Complete list. :-(
Nature teaches beasts to know their friends.
Caius Martius, aka Coriolanus, is an arrogant and fearsome general who has built a career on protecting Rome from its enemies. Pushed by his ambitious mother to seek the position of consul, Coriolanus is at odds with the masses and unpopular with certain colleagues. When a riot results in his expulsion from Rome, Coriolanus seeks out his sworn enemy, Tullus Aufidius. Together, the pair vow to destroy the great city.
Review In A Nutshell:
Shakespeare's works have been adapted time and time again; and filmmakers that are attracted to it frequently seem to have a background in the performing arts; this is because Shakespeare has always made compelling characters, placing the film's focus on them rather than the story itself, conveying them with simplicity in their motivation but complexity in their execution. Stage actors are faced to constantly draw out their emotions when adapting Shakespeare, and only in the emergence of his works in cinema did it become more subtle; but even translated through cinema, it is still essential to its charm to retain that melodramatic feel, reminding us of a style that once brought emotions to minds and hearts…
Shakespeare is without doubt an acquired taste. Taught in schools throughout the UK, it is loved and loathed by pupils and rightly lorded by academics and students alike as the greatest literary collection of plays and poetry written in the English language. You can't deny the power, the passion, the comedy, the tragedy, and the deftness of touch Shakespeare had in creating his masterpieces, but in recent years attempts to update his creations with a modern setting have been interesting to say the least. Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet did the great man no favors, but Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing and this stunning adaptation have brought The Bard to an even wider audience.
Coriolanus is one of the lesser…
Coriolanus is one of Shakespeare's lesser known plays and with good reason. It's one of his worst. This isn't because of the language, it is as always beautiful, perhaps lacking in flashes of iconic genius, but still beautiful. It's because it is riddled with one dimensional characters that have no arc whatsoever. Most problematic is Coriolanus. He is probably one of the worst protagonists the Bard has ever conceived. He is an awful person and not one I am willing to invest in. A lot of awful things happen to him which makes him a rather tragic and somewhat pathetic figure, but this does not automatically make it a great tragedy. You need a connection for that, one that is…
I have seen plenty of films that tried to put Shakespeare in a modern setting and from what I've seen (Hamlet 2000, Romeo + Juliet, etc) they've all been either mediocre or downright terrible (I'm especially looking at you Romeo + Juliet). I began to doubt it was impossible to translate Shakespeare's words onto a modern setting. The one film that happens to come close to making it work is Coriolanus, one of Shakespeare's lesser known work.
Over the years, I have become a huge fan of Shakespeare as a writer, but I am unfamilar with his play Coriolanus. Therefore I have no idea how faithful it is to it's source material so I can only look at this as…
After the ‘90s trend of transporting Shakespeare’s plays to modern day reaped mix results, from the good (Romeo + Juliet and Macbeth on the Estate) to the poor (O and Hamlet), it is a good few years since we have witnessed a successful modern interpretation. Sadly, I am unconvinced Coriolanus is it.
Corialanus is not a play I was familiar with and after seeing this adaptation I can see why it hasn’t been brought to the screen before. It certainly has a timely and timeless quality to it, the way Fiennes places it in a modern, war torn and divided city works reasonably well and the early going has an appealing visceral quality, but the film is at times torturously…
They must be running out of Shakespeare plays to make movie adaptations out of
I am but a Shakespeare virgin. His words to mine ears maketh little sense. But I'm slowly learning to overcome.
Last year I was disappointed to find out that Justin Kurzel's Macbeth adaptation would not be spoken in a version of English I am accustom to. I admit that I was hoping for a version that would run through the plot but do so with a modern tongue as that is how I am used to Shakespeare. By the I saw the actual movie those fears, those concerns, were no more. I understood what was going well and had no real trouble. Although I thought all the beauty of that particular adaptation was in its visual poetry and that its…
This is interesting. A modern retelling of the Shakespeare play, maintaining the old language but set in modern times. It's an interesting mixture, and one that adds some interesting visuals to the speech. I'm aware I've used the word "interesting" three times already, not counting that last one, but that's what it is. There were times when I struggled to understand what was being said, as I am not the smartest of chaps, but the conviction with which the lines were delivered carries the film through.
This is particularly true of Ralph Fiennes, who directs as well as stars. I'm not sure about the background to the film, and how he came to direct (it's one of only two films…
I tend to like modern interpretations of Shakespeare, but Coriolanus didn't quite work for me.
The filmmakers have done as good a job of transposing the story to a modern setting as anyone can expect, but the dialogue is just too out of place, and the political structure of ancient Rome too far removed from the present day, for any amount of clever choice of setting to feel completely convincing. As a result you're constantly aware that you are watching a clever interpretation rather than getting absorbed in the story.
There are some exceptions - Vanessa Redgrave and Brian Cox in particular both turn in superb performances and handle the dialogue so well as to feel almost contemporary. There's a…
Doesn't always work but when
It does, it works well.
I was lucky enough to see Tom Hiddleston play the role of Coriolanus a few years ago so my expectations were quite high. I was not disappointed at all. The cast were superb and, whereas Hiddleston played him as quite likeable, Fiennes didn't. This choice changed the nature of the story for me, giving it a very different feel. I also liked the direction of the film and placing it in the modern day. A fantastic and thoughtful adaptation.
Caius Martius Coriolanus: He that will give good words to thee will flatter beneath abhorring. What would you have, you curs that like nor peace nor war? The one affrights you, the other makes you proud. He that trusts to you where he should find you lions, finds you hares; where foxes, geese. Who deserves greatness, deserves your hate.
The directional debut of Ralph Fiennes, is an adaptation of William Shakespeare's tragedy Coriolanus set in modern times, presumably in Eastern Europe. Usage of Shakespeare as a source and build a modern day film around it is no easy task an done that easily fails with Cymbeline a painful example of it. However this time the lush and elegant language of…
Books and plays have a problem when it comes to movies, since they end up sounding like a bad translation. Enunciation sounds great for a play, but it sounds quite silly in a film like this. There's a lot of overacting along with the dialogue that doesn't mesh with the film's more modern setting. Don't get me wrong, I like a good tragedy. However, I hadn't even heard of the play this was based on. The plot could've been something special, if it had been reworked to reflect the modern language or used as a template for another film entirely.
Frankly, I was bored out of my skull for most of the runtime. I was hoping for better, but I suppose its not that surprising. I've never heard about Coriolanus making any top tens. Though I'm not sure how much that means any more. People should skip this one unless you're having trouble sleeping.
La venganza ha sido tema recurrente en un gran número de obras, y es uno de mis temas favoritos. Cuánto mayor es el agravio, mayor es el deseo de ver caer a quien nos lo inflige. Y es uno de los mejores mecanismos que hay para lograr empatía hacia un personaje.
Trasladar la Roma original de la obra de Shakespeare no deslustra nada el argumento (quizá el papel del pueblo llano en la política ha cambiado) y la esencia se mantiene tanto en un escenario como en la película. Fiennes está estupendo como un hombre al que la ingratitud le hace perder los estribos.
Lo peor es probablemente el clímax de la película, que se hace un poco soso y que no obstante está interpretado como debe ser.
I generally don't like movie adaptations of Shakespeare. There's something to the idea that the essential thing about movies isn't the content they're based on but the style of the particular instantiation of that content. The opposite holds for the theater. That's why movie remakes are either hopelessly derivative or a different movie entirely.
There are other problems too. The camera, acting like an eye, draws out implicit meanings by looking at things a certain way while things are made known in the theater through declamation. Movie adaptations tend toward some kind of naturalism in terms of speech but it seems like a mistake to treat it like regular and not contrived speech. I guess you can't send an actor…
A cinematic crusade.
In 2007 Sight & Sound began compiling review/best of the year-lists which with the exception of the year 2008 have been…