Richard III
Richard III
NR | 11 March 1956 (USA)
Richard III Trailers

Having helped his brother King Edward IV take the throne of England, the jealous hunchback Richard, Duke of Gloucester, plots to seize power for himself. Masterfully deceiving and plotting against nearly everyone in the royal court, including his eventual wife, Lady Anne, and his brother George, Duke of Clarence, Richard orchestrates a bloody rise to power before finding all his gains jeopardized by those he betrayed.

Reviews
Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film
Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.
Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
GusF The third, last and by far the weakest of the three Shakespearean films directed by Laurence Olivier. I have to admit that, of the Bard's plays with which I am familiar, "Richard III" is my least favourite. It largely lacks the subtlety, strong characters, superlative characterisation, wonderful exploration of themes and beautiful language that define his later plays, particularly "Macbeth" and "Hamlet". That said, the play is far more subtle than the film. I wish that Olivier had made "Macbeth", which would have starred himself and his wife Vivien Leigh, instead.As both an actor and a director, Olivier failed to live up to the high standards that he set for himself in both "Henry V" and "Hamlet". His performance as the title character is too over the top, too obviously villainous, though he is very good in the quieter moments. The fake nose that he wears is unintentionally comical. This is the first time that I've ever been disappointed with one of Olivier's performances, though he is still one of my three favourite actors (the other two being Christopher Lee and Don Ameche). In contrast to the first two films, his direction is pedestrian. It feels like a filmed stage play rather than the film adaptation of one. It looks dull. This is particularly disappointing after the beautiful, vibrant Technicolor of "Henry V" and the even better black and white cinematography of "Hamlet". The Bosworth Field scenes are the best looking ones in the film but still fall far short of those films. At 2 hours and 38 minutes, it's far too long and not very well paced.Unfortunately, it seemed that Olivier set the tone for much of the acting in the film. Claire Bloom (who later matured into a very good actress) and Cedric Hardwicke both devour the scenery as the Lady Anne and King Edward IV respectively. I wish that Olivier had cast either Jean Simmons (who played Ophelia in "Hamlet") or Vivien Leigh as Anne. Ralph Richardson is just dull as the Duke of Buckingham. Olivier had considered casting Orson Welles as Buckingham and I wish that he had. The best actors in the film are the only ones who give consistently subtle performances such as Andrew Cruickshank as Brackenbury, Alec Clunes (Martin's dad) as Lord Hastings, Laurence Naismith as Lord Stanley, Norman Wooland (who previously played Horatio in "Hamlet") as Sir William Catesby, Stanley Baker as the soon to be Henry VII and the great John Gielgud as the Duke of Clarence. It also has many appearances from great characters actors such as Michael Gough, Michael Ripper, George Woodbridge, Patrick Troughton (who, unlike in "Hamlet", actually has some lines), Esmond Knight, John Laurie and Russell Thorndike. Knight, Laurie and Thorndike are the only actors other than Olivier himself to appear in all three of his Shakespearean films while Knight and the latter sister's Sybil Thorndike appeared in his next film "The Prince and the Showgirl".
haules_baules2001 This is the third movie in Olivier's trilogy of Shakespeare. I'd say this one is the worst of the three although the performance by Olivier here is the best. It's been called everything from brilliant to high camp but one thing it won't be called is forgettable. He steals every scene and is absolutely electrifying to watch. The opening soliloquy in particular is genuinely mesmerizing. Deceiving, cunning, often times funny, he lies, betrays and kills his way to the English Crown all the while letting us in on his plans. The score is solid while rest of the cast is passable. Ralph Richardson as Buckingham is probably the other performance worthy of note.That being said it does have its faults. As usual with Shakespeare it can be at times hard to follow. The script is full of metaphors and puns all being said at a vicious pace. Unless you know the play beforehand some of the content will be lost to you. Also, unlike Olivier's former efforts, the pacing seems slower here. At times the movie can get a little dull. The battle from the final act in particular is clumsy and messy.Overall, it's a flawed but still good movie. However as an introduction to Olivier's Shakespeare, Henry V is a better choice.
TheLittleSongbird 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
Christopher-178 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!