IMDb रेटिंग
7.3/10
5.4 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA tale of the wicked deformed King and his conquests, both on the battlefield and in the boudoir.A tale of the wicked deformed King and his conquests, both on the battlefield and in the boudoir.A tale of the wicked deformed King and his conquests, both on the battlefield and in the boudoir.
- 1 ऑस्कर के लिए नामांकित
- 9 जीत और कुल 3 नामांकन
Wallace Bosco
- Monk
- (as Wally Bascoe)
कहानी
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाMichael Gough got his part (Dighton, the first murderer) by making a fuss to his fellow actor friends about only established stars getting cameo parts and leaving nothing for struggling actors like him. One night he got a phone call, and a voice said "You've been stirring it, haven't you? Right little shit." Gough demanded to know, "Who is this?" only to be stunned by the response, "It's Larry", which of course was Sir Laurence Olivier. Olivier was just having some fun at Gough's expense, had taken on-board his criticisms and was ringing to offer him the part of one of the murderers in this movie. When asked which one he wanted to play, Gough quickly said "Whichever one has the most lines", and he got his wish. Olivier arranged matters so that Gough's scenes were split over several days, instead of all being done in one day, so that Gough would maximize his per diem fee.
- गूफ़In the scene when Richard tells King Edward of Clarence's supposed treason, two monks are singing hymns from a large book: their lips are not only out of sync with their singing, but with each other.
- भाव
Richard III: I'll drown more sailors than the mermaid shall,/ I'll play the orator as well as Nestor,/ Deceive more slyly than Ulysses could,/ And, like a Sinon, take another Troy./ I can add colours to the chameleon, /Change shapes with Proteus for advantages, /And set the murderous Machiavel to school./ Can I do this,and cannot get a crown?/Tut, were it farther off,/ I'll pluck it down.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटMost of the film's credits are shown at the end. The opening credits show only the title of the film, William Shakespeare's name, and the names of the main actors.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनReleased in Great Britain at 155 minutes; some of the prints released in the USA are 139 minutes.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Great Acting: Laurence Olivier (1966)
फीचर्ड रिव्यू
It's quite a gap that Laurence Olivier covers between his portrayal of heroic Henry V and the evil Richard III. But he certainly does cover it well.
In fact this production boasts the talents of five knighted thespians in its cast, Olivier as Richard, John Gielgud as Clarence, Ralph Richardson as Buckingham, Cedric Hardwicke as Edward IV and Stanley Baker as the Earl of Richmond. That is probably some kind of record.
Once seen you will not forget the heavily made up Olivier with a shylock type nose and hunchbacked form. Unlike in Henry V and in Hamlet the title character's soliliquys are delivered straight to the audience rather than in voice-over. I think Olivier like Shakespeare wanted to emphasize the evilness of Richard as opposed to the tormenting doubts that Henry and Hamlet suffer. No doubts here, he's got his evil course well planned and he's very matter of factly telling his audience what's in store.
Of course when Shakespeare wrote this he was gearing up the Tudor dynasty propaganda machine. Stanley Baker's Earl of Richmond becomes Henry VII grandfather of the Queen whose patronage Shakespeare enjoyed. It was in Tudor family interest to blacken Richard's name to support their own dynastic claims. There have been several plausible theories put forth to claim the murders of Edward V and his brother were done by others.
One guy who in all the stories about Richard III who gets a whitewash is the Duke of Clarence. As portrayed by John Gielgud, Clarence is an innocent sacrificed in Richard's march for the throne. Actually Clarence was quite the schemer himself. He was in communication with Louis XI of France looking for aid in some plotting he was doing. Edward IV overlooked an incredible amount of treachery with him.
One very big flaw is that the film opens with Edward IV being restored to the throne again in 1471 and he has his son with him. Edward IV died in 1483 and the sons have not aged a mite. I believe they were 12 and 9 when they were put to death in the Tower of London in 1483. I'm surprised Olivier had that in his film.
Still and all it's a fabulous production and one should never miss a chance of seeing all that acting nobility in one film.
In fact this production boasts the talents of five knighted thespians in its cast, Olivier as Richard, John Gielgud as Clarence, Ralph Richardson as Buckingham, Cedric Hardwicke as Edward IV and Stanley Baker as the Earl of Richmond. That is probably some kind of record.
Once seen you will not forget the heavily made up Olivier with a shylock type nose and hunchbacked form. Unlike in Henry V and in Hamlet the title character's soliliquys are delivered straight to the audience rather than in voice-over. I think Olivier like Shakespeare wanted to emphasize the evilness of Richard as opposed to the tormenting doubts that Henry and Hamlet suffer. No doubts here, he's got his evil course well planned and he's very matter of factly telling his audience what's in store.
Of course when Shakespeare wrote this he was gearing up the Tudor dynasty propaganda machine. Stanley Baker's Earl of Richmond becomes Henry VII grandfather of the Queen whose patronage Shakespeare enjoyed. It was in Tudor family interest to blacken Richard's name to support their own dynastic claims. There have been several plausible theories put forth to claim the murders of Edward V and his brother were done by others.
One guy who in all the stories about Richard III who gets a whitewash is the Duke of Clarence. As portrayed by John Gielgud, Clarence is an innocent sacrificed in Richard's march for the throne. Actually Clarence was quite the schemer himself. He was in communication with Louis XI of France looking for aid in some plotting he was doing. Edward IV overlooked an incredible amount of treachery with him.
One very big flaw is that the film opens with Edward IV being restored to the throne again in 1471 and he has his son with him. Edward IV died in 1483 and the sons have not aged a mite. I believe they were 12 and 9 when they were put to death in the Tower of London in 1483. I'm surprised Olivier had that in his film.
Still and all it's a fabulous production and one should never miss a chance of seeing all that acting nobility in one film.
- bkoganbing
- 24 दिस॰ 2005
- परमालिंक
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 41 मिनट
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें