User Reviews

I saw this movie in English-language version at midnight in April 2004 on a Dutch commercial TV-station. Al Pacino is to be praised for making this movie, of which I have the feeling that it could not be made in these times (are there any indies left?). I was fascinated to see what a gap there is between American and 'European' (i.e. British) ways of tackling the problem of performing a play of Shakespeare: the British interviewees were cool as cucumbers, the American actors (who all do a fine job) were sometimes desperate to find ways of passage through the labyrinth of the play. Pacino used a fine parallel: he made a historic event (the play written by Shakespeare) into a work of art, as did Shakespeare when he turned the rise and fall of the Richard III of the fifteenth century into a play. I think Pacino also tried to do something with one of the most fascinating Shakespearean themes: how life and play (or: men and actors) are intertwined and often cannot be separated. But Pacino could not elaborate on that, probably because he felt that the film otherwise would be too long. Pacino did well in trying to find the most appropriate locations for the scenes. I was mesmerized to see how Richard could do all that he wanted when inside castles and towers, but was at a loss when he found himself in the open fields. Al Pacino, there are still a lot of Shakespeare's plays waiting for you!

Looking for Richard frames the essential postmodern question in its own terms: Is this a film about Richard III, or is this a film about a film about Richard III? Cameras follow Al Pacino as he wanders New York, sometimes on foot, but more often in the back of a limousine. We're not sure what he's doing, except it has something to do with Shakespeare's play Richard III. There are rehearsals with familiar actors, and actual performances, some seemingly on stage, some on sets, some on location, all of it interspersed with discussion about the play. Is the play actually to be staged, or is it all a show for the film? We don't know, and really, it doesn't matter. For the most part, this is a pleasant meditation on its subject.

Pacino has chosen a treacherous path: on one side stands the dauntingly complex Shakespeare play, and on the other the patronizing attempts to simplify it for the modern audience. There were several times when I felt talked down to by the actors, but just as many where I felt I benefited from the expanded explanation. Also, with Pacino so vibrantly at the center of every scene and little attention given to others, the film unavoidably has the flavor of a vanity project.

What the film does convey effectively is the power of theater to transport people intellectually and emotionally. The contrast between Pacino's stuttering attempts to summarize certain plot points and his magnificent animation as Richard is fascinating. Like the story (possibly apocryphal) about how Picasso, when asked to explain the meaning of one of his paintings, replied that if he could do that, he wouldn't need to paint, even inarticulate actors possess remarkable powers when inhabiting their roles. This insight was the film's central revelation for me.

Al Pacino brings Shakespeare to the common man in this documentary exploring the complexities of Richard III. If you can get past the insinuation that the "every day ordinary man (or woman)" is too slow to understand the intricacies of Shakespeare, you are left with quite an interesting, entertaining film. I have to be honest and say that many people do find Shakespeare a little bewildering, and tackling Richard III, one of his deepest, confusing plays, is no easy task. Therefore, let down your guard, and let the actors and scholars give us their interpretation of this most fascinating play. I found much irony in this simple effort, which made the film all the more enjoyable. In telling us of a story of a man, who wants so badly to become king as to betray all those he knows and loves, we learn the story of a singular, power hungry man, with an urge to rule his people. In his own admission, Pacino himself is on a quest to be the ultimate monarch of his own film, and tell us all, us commoners, the true meaning of this classic work. Whether or not the parallel is intentional, I don't know, but it still makes for interesting story telling. And the ultimate irony of all is that some of the deepest and most intelligent quotes come from interviews with Joe Q. Public; the man on the street.

After reading many of the previous reviews and commentaries, I'm beginning to wonder whether we all saw the same movie! I found the entire piece enriching, riveting, and suspenseful, and was immediately moved to call friends and family members to recommend it. The performances are remarkable: Pacino is intense, Ryder catches the "deer-in-the-headlights" feel of her character perfectly. Baldwin is restrained and beguiling, while Spacey delivers his usual flawless performance. Penelope Allen was astounding. The movie serves, not to deliver the entire work-- analyzed, explained, and discussed-- on a platter, but, rather, to whet our appetites and bring Shakespeare to modern classes, and I felt it succeeded in this admirably. It also showed the thought and preparation that goes into such a production. I particularly enjoyed watching the actors discuss various interpretations of particular scenes, imparting their own ideas and feelings, and often disagreeing with each other. While we are both generally "action movie" or suspense fans, we found ourselves completely drawn into the drama, both in the characters and in the actors, and-- even knowing, of course, the ending in advance-- found ourselves on the edge of our seats as the film neared its climax. My one complaint? I wish they had then gone on to film their entire version of Richard III to offer as a companion piece. An excellent way to indulge yourself in an exciting, well-performed piece of movie-making, and actually come away having learned a little bit. Highly recommended!

Nobody's really sure if Richard III was the scuzzbag that Shakespeare painted him as, but he really goes to town in the play, cackling over his own villainy, rejoicing in turning our everyday morality upside down.

This documentary, directed by Al Pacino, cuts back and forth between actual scenes enacted from the play and real-time contemporary scenes in which the actors and others wrestle with the play's meanings and execution.

And what a cast of characters. Yulin, Pacino, Spacey, Irons, Ryder, Parsons, Baldwin, Redgrave, Branagh, Gielgud, inter alia. All the principal actors are American, which brings up the question of accent. Mostly we're used to hearing Shakespeare done by English actors -- Gielgud, Olivier, Maurice Evans. Well, let's say, "British" actors. The Americans in this production don't come off too badly. Every male principal has played a modern criminal, either on the wide screen or on TV, but they adapt rather well to their roles, as they should, being actors. Even the performers with New York accents either manage to disguise them or use them effectively. Pacino, for instance, does Richard in a precise, hoarse whisper, which is okay. British and New York accents have lost the medial "r". In both New York and England, "garden" is pronounced "gah-den."

The plot -- I usually get lost somewhere along the line, although the play is Shakespeare's second shortest I think, next to MacBeth. Basically, Shakespeare has Richard exploit, murder, and betray everyone who stands in his way during his climb to the throne. It's full of well-worn lines. "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

And both the play and the documentary are pretty funny. It's the end of the War of the Roses between the houses of Lancaster and York. In his opening soliloquy Richard is shambling around, a rude lump of foul deformity, and comes up with, "Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York." The sun turns winter into summer. But "York" is also one of the families involved in the conflict and it has just been settled by the Duke, a member of the house of York. "Sun" = "son." Get it? It's called a "pun." And now you know why a pun is the lowest form of humor. The play's full of witticisms, most of them better than that, despite being imposed, as they are, on some pretty grisly proceedings. Richard is one of those heavies that's so outrageous that he's engaging, a shameless moral idiot, like Vincent Price in "The Abominable Dr. Phibes" or "Theater of Blood." Hitchcock might have rooted for him.

The documentary is funny too. Pacino and Freddy are having an argument about how the "experts" should be shown during their interviews for the film. Fred feels that the actors know more than guys with PhDs, so the experts should not be shown talking directly into the camera. Cut to an "expert" being interviewed. He looks into the camera and says, "Why does Lady Anne walk out on the street and meet Richard at that particular moment?

And he answers himself: "I -- well -- I don't know."

Al and Fred visit WS's house in Stratford and enter his bedroom. We get a shot of the not-especially-comfortable-looking bed that WS was supposedly born in. "THIS is the BED?" asks Freddy. "I was expecting something more. I wanted an epiphany when I walked through the door, and I expected to brim over with inspiration." Pacino: "Why don't you go back out, then walk through the door again?"

The documentary also gives us an amusing party at which the intellectualizing guests are made fun of. The well-bred women carry on about the Jungian implications of the play or something -- one mentions "the yin and the yang of it". Pacino leans over to Fred and whispers, "Fred, you gotta get me outta this. It's gone too far." (The only significance the actors seem to find in the play is strictly political.)

Yeah, I can see a cast like this pulling the play off.

To me, "Looking for Richard" is about one man's love of Shakespearean plays. This film is his vehicle to share that admiration with as many people as possible. I'm glad Mr. Pacino made this film, because he is so well-respected by such a wide variety of people, that his presence will draw them first to this film and then hopefully to the theatre.

I found the film extremely interesting. If you're at all interested in theatre, you'll enjoy watching the cast debate during rehearsals. It gave me a greater insight into what's involved in actually putting on a play. Usually, you just see the finished product, and they make it look so easy. I was relieved to learn from the film that the actors and directors struggle with the text of the plays too. So you don't have to feel bad if you don't understand all the dialogue - you will get the gist of it. The film is simply urging people to give Shakespeare another chance. You might like it, or you might not, but at least you'll have given it a shot. And if you do like it, it'll keep you busy for years.

Since most people are initially exposed to Shakespeare in high school, I imagine that's where their phobia originates. I had an English teacher who was passionate about Shakespeare, and he instilled that appreciation in me. Unfortunately, everyone isn't as lucky. Boring classes turned them off, and that's all they'll ever experience of Shakespeare. They are missing so much. I hope all the English teachers out there who are less than comfortable with teaching Shakespeare will show this film to their classes to counteract any Shakespeare phobia-inducing incidents.

It's been a while since I've seen this film so I'm gonna have to do an overview. While watching this film, I kept in mind that it is a documentary and not meant to be a theatrical picture. This was definetly necessary. If you are looking for something with action or witty lines written down by some overpaid screenwriter in the back lots of Hollywood, you'll have to pick up a different film; however, if you can get past the impulse to veg infront of the tube and make this film in excercising your brain, it is quite remarkable. Al Pacino and the rest of the cast do a great job of interpreting and explaining Shakespeare and his work. It is a great film for those who are not Shakespeare buffs. Pacino enlightens his audience concerning what goes on to stage and enact Shakespeare--the interpretation, the casting, the mindset. Now, if you still aren't convinced that this movie is at least worth a shot, check out the cast. It is a who's who of today's most talented actors and actresses Shakespearean as well as those from the other side of the big pond--Kevin Spacey, Kenneth Branagh, James Earl Jones, Alec Baldwin, etc. My favorite part of the movie comes at the end when Al Pacino acts out the most famous scene of the play ("A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!"). It is truly a spirited performance. NOW, with all this said, Looking for Richard falls short of being indispensable. It's a good film but not great. I think what it lacks is continuity. It jumps around a little too much for my liking...but Looking for Richard, none the less, is a film that is worth checking out at least once. Now if you want a truly great Shakespearean film, check out anything directed by Kenneth Branagh.

Who would have thought that an Italian from New York City could play Richard the 3rd. ? Al Pacino is marvellous as he searches the stage and beyond for the true Richard the 3rd. Kevin Spacey, Winonna Ryder, and Alex Baldwin are just some who join him in the journey as he wonders the streets of New York and London for the true love of Shakespeare.

Al Pacino's first filmed brush with Shakespeare was this part adaptation of Richard III, and part documentary on the significance of Shakespeare's live and works.

He himself plays Richard (and in the few scenes he chooses to play, is impressive). Other excellent readings come from (surprisingly) Alec Baldwin as Clarence, Kevin Spacey as Buckingham, and Estelle Parsons as Queen Margaret. Winona Ryder plays Lady Anne (but I think her voice was dubbed by Kate Burton?).

The scenes from the play are done in costume and in a straightforward manner. The choices are good - introspective points and high drama for each character.

The documentary bits take two routes - interviews with leading Shakespearians such as John Gielgud and Kenneth Branagh; and Al's own journey to Shakespeare country in Stratford-upon-Avon, to Shakespeare's house and beyond.

What comes across is true devotion to the subject, and infectious interest from what was (at the time) an unexpected source. Very good piece of work and well worth your time - when is Al Pacino going to play Richard III on screen for real?

I'll admit to some possible bias here: I like Shakespeare, I used to study acting, and I like Pacino. And I thought it was wonderful how the three were mixed together to form this great documentary.

It's not a film good just for entertainment; it's good if you feel like watching something educational, and enlightening. What I loved about the movie was how it showed the process of acting, particularly Shakespeare. You go from actors sitting around a table reading from a script, to actors sitting around a table improvising to get a feel for their character, to the finished product. And the acting is fantastic.

I enjoyed how this movie showed how good professional actors are. Because of his looks, Kevin Conway is just a character actor in Hollywood; the parts he gets are generally going to be all along the same lines. But here he gets to show just how talented, skilled, and trained actor he is. For me, Shakespeare is a litmus test. I've rarely been impressed by Alec Baldwin as an actor (Glengarry Glen Ross excepted) but here he shows that he truly is a professional actor, not just a "movie star." Unfortunately, Wynona Ryder did not past the test. I thought she was the weakest part of the movie; she did not sound at all natural. While everyone else spoke their lines as Shakespeare is supposed to sound like, Ryder sounded like she was "speaking Shakespeare." I had similar problems with Leo DiCaprio and Claire Danes in Romeo + Juliet, especially compared to the smooth and natural performances of Pete Postlethwaite and Harold Perrineau.

The movie is not for everyone. But if you enjoy acting, if you enjoy Shakespeare, and/or you simply enjoy Pacino, this is a must-see.

This film has fascinated me ever since I first happened upon it in the library of Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi. By a happy coincidence, I also checked out Ian McKellen's quite excellent "Richard III" on the same day and spent most of the afternoon viewing and comparing the two.

It all works: the performances, the interviews, the clowning around on the set. I thought Spacey was wooden, but Baldwin . . . wow . . . who would have expected such a performance.

Highly recommended for anyone who reads and thinks.

Rusty

I really wanted to like this movie. I like Pacino and I love Richard III. Most of it is quite good, but I'm afraid that one scene will always come to mind whenever I think of this film.

Pacino is working on the following speech:

Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams, To set my brother Clarence and the king In deadly hate the one against the other: And if King Edward be as true and just As I am subtle, false and treacherous, This day should Clarence closely be mew'd up, About a prophecy, which says that 'G' Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be. Dive, thoughts, down to my soul: here Clarence comes.

Pacino doesn't understand why Richard says that "G" will be the murderer. After all, the person that Richard is setting up is named Clarence. Instead of delving into the full meaning and believing that Shakespeare must have had a reason to use the words he did, Pacino just decides that he'll change the line to say that "C" will be the murderer.

Arrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh! It would only take one look at the list of the characters of the play to find out that the character referred to as "Clarence" is really "George, the Duke of Clarence" so that the "G" does refer to Clarence after all. Not only that, but the prophecy actually refers to Richard himself, since he is "Richard, the Duke of Gloucester." Richard is "G", the murderer.

Much of the film is very interesting and enjoyable, but I'm afraid that Pacino's hubris in thinking that he knows better than Shakespeare did will always color this film for me.

Apparently Shakespeare equals high brow which equals in turn a bunch of folks not seeing something for what it really is. At one point in this film, someone (I believe Pacino's producer) warns him that film is getting off track, that it was once about how the masses think about Shakespeare through the vehicle of RICHARD III. Instead he decides to shoot a chopped up play with random comments sprinkled throughout. Some scenes seemed to be included as home movies for Al (was there really ANY reason for the quick visit to Shakespeare's birthplace, other than for a laugh about something unexpected which happens there?), and, before the film has really even begun, we are treated to seeing Al prance around and act cute and funny for the camera. I thought his silly act with Kay near the end of GODFATHER III with the knife to his throat was AN ACT - but apparently it's how Al really behaves in person.

Enough rambling. Here's a shotgun smattering of why I didn't even make it 3/4 of the way through this: 1) pretentious - Al always knows when the camera is on him, whether he's acting as Richard or in a 'real' conversation with someone - you can see it in the corner of his eyes, also, some of the actors around the rehearsal table become untethered and wax hammy to the extreme. If anyone reading this has ever spent any time with an group of actors and has witnessed this kind of thing from the outside, it's unbearable. "Look at me, chewing all the scenery!" 2) Winona Ryder. When she appears as Lady Anne, this film comes to a screeching halt, which it never recovers from. She has nothing to add in the discussion scenes but the camera lingers on her to bring in the kiddoes. Her performance is dreadful, to boot. 3) the only things you really learn from this are told to you by the very scholars the filmmakers are trying to keep out of the picture. Of course, you also learn that Pacino shouldn't be directing films (or doing Richard in the first place). I'd rather watch BOBBY DEERFIELD than this.

Lastly, read the play and learn it for yourself. Go out and see it performed. In 1997 I saw the play performed at the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Theater, and it made what we see in this film seem like high school drama (except for the gratuitous throat slashing of Clarence! My God! Was that necessary?!)

It's all just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nada.

Like Ian McKellen's unconventional RICHARD III, this film brings us into Shakespeare in an unusual and effective way. Al Pacino gathers a number of well-known non-Shakespearian actors and they not only stage several of the more important scenes in the play, but they also discuss the meaning of the scenes and the motivations of the characters. These discussion act as a prelude to the scenes and thus make the scenes not only much clearer but also far more powerful than the traditional productions in which the audience may be lost in the dusty old politics that saturate the play. See this one before you see any of the more traditional versions.

Al Pacino is examining and performing Shakespeare's "Richard III." There are more than a few familiar faces although Kevin Spacey is a little distracting since his troubles. This is about actors doing their actors' process. Al wants to know the back story, the motivations, the situation, and all the actor things. It's fascinating for about thirty minutes. It's got a young Winona Ryder trying to keep up. This is for the acting crowd and stage wannabes. Most people would get a bit antsy in the second half of this almost two hours film. It's a lot to sit through unless one is in the drama club.

From other comments I've read on this movie, one might get the impression that the primary purpose of this documentary is to explain Shakespeare and Richard III. To me, this makes it seem like the documentary falls into the same trap Shakespeare tends to fall into in our culture, that of being medicinal; it tastes bad, but it's good for you. While the movie does give you an insight into Shakespeare and Richard III, that is not its primary value. Like the recent SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, this is a celebration of Shakespeare's art, his wordplay, and his drama, communicated to us here by Pacino, who is a big Shakespeare fan. It also shows how his plays connect with us and with our culture(as one critic said, playing Michael Corleone is a nice preparation for Richard III). The cast pulls the play off with aplomb, and the interviewees make their points without becoming dry, didactic, or condescending. But it's Pacino's show, and he shows not only his great acting talent, but why he's also a great director. And again, this invites us into a celebration of art, rather than repels us by being a lesson.

I caught this by sheer accident on BBC C4 last night backed on to another Shakespeare program.

I was immediately caught by it..the fabulous comittment to culture in the face of 'dumbing down' shown by Pacino and his team was overwhelming. I too had not thought it possible from american film stars!!

His characterisation of Richard was amazing. His fellow actors were equally impressive and the scenes where they discuss the plot, its meaning historically and it's meaning in human terms were gripping.

The intercut scenes of British establishment lovies pontificating on why Americans can't do Shakespeare highlighted the pretensiousness of our approach. I would prefer Pacino anyday to a 100 Brannagh's or Jacobi's!!

The costume scenes had a kind of byzantine grandeur and I was constantly reminded of Orson Welles, or his influence.

Shore's music is tremendous and meets the high standard of the rest of this movie.

I will be adding this to my collection at the earliest opportunity.

Watch and be amazed!!

Being an actor, thus not only interested in but bewitched by Shakespeare and his genius, this movie is a wonderful paper on how his text and drama applies to all in all times. Pacino with friends and colleagues Bulleit and Berry (I think) try to digest the soul of the words and make them digestible to the everyday Joe. It's a riveting tale of the grand emotions that we all possess, but rarely express in this time and age and I deeply thank Pacino and his magnificent crew for taking us on this journey. Keep an eye out for the beggar who - in an unprecedented and most sincere way - tells us how Shakespeare lets us in on the secret how life is supposed to be lived and then walks off-camera and asks a businessman for a penny. 10 out of 10. And thank you.

Frequently fascinating film that is mostly documentary-based, with footage of a Richard III production inserted. Interviews are conducted and we see Pacino visiting key places in Shakespeare's history as well as interviewing actors (such as Vanessa Redgrave and John Gielgud) as well as academic historians. Lots of insight is given into the acting process as well as the difficulties Americans in particular may face when dealing with Shakespeare. Indeed, Pacino and his colleagues themselves are self-deprecating and frank when it comes to admitting what they do or do not understand, historical moments, and so on.

Certainly one that Pacino fans should admire, as well as there being something quite perceptive for fans of the bard, also. The production of Richard III that we see in between other pieces of footage still manages to be stirring, and is memorably performed. It's hard not to get a kick out of actors like Pacino and Kevin Spacey discussing their craft and then seeing it in motion.

The 90s were made up of lots of innovative movies genres, here is another, this one is a fake docu-drama that tries to make Richard III easier to understand for the masses.

I did enjoy parts of the movie, it has a great cast list, and the idea itself could have worked had it been a lot lighter with more humour in the fake-documentary sections.

What you end up with is a mish-mash of confusing info on the subject interweaved with overly long reconstructions of some of the scenes, neither satisfying the masses or fans of the subject in general.

In the end i want to watch a movie to escape into another world/universe, if i wanted to watch a true documentary on Richard III i would watch the TV or go to the theatre to fulfill a proper play of it.

My understanding of this movie is that Pacino had been panned for a stage performance of Richard III, and that the motivation behind this movie was to emphasize the seriousness with which Pacino takes his craft. There were some suggestions that Pacino had thought he might be resting on his laurels to some extent, or otherwise thought he could simply perform Shakespeare as he had any previous role. Making this movie was a clear statement that if his previous performance was not up to snuff, he would demonstrate his willingness to learn and desire to be successful in such a challenging role.

I think the movie seems less self-indulgent if viewed in this light, and it is even more fascinating to watch someone who's as highly regarded as Pacino show so much desire and interest in further perfecting his craft.

Looking for Richard, directed and acted by Al Pacino, has done something I have never seen done before. It takes a viewer on a tour through the development, design and rehearsal of the play 'Richard III'.

Filmmaker Al Pacino combines scenes from Richard III being performed by top actors (Kevin Conway, Kevin Spacey, Alec Baldwin), rehearsals for parts, and on-location filming of where the actual events of Richard III took place. Al Pacino is entertaining, he's funny, and he shows unbelievable talent in making documentaries.

The scenes are fun to watch of the actors performing the actual play in rehearsal. Kevin Spacey is his usual quiet self as the actors argue over how American actors would have a harder time than British ones on performing the play.

The scenes are well filmed with on-site filming. The actors are fun to watch and listen to trying to go from the Movie Screen to the Stage. it would actually be pretty fun to see all of these actors put on the actual play. The movie is educational through the way it shows how much work it takes to pit on and act in a play. I would recommend it to at least any one interested in theater and stage acting.

Looking For Richard. Starring: Al Pacino, Alec Baldwin, Kevin Spacey, Kevin Conway, Penelope Allen, and Harris Yulin.

4 out of 5 Stars.

With what seems to be inadvertent coherence, film is both a performance of selected scenes of William Shakespeare's Richard III and a broader examination of Shakespeare's continuing role and relevance in popular culture. The movie guides the audience through the play's plot and historical background.

Pacino plays both himself and the title character, making it an absolute essential for fans of Al Pacino, people like me, who cannot get enough of the guy's presence. His energy is infectious, his spirit is enviable.

Combines crowd-pleasing with the widespread cultural turn-off Americans have with the challenge of Shakespeare. What an incredible cause. Kids seeing this film first may well end up with a better understanding of the Bard's work, because Pacino has made an informative, engrossing and hugely enjoyable movie that stands as a work of pure entertainment as powerfully as its inspiration, the very mixture he intends to apply to complicated historical potboilers like Richard III. And he does not condescend the masses by focusing entirely on the negligent view of Shakespeare as obligation. Stars who turn to directing rarely or never do things like this.