Spidersecu
Don't Believe the Hype
Derry Herrera
Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.
Scarlet
The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
Emberweave
With such a stellar group of British actors, it's amazing how they have managed to ruin Shakespeare. I've seen so many excellent productions, both on stage and on film, but this series stunned me with its awfulness. I watched Richard II, which was boring and grey. The heavy-handed Christ metaphor is not supported by the text and is so obviously shoe-horned in by the director that one wonders why he didn't choose a different story altogether that might have matched his narrow-focus interpretation. Richard is played as such an ethereal, dreamy idiot I'm surprised there wasn't sitar underscoring, along with lava lamps in the castle. It doesn't work with the text. Neither did the St. Sebastian silliness. I certainly enjoy seeing cute gay men, but was this a Shakespeare play or a Herb Ritts photo-shoot documentary? I hung in there for Henry IV parts one and two and they were also dreadful. Where was Henry IV? A better title would have been "The Overly-Extended Drunken Antics of Falstaff". By Part Two I was fast-forwarding through huge swathes of Falstaff nonsense hoping for some sense of interesting story. Instead, people rant and rail with no genuine purpose. I felt nothing for the characters at all and great contempt for the directors. I assume the final shots of Falstaff are supposed to be poignant, but I could not have cared less what happened to that character. This series was such a huge disappointment. I couldn't be bothered to watch the rest of the series. Really, don't waste your time.
Christy Leskovar
All you need to know is that Benedict Cumberbatch plays Richard III. I saw that, and I knew I wanted to watch it. He is superb, I dare say even the Bard himself could not come up with words to say how incredibly he captured this role. Season 2 is about the War of the Roses, using Shakespeare's Henry VI Parts 1 and 2 and Richard III for dialogue. It is different from other film versions of Shakespeare's plays that I've seen which are movie versions of the plays. This is essentially a series of three movies using Shakespeare's dialogue, so when action can replace dialogue, that is what happens. I don't think I've ever heard Shakespeare delivered so realistically and effectively. Though Benedict Cumberbatch plays the meatiest role, everyone in it is outstanding. After each episode, I looked up the real people to find out how much was real and how much fictional. Another powerful role is Henry's wife, Margaret, played by Sophie Okonedo. One of the most dramatic parts, I figured was fictional, was factual. In some parts, I wondered, did Shakespeare actually write it that way? I looked it up. Yes, he did. The dream sequence at the end is really something. It's still in my head. The battle scenes and murders are very gory, at least they sounded gory, I hid my eyes at those parts. I was disappointed that it ended, the story not the gore. I wanted it to go on. Then I found out there is a Season 1! I can't wait to watch it.
idmueller
If you base a movie/TV series on a play don't make this. Entertaining maybe, not even close to Shakespeare unless you watch WB or have a deadline. You can't skip the important dialogue for sweeping sequences. It is a stage play which can end in 2 hours. Sorry to consumers, this ain't Shakespeare. If you are stealing work, steal it all. I am pretty sure it is out of copyright. more lines... if you never read a book in your life you will recognize themes, they are from Shakespeare whether he actually wrote it or not. do I have enough lines yet not yet now?... quick list of better things: Richard III ian mckellan, romeo and Juliet leo, henry v brannagh, best ever titus bigelows with Hopkins... way more out there
shoolaroon
Maybe it is unfair of me to write a review as I've only seen the first entry, Richard II, but from the previews it seems to set the standard. While I appreciate the effort to mount such a Shakespearean production, and there are fine actors here such as Jeremy Irons, and Patrick Stewart, etc., the overall effect is very flat and disappointing. In the attempt to seem "natural" the creators have forgotten that this is...THEATER in solid caps, and was never meant to seem "natural". Perhaps I am not critiquing the actors as much as the production - the only productions of these plays I have seen that really work as theatrical and philosophical pieces are Orson Welle's Falstaff and Olivier's Richard III. The styles are very different but they both, artistically, transport one to a completely different era, in all ways. Welles especially knew how to handle Shakespeare in a way that he, Welles, is in charge of the plays - not they in charge of him. By all means, watch this BBC production, but if you want to see how it really should be done - see the two films I recommend. The BBC versions will seem like stale beer besides them.
