Review: Scarface (1983)

Spoilers ahead!

Classic One Man Show

Almost everything about that movie is mediocre. Oliver Stone's screenplay is the ordinary, even trivial, story of the American Dream from a gangster's point of view: from a destitute Cuban emigrant to the most powerful mafia boss on the East Coast, if not in the whole country. There are some really memorable lines but they are usually diluted with, if not obliterated by, a good deal of foul language (the charming word “fuck” and its derivatives are reportedly used 226 times, although it's difficult to count all of them). Brian de Palma does have occasional shots that are singularly illuminating, even haunting (check the sequence after Frank’s death, for instance), but on the whole he is the most overrated director after Tarantino and Scorsese. Giorgio Moroder's soundtrack is a cheesy semi-trash. The supporting cast is reliable and serviceable enough, but none of the players – and these include Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert Loggia, Steven Bauer, and Mary Elisabeth Mastrantonio – has much chance of making anything memorable.

Tony Montana: the American Dream from an underworld POV.

If this movie is a classic – and it certainly is – this is solely because of Al Pacino, one of the last actors in possession of genius and charisma prodigious enough to make a whole movie (and a long one, ca. 170 min uncut) well worth watching for generations ahead. If the brash, bumptious, having tons of ''balls'' Tony Montana has become one of the most iconic characters on the screen, this is entirely due to Al Pacino's incredibly vivid portrayal of every detail from his make-up. From the Spanish accent all the way to the violent temper, everything is presented in a most compelling and convincing way. Great acting simply doesn’t get better than that. Take special notice of the following lines, sometimes delivered with breathtaking audacity, sometimes with smug calmness:

Tony [to Sosa]: All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one.

Tony: The only thing in this world that gives orders... is balls. You got that?

Frank [to his men]: Let’s go.                     

[Note Tony’s preoccupation with balls.]

Tony: Me, I want what's coming to me.

Manny: Oh, well, what's coming to you?

Tony: The world, chico… and everything in it.

It is incredible that this is the same man who played the title role in The Godfather a decade or so earlier, yet it happens to be true. The cold, extremely sophisticated and highly intelligent Michael Corleone is the very antithesis of Tony Montana who is clever and shrewd, rather than intelligent and sophisticated, and flies into passion at the smallest provocation. Having created these two extremely different faces of the same coin, it is safe to say that Al Pacino has done everything there is to be done as far as mafia bosses on the screen are concerned. (Of course, The Godfather is infinitely superior to Scarface in every other aspect, but this is not the point here.)

In addition to completely overshadowing a very decent, if far from brilliant, supporting cast, the explosive Tony Montana is also the only character in which there is some sort of deeper meaning than the small talk that occupies 95% of the screenplay. There are, indeed, some lines, such as those from the embarrassing scene in the restaurant, which are almost too perceptive to be entirely in character. No matter how clouded by the torrent of obscenities or by his innate inability to express himself with words, there is an important message in Tony’s rambling:

What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of fuckin' assholes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie.

                                                            

Nevertheless, one is bound to ask: why does Tony Montana fail? And fail he does, in the most pathetic way possible. After the world almost literally was his, he ended up with more lead in his body than it was used in the Gulf War. (Compare this with the aged Michael Corleone dying peacefully in the dusty garden of his Sicilian house.) The more simplistic explanation is probably the truer one: Tony is victim of his own temperament that knows no restraint. Perhaps, for all his cleverness, there also is some essential lack of astuteness in Tony; even though he ''knows the street'' and ''makes all the right connections'', he entirely fails to grasp that Alejandro Sosa is not somebody to screw up your business with. Then again, the rupture occurred at one of the very few instances – perhaps the only one – when Tony’s not exactly simple make-up is additionally complicated by traces of conscience. When it comes to killing women and children, he balks. This may not seem much to the faint-hearted, but in Tony’s circles it is a veritable proof of humanity.

Tony doesn't use the snowy mountains for skiing.

In a way, Tony Montana is a curiously inspiring figure, suggesting that you can achieve everything in this life – including the most important thing: freedom and opportunity to realise your personality to the full – if you have the character (or the ''balls'', to use his colourful language). And yes, it is dead true that most people simply don't have the guts to be what they want to be and have to satisfy themselves with third-rate lives rife with hypocrisies at every corner. On the other hand, if you aim at big money and unlimited power, you should keep in mind that ''balls'' may well put you at the top, but only brains may keep you there. What’s more, the higher you go, the more successful you become, the closer you get to the ultimate insanity of loneliness. Very few manage to overcome this. Tony wasn’t one of them.

Perhaps I was unfair to the supporting cast above. Of course they all pale in comparison with Pacino’s frightfully intense performance, but that can’t be helped: it’s inherent in the script. Yet there is more in Elvira, Gina, Manny and Frank. There is some superb light entertainment, for one thing, and there is, timidly peeping through the obscenity of the dialogue, some relevant commentary on human nature and the ill-suited society in which we try to imprison it.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Elvira Hancock.

The young and seductive Michelle Pfeiffer as Elvira Hancock, Tony’s wife after her former – shall we say, benefactor – was bumped off, provides some examples in both directions. In the restaurant scene mentioned above, she has a rare moment of brilliant if not very eloquent insight: “Can't you see what we're becoming, Tony? We're losers. We're not winners, we're losers.” This is both true and false. It is true because Tony is doomed by default. He just lasts longer than most, but in the end he is one of the losers; if he hadn’t been murdered, an overdose of snow would’ve killed him anyway: towards the end he was sniffing mountains of it. But it is also false because Tony lives more intensely than the vast majority of people do. In this case, he is clearly a winner, fulfilling his character to the highest degree, something unknown to most of us.

As for the light entertainment, there is plenty of sharp and saucy exchange not without humour. It is coarse, offensive and vulgar, but unless you’re a pathological prude or an arrant prig, you may find it funny. For example:

Tony: Now you're talking to me baby! That I like! Keep it coming!

Elvira: Don't call me "Baby". I'm not your "Baby".

Tony: Not yet. You gotta give me some time.

Tony: You know what your problem is?

Elvira: What's that?

Tony: You don't got nothing to do with your life. Why don't you get a job? Work with lepers. Blind kids. Anything's gotta be better than lying around all day waiting for me to fuck you.

Elvira: Don't toot your horn, honey. You're not that good.

Tony’s sense of humour is the very definition of triteness. What makes it funny is the delivery, the quaint inflections of the text and the elaborate body language. What makes it inoffensive, quite an achievement considering his vocabulary, is the attitude. Tony is always sincere and entirely devoid of self-consciousness. Perhaps his witty repartees deserve a few examples more:

Omar: Watch my back.

Tony: Better than your front, lemme tell you. Much easier to watch.

[Tony shoots Bernstein in the gut, he gasps and groans]

Bernstein: Fuck. You can't shoot a cop!

Tony: Whoever says you was one?

Frank: Hey, Tony. Remember when I told you when you first started working for me, the guys that last in this business, are the guys who fly straight. Low-key, quiet. But the guys who want it all, chicas, champagne, flash... they don't last.

Tony: [scoffs] You finished? Can I go?

Hector the Toad: You want to give me the cash, or do I kill your brother first, before I kill you?

Tony: Why don't you try sticking your head up your ass? See if it fits.

Tony: I kill a communist for fun, but for a green card, I gonna carve him up real nice.

Tony and Frank (Robert Loggia)

Robert Loggia, deeply sunburned and dressed in a dashing white suit, plays Tony’s old boss, Frank. His bluff friendliness is in many ways the biggest diversion on the screen. It’s hard to suppress a smile when he teaches Tony his own “lessons”. These include the wisdom of ages concentrated in maxims like “Don't underestimate the other guy's greed!” and “Don’t get high on your own supply.” Like all other characters, there isn’t much depth in Frank, but there is more than meets the eye. He is smart but gutless, or “ballsless” if we have to use the movie’s official language. He lacks completely Tony’s visionary flair for enterprise. There are several telling moments, easily missed in the hectic action, where Frank briefly drops the hearty laughter or the artificial grin and his face becomes permeated by insecurity and fear. The latter reaches its culmination in his death scene, such as it is, where he sinks to the bottom of humiliation, pathetically groveling and begging for his life. Even Tony is embarrassed by such total lack of dignity.

Gina (M. E. Mastrantonio) and Manny (Steven Bauer). 

Tony’s young and sultry sister, Gina (Mastrantonio), and his best buddy since the very beginning as destitute émigrés and blue-collar slaves in a fast-food restaurant, Manny (Bauer), are characters who almost reach tragic dimensions.

Gina, in particular, goes all the way from pure innocence to glamorous decadence – and back. She has her big moment in the end when, now largely out of her mind, she suggests a most plausible incestuous hypothesis why Tony should be so jealous of any man who dares to touch her, and that includes his best friend. Of all characters in the movie, she comes the closest to happiness. And she is robbed from it in the most brutal way. This is genuine tragedy. It’s a far-fetched parallel, but with Gina’s madness and Tony’s delusions of immortality, the finale of Scarface is almost Macbeth-like.

Manny is the voice of common sense, a rather ineffective antidote to Tony’s explosive temperament. Yet without Manny, he never would have made it to the top, and it is not a coincidence that their estrangement is the last straw in Tony’s self-alienation and, finally, self-destruction. Manny also shows himself as a fine psychologist. He is the only one who perceives the real reason for Tony’s deep attachment to Gina, or at least what is most likely the real reason. She is the only pure and innocent thing in his sleazy world of corruption. He is too simple-minded to realise that, but somewhere in his heart of hearts he probably feels it.

Paul Shenar as Alejandro Sosa

Tony and Omar (F. M. Abraham).

Even minor characters are rather unforgettable, mostly thanks to great actors who make you forget Oliver Stone’s indifferent writing. F. Murray Abraham as Omar, one of Frank’s most reliable guys, is a wonderful source of farcical fun. He is especially hilarious when he is “high”, as in the first confrontation, almost literally, with Tony. Harris Yulin plays the corrupt narc Mel Bernstein, a cocky fellow who considered himself untouchable (wrongly, as it turned out). Paul Shenar is Alejandro Sosa, the courteous, calm and dangerous drug baron from Bolivia, owner of a magnificent mansion in a place with the picturesque name Cochabamba. Sosa’s hit man, Alberto, is a particularly sinister fellow, beautifully described as “an expert in the disposal business”.

Like all classics, Scarface can always bear yet another rediscovery. It may be appreciated at so many levels. For my part, Al Pacino’s incandescent portrayal is by far the greatest asset of this movie. Tony Montana is not just one of the highest peaks in Pacino’s long and illustrious career, but a fascinating character in his own way. The subtle complexity of the secondary characters and the naughty piquancy of the dialogue are two reasons more to enjoy this movie. And if you simply want to savour the intricacies of the plot, the lavish sets and costumes, or the lots of rabid violence, you are at perfect liberty to do so.

Last but hardly least, it may be remarked that, sadly, there are some pusillanimous countries (like Germany, for one) where the movie used to be offered (hopefully this is now fixed?) only in a censored version some 16 minutes shorter. The final gunfight melee, the notorious scene with the chainsaw and the one in which Frank met his maker are the parts that suffer most badly, everything that offends the fainthearted being severely cut; also, a lot of cocaine sniffing and the scene of Manny with his bombshell blond in bed have been left out. Needless to say, this mutilated version is weaker than the original one. Besides, none of the cut passages has anything really shocking to offer; even the horrid chainsaw scene, though it does have lots of blood, is no big deal by the modern standards. I am always amused at such silly censorship today, when kids may easily access on the Web the most disgusting stuff human nature is capable of producing.

PS I've just learned a TV version exists, heavily edited of course. In addition to extensive cutting, even the dialogue has been re-dubbed with harmless alternatives of the numerous "offensive" words. Judge the results for yourself.

Richard III on the Screen: 

Olivier (1955), McKellen (1995), Pacino (1996)

NB. All lines are indicated according to the Penguin Shakespeare edition.

Richard III (1955)

Laurence Olivier – Richard III

Ralph Richardson – Buckingham

Lady Anne – Claire Bloom

Mary Kerridge – Queen Elizabeth

John Gielgud – Clarence

Alec Clunes – Hastings

Stanley Baker – Richmond

Clive Morton – Rivers

Directed by Laurence Olivier.

Adapted by Laurence Olivier (uncredited), Colley Cibber and David Garrick.

Colour. 161 min. 

Richard III (1955), starring Laurence Olivier in the title role and directed by him, has come to be regarded as a classic, even though it appears to be less critically acclaimed than his Hamlet (1948) or Henry V (1944). As it might be expected, the movie is a traditional adaptation, closer to filmed theatre production than to cinema, with historical sets and costumes. It's a sumptuous affair, if a little artificial by our modern and very spoiled standards, shot in vivid Technicolor.

The cuts are the usual ones – Margaret, citizens, etc. – and not very extensive in comparison with other versions. There are, indeed, some charming additions, most notably the beginning with the coronation of Edward IV which gives you an excellent opportunity to get introduced visually to the King, the Queen and the princes. There are also several other substantial re-arrangements. The most imaginative of these is the splitting of the ''wooing scene'' into two parts, with Anne twice spitting on Richard's face and his giving her two passionate kisses in the end. On the whole, the changes are ingeniously done; the movie flows as smoothly as does the play.

Additional confusion when comparing the play with the movie may come from the fact that Olivier reportedly used, not just wordless scenes from other plays (such as the opening one which comes from Henry VI, Part III), but even some lines not by Shakespeare at all, such as interpolations by Colley Cibber and David Garrick (both duly credited). Never mind that. On its own, the movie suffers from no structural deficiencies.

Laurence Olivier as Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Blu-ray)

Laurence Olivier as Richard, Duke of Gloucester  (Blu-ray)

Olivier in the title role is unforgettable. The straight, black hair; the large, well-shaped nose; the sly look in the eyes; the brisk movements; the suave gestures: everything seems to fit like the pieces of a puzzle. He delivers the text in a curiously high-pitched, not very pleasant voice, and often rather fast, but nonetheless very fluently, with perfect diction, superb confidence and many subtle inflections. His direction is equally fine, my only qualms being the scarcity of close-ups and the too static presentation of some scenes. That said, there are some imaginative angles that work almost like flashbacks (e.g. during Richard's opening soliloquy which is also cut into several pieces to a great effect) and a great deal of effective work with lights and shadows.

Laurence Olivier as Richard, Duke of Gloucester

Great moments abound. There are hardly any others. For example, note the killer look to the younger prince when he makes a joke about Richard's deformed shoulder, or his malevolent face, only half lit, when he says that his kingdom ''stands on brittle glass''. A particular favourite of mine is Richard's demonstrating to Tyrrel how to use pillow as a most effective weapon. Another innovation that fits the play like a glove occurs after the charade with the Lord Mayor and the crowd. Here Richard comes down by the bell rope and, though not yet a king, offers his hand to (the unpleasantly surprised) Buckingham to kiss, and kneel. This also makes the later fall-out between them somewhat more credible. The final monologue is unfortunately badly cut, but Richard's face during the nightmares is positively scary.

The supporting cast boasts at least two other Shakespearean legends: John Gielgud (Clarence) and Ralph Richardson (Buckingham). The latter is especially memorable as the cunning master of the court intrigue, but the former is a little stilted (but Clarence is not a very grateful part anyway). Claire Bloom (Anne) and Mary Kerridge (Elizabeth) are serviceable rather than memorable.

All in all, a great way to start your video exploration of Richard III. The other two versions, whatever their merits, are much more abridged and take much bigger liberties with the original.

Richard III (1995)

Ian McKellen – Richard III

Jim Broadbent – Buckingham

Kristin Scott Thomas – Lady Anne

Maggie Smith - Duchess of York

Annette Bening – Queen Elizabeth

Nigel Hawthorne – Clarence

Jim Carter – Hastings

Dominic West – Richmond

Robert Downy Jr. – Rivers

Directed by Richard Loncraine.

Adapted by Ian McKellen and Richard Loncraine.

Colour. 104 min.

Richard III (1995), directed by Richard Loncraine and with Ian McKellen in the title role, transports you from fifteenth century England to a fictional place that looks, and sounds, very much like England from the 1930s. Appropriately, Richard is a Nazified maniac who enters into a civil war with tanks and bombs. The only difference is that his huge red flags, instead of swastika, have, of course, a boar.

Visually the movie is spectacular, with lavish sets and costumes that make for a great atmosphere, no expense spared. It's a little too graphic at some places, but I daresay this fits the plot very well. Clarence's throat is cut in his bathtub, Rivers is stabbed through while entertaining a lady in the bed, the young princes are suffocated with handkerchief, Hastings is hanged, Buckingham strangled: all this more or less ''onstage''. Richard topped them all by throwing himself from a high building into a great fire below, smiling all the time; a little overblown but not entirely inappropriate solution. The ''wooing'' scene takes place in the morgue, around the naked body of Edward, shot in the chest and in the head by Richard in the very beginning of the movie. Altogether harrowing yet haunting spectacle.

Unfortunately the original is very substantially cut; at least half of it is missing, but the rest is very cleverly arranged. I understand it was McKellen himself who did the job, and since he had reportedly played the part (nearly) complete on stage many times before, it is no wonder that he achieved excellent continuity and admirable preservation of the spirit. The movie is extremely fast-paced, it runs for only about 100 minutes or so, and makes a most effective use of modern (for the 1930s) technology. There are also some smart changes in the order and the nature of the events, none of them really detrimental. For example, Richard meets Tyrrel in the beginning and later turns him into his most trusted hired killer. He appears as one of the two murderers of Clarence and then continues to remove human obstacles from Richard's way to the top.

Ian McKellen as Richard, Duke of Gloucester

Not all cuts or changes are commendable, though. Inserting Richmond's marriage to Elizabeth (not the ex-queen; her daughter) is both unnecessary and unconvincing. It is mentioned as arranged but it never happens in the play, rightly so. Even more misguided is the showing of Richmond and Elizabeth naked in bed, apparently having spent their first night together right before the final battle. There are also some lines that are cut very badly indeed. For instance, ''He hath no friends but what are friends for fear, / Which in his dearest need will fly from him'' (V.2.20-21) has, for some obscure reason, been reduced merely to ''He hath no friends''. No matter. These are small quibbles in an otherwise clever and exhilarating adaptation.

The cast is quite impressive. Ian McKellen steals the show completely. 'Tis a pity that such a great actor is mostly known worldwide from movies like The Lord of the Rings and The Da Vinci Code. He plays a sinister Richard not easily forgotten. Most of his soliloquies, or what's left of them, he delivers directly to the camera (as did Olivier), and there's nothing better to put you in Richard's confidence. One of the movie's most unorthodox touches is to make the beginning of ''Now is the winter of our discontent'' a public speech during a lavish royal party. The rest of it, very ingeniously, takes place in the toilet.

For Ian McKellen alone the movie is very much worth seeing. The only unconvincing part is ''A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!'' which Richard shouts in a military jeep in the middle of explosions and roaring machine guns. The line, notwithstanding its fame, should have been omitted. Interestingly, these are not Richard's last words. Instead, before flying off the edge, he says these two lines which occur a little earlier in the play:

March on, join bravely, let us to't pell-mell;
If not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell.
[V.3.313-4.]

The rest of the cast includes some great hits and some near misses. Annette Bening plays a Queen Elizabeth not without some weak moments, but she is especially fine in the powerful last scene with Richard. Robert Downey Jr. is pretty dull as the bohemian and lecherous Rivers, a radical but convincing departure from Shakespeare. Kristin Scott Thomas does a thoroughly mediocre job as Lady Anne, sufficiently mentally unstable to do what she did and end as a drug addict. Maggie Smith is excellent as the Duchess (Margaret is of course completely omitted), but Jim Broadbent (Buckingham) and Jim Carter (Hastings) are rather stodgy, quite overshadowed by McKellen.

The movie is not lacking in insightful moments that bring something like revelation to the text. Perhaps my favourite example, apart from McKellen's solo passages, are the short but good laugh that Richard and Buckingham had after the farce they played for the Lord Mayor. It's one of the most amusing scenes in the play (III.5.) and it's terrific to see it acted so marvellous over the top. Ironically, it led straight to Richard's being elected King in a spectacle that Adolf would have relished.

Ian McKellen as Richard III

Another very perceptive touch is Richard's speaking to the camera his line ''I thank my God for my humility!'' in the end of the scene where he ostensibly declares his good intentions towards everybody. In the play (II.1.74) the line is not marked to be spoken ''aside'' but this fits the scene to perfection. It's also in line with Richard's passion for mockery and his fierce delight in his own artistic skills. One almost expects him to say something like ''I'd like to thank the Academy''.

If you are not afraid of controversial adaptations, give this one a try. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Looking for Richard (1996)

Al Pacino – Richard III/Himself

Kevin Spacey – Buckingham/Himself

Winona Ryder – Lady Anne/Herself

Penelope Allen – Queen Elizabeth/Himself

Alec Baldwin – Clarence/Himself

Kevin Conway – Hastings/Himself

Aidan Quinn – Richmond

Madison Arnold – Rivers/Himslef

Estelle Parsons – Margaret

Directed by Al Pacino.

Adapted by Al Pacino and Frederick Kimball.

Colour. 112 min.

Looking for Richard (1996) is an entirely different stuff than all previous movies. It's a kind of documentary about a stage production of the play, starring Al Pacino in the title role. The movie is his debut as a director.

It's a strange mixture, this film. There are only several excerpts from the play but they include the most important ones: the opening soliloquy, the ''wooing'' scene, the murder of Clarence, the fall-out with Buckingham, the hiring of Tyrrel, Richard's nightmare, the final battle and his death. So, in fact, this version is not so much more abridged than the Loncraine-McKellen one.

In between there are fascinating outtakes, rehearsals, readings around the table, discussions about casting, characters, plot and historical background. It's all very informal and amusing, often shot in a deliberately amateurish manner and edited not without a sense of fun. As a special bonus, there are even some interviews with people from the streets (in New York?) apparently taken by Pacino himself. Sadly, but hardly unexpectedly, most of them knew Shakespeare by name only and had never heard of Richard III at all. There are also several interviews, much too short unfortunately, with renowned Shakespearean actors from the other side of the Atlantic such as John Gielgud, Derek Jacobi and Kenneth Branagh.

For Pacino fans, of which I am one, it's a compelling opportunity to see the man who played Michael Corleone and Tony Montana (excellent preparation for Richard!) in a somewhat unusual light. He frankly admits that he doesn't quite know why they (he and some of his friends) are doing this movie at all, but it's been a dream of his to show how he feels about Shakespeare and they'll give it a try. I am glad they did. Pacino's performance is stellar at all fronts: delivery of the text, facial expressions, moving like a hunchback, even the direction itself. In the ''wooing'' or in the ''nightmare'' scenes he is positively mesmerising. His is a very human Richard.

Memorable moments abound and reward re-watching. One of the most compelling is the doubling of that magnificently shouted ''If'' in the scene where Richard confronts Hastings as a traitor. Had he been there, Pacino might have torn down the walls of Jericho with this voice of his. His laughter at ''I will not keep her long'' is an epitome of mockery, his final soliloquy (or what's left of it) sounds like a deeply affecting confession. Some of the explanations of the plot – by Pacino, his friends or some scholars – are also illuminating. For example, the elusive role of Mistress Shore is well explained as an important link between Edward IV and Hastings.

The supporting cast is intriguing, to say the least. Winona Ryder is hardly the best Lady Anne imaginable, but she is at least pretty enough to explain Richard's unholy desires. Alec Baldwin (Clarence), Kevin Spacey (Buckingham) and Kevin Conway (Hastings) are impressive. Penelope Allen is a little wooden as Elizabeth, but she compensates by lots of passion. Harris Yulin (Edward IV) and Estelle Parsons (Margaret, not entirely cut here) are disappointing, but no matter. The movie is worth some 110 minutes of your time, especially if you are interested in Shakespeare's Richard III. Indeed, if the play moves you, the film is a must-see.

By the way, somewhat strangely, the movie starts and ends with Prospero's words about the ''stuff as dreams are made on'' from The Tempest. The voice sounds much like Laurence Olivier's, but he is not credited anywhere, at least so far as I have noticed.

One last interesting coincidence. In Nuremberg (2000), where he plays the role of Justice Jackson, Alec Baldwin quotes in his final speech one memorable part from the ''wooing'' scene (I.2.89-90)*, trying to convince the jury that if they do not find the defendants guilty, this would mean that there had been no war and no crime.

*Richard: Say that I slew them not?

Anne: Then say they were not slain. But dead they are…

Al Pacino as Richard III

The major problem with all movie versions – most notably with McKellen's – is that they present only part of the play. Leaving aside that comparisons between both mediums can be very confusing, reducing the minor characters as well as cutting many of Richard's own lines lead to oversimplifying of the protagonist almost to the point of caricature. The main message about the evil genius who craves for power comes through well enough. But there is much more to Richard than that. Moreover, cutting some scenes down to their bare bones usually makes them look perfunctory and unconvincing. It is sometimes difficult to believe how Richard actually manages to take in some of the other characters (even when they look more cardboard than ever). If you come to such moments, have a look inside the book and you will know the truth.

That said, all three movies compensate for the butchery by supplying feasts for the eye and very insightful treatment of certain scenes.