion of civil liberties and basic needs among it's population. For that reason he is despised by the people and feared by the politicians. Yet he is also a prized component of this society as a fearless, ruthless, and brilliant military commander. The built in irony for Coriolanus lay in his professional conduct as a soldier defending his nation, advancing it's interests through conquest, and all the while expressing utter disgust for that nation, the common man especially whom he regards as interloping rabble or a distraction to his ambitions. He is what we would call a megalomaniac. Serving only himself and those that can benefit him. Really, he functions as guardian of a status quo for himself, and no one but himself. As a side note, can't imagine that Coriolanus wasn't an influence for Aaron Sorkin when he crafted Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men. One should familiarize themselves with the story before embarking on Coriolanus. It should be said more often that production value, costumes, and theme will never replace an audiences need to understand what is going on. Let's face it, there's a language barrier with Shakespeare and nothing will substitute for an audience member who doesn't know that musty superfluidity means weakness. And perhaps that's why Shakespeare on film doesn't have the reach it should. But I do love this effort and the attempt to advance a 400 year old tale of a dysfunctional system and make it real for anyone living it today. Nuts and bolts of the film. I loved the action sequences, the editing, and the brevity as much of the script was deleted to streamline the film. Gerald Butler was in his element as Aufidius, the foil to Coriolanus. Ralph Fiennes exploded as Coriolanus and gave him an unspoken internal dialogue; I hated this guy and then it occurred to me that I was supposed to, and when that happened I know they did it right. Some things I did not like. The overuse of shaky cam as if this were live footage was not all that convincing. Thought some of the combat scenes were pushing too hard. And at times, for reasons I can't really explain, felt the whole this is modern times and we are making a point of that fell flat. Maybe it was all the shots done in TV studios and board rooms. Overall an excellent film, and a very relevant story to modern times. Both entertaining and instructive. Evenly.

Bill Slocum As a first-time director, Ralph Fiennes gives a good account of himself in a challenging production, but is under-served by two sources from whom one expects better: Fiennes the actor and William Shakespeare the scenarist.Caius Martius (Fiennes) is a proud Roman, rather overmuch in the minds of many of his compatriots. In the midst of a war Martius is doing much to win, a conspiracy takes root to displace him of his high station in Roman society. Despite counsel of his mother Volumnia (Vanessa Redgrave) and patrician friend Menenius (Brian Cox), Martius' knack for blowing up at the wrong time proves his Achilles heel."Coriolanus" is one of Shakespeare's more interesting problem plays, articulating an elitist attitude that seems designed to annoy inhabitants of future democracies. Either you accept Martius's contempt for the people he serves, or you relish his undeserved downfall as the result of excess pride. Fiennes doesn't try to recast the story in a more populist way, even as he repositions the story in a modern setting and employs the use of hand-held cameras and TV studio sets. A CNN-style network, Fidelis, provides the same role as messengers do in the original play. Combat takes place using automatic weapons in a style reminiscent of a "Call Of Duty" video game.This all works better than I expected, grounding the play in a way it needs and doesn't have in the writing. Nice work is offered by the supporting players, particularly Cox, who plays Menenius as sage and crafty with a nicely understated delivery. My favorite line in this film is a simple one he delivers over his shoulder late in the film: "I'll undertake it."What is wrong with the film is mainly the fact Shakespeare wasn't at his best here spinning the story. There is a rather simple plot, more a character piece where the character in question performs two 180s in two acts. Fiennes and writer John Logan employ some useful trims, but they still leave alone some rare clams from the Bard, like Volumnia's raging cry: "Anger's my meat!" and Martius's "O, a kiss/Long as my exile, sweet as my revenge."Playing Martius, Fiennes ranges between two poles, those of soft-voiced underplaying, such as at his entrance; and hammy, spittle-flecked ranting, like when he has his showdown with the people of Rome. This makes empathy for an already difficult character much harder. "Bolder, but not so subtle," is how his enemy Aufidius (Gerard Butler) describes him, and boy, is he not kidding. After a while it kinda grates.The Shakespearean language doesn't add or subtract from the overall experience. It never quite feels natural. If you know what is happening, and Fiennes the director does a good job making it clear, you can glom onto what the various characters are saying easily enough, and enjoy the way they play with their deliveries. It's a good cast, even if no one puts forward their best work. Redgrave's entirely too gentle in the role of fire-eating Volumnia, but she has her moments.It's that kind of film, really. I ended up watching it again for this review in installments because even at just over two hours I found it a bit much to absorb in one sitting. I suggest you do the same; it's a decent time-passer if not something to leave an impression.