A Truly prodigious play-lacking "maudlin display"
342450
"And death shall be no more, death thou shalt die." I found this play to be simply exquisite. The themes and notions of death and dying are truly poignant and most thought provoking. Every time I read it life seems so much the more precious and kind. Margaret Edson wonderfully biographizes the story of a truly witty, sharp scholar-a master piece in short.
1476243
. . . to really achieve its full potential, this play needs to be acted out on stage.  Still, highly excellent, involving twins, cross-dressing, love tangles, sword-fighting, secret marriages, music, disguises, mistaken  identities, high speech, and lowbrow humour.
The entire play takes  place in Illyria.  In the main plot, Orsino is in love with Olivia, who  unfortunately does not return his feelings.  Viola is shipwrecked on the  Illyrian coast, and dressed as a boy, comes to serve in Orsino's court,  where she of course falls in love with Orsino.  Meanwhile, in Olivia's  court, some of her courtiers plan a cruel--but funny--practical joke  against her pompous steward Malvolio.  There is also a third plot later on  involving Viola's twin brother Sebastian, who has been shipwrecked  likewise.  Naturally things get quite confusing, but, true to Shakespeare's  comedic style, everything gets worked out in the end.
This is an  enjoyable book to read, and the notes are very helpful.  However, it is  still better as a performance.
2190994
The 4 plays of the Henriad are the pinnacle of Shakespeare's histories, and a full-on cinematic production like this is long overdue.  Branagh's also brilliant Henry V was 24 years ago (1989) and the BBC's filmed stage version of the complete tetrology was half a century ago (with Sean Connery as Hotspurwho now gets a graceful cameo in this production of Richard IIand Judy Dench as Princess Katherine)

Like runners of a relay, Ben Whitshaw gets the series off to a terrific start with his imperious, effete, vain but fearful Richard II.  He knocks the major soliloquies out of the park (...let us sit upon the ground and tell sad tales of the death of kings...).  As a gratuitous bonus, we get Patrick Stewart delivering this blessed England as John of Gaunt, and the cinematography is subtle, drawing us to the lavish details of  the sets and costumes of that distant world.

Who better to carry the two-part middle of the race but Jeremy Irons as Henry IV.  He is regal in his tirades against his wastrel son Hal, and haunting in showing us Henry's inner doubt and shame at how he came by the crown.  But this part of the series really pulls away from the pack with Hal, Falstaff and the East Cheap tavern scenes.  Yes, they're boisterous and rowdy as we expect, but there is a realism, a grimy intimacy to this portrayal that brings us right into the hardscrabble world of Hal's denizen companions.  Tom Hiddleston then treads a magnificent line between low-life and heir apparent.  His Hal at last lets us see and understand what an enormous psychological distance he must travel in order to redeem time when men think least I will as Henry V.  Simon Russell Beale's Falstaff is complex and multi-faceted.  Not Roger Allam's jovial, blowhard Falstaff of the Shakespeare's Globe stage version (also well worth it on DVD) Beale's Falstaff can be small, utterly self-absorbed and at times pathetic.  He and Hiddleston together make the banish not poor Jack scenes as emotionally painful as they truly can be, as we see Hal using his tavern friends for his own revelry, and them clinging desperately to the false hope that the prince will deliver them from their lot in life.  Yet through this mean existence shine tender moments of Falstaff's parting from Mistress Quickly, and countless other vignettes of character portrayal.

It falls to anchor leg Tom Hiddleston to reach the finish line as Henry V.  Having  Branagh leave an indelible stamp on the role in his 1989 version left Hiddleston no choice but to chart his own course.  Accordingly, we have Henry more like Ike before D-Day with We few, we happy few than the rousing cheerleader that was Branagh's version.  The result is a Henry V who is conscious and deliberate about his kingship rather than just charging through it.  We also get brilliantly deep portrayals of Exeter's diplomacy with France from Anton Lesser, Julie Walters' steadfast Mistress Quickly, and so many other supporting roles.

The Hollow Crown works wonders on our 'imaginary forces' and is a rewarding pleasure to watch from beginning to end.
2460718
I would have preferred to see this on stage.  The performances are outstanding (especially by Alan Bates), and the dialogue is wonderful.  But the film doesn't transcend its theater roots, and it makes for a very boring film.  It isn't cinematic at all, and it's confined to one room for the entirety of the play.  And it takes place in real time as well. Unfortunately, this happens quite often with plays are turned into films.  But the play itself is still very good, and on that basis, I love it.  Butley is having such a bad day, and a lot of it is his own fault, but you can't help but feel for this little pissant who's a drunk, a thief, a user of women and men, lazy, indifferent, callous, and everything.  But Bates makes him deeply human, and the dialogue and performances are superb.  Some have said the British accents are a bit thick, but I understood them pretty well.  If you're looking for a good play, this is something you should rent.  If you want a deeply cinematic experience, look elsewhere.
3178023
As hagiographic as it is, it must be admitted that Brendan Gleason turns in an absolutely incredible performance here as Winston Churchill.

Until I saw the credits I had no idea that the actor playing Churchill was the same man whom I usually know as a murderous Irish brute in other roles. It's a credit to the talent of HBO's stable of players that, even though there is a vague spark of recognition, I can never quite place where I'd seen them before. (For example- try and see how many Game of Thrones actors you can find in this production).

Yes, the hour and half show jumps around quite a bit and leaves out a lot, but it's not supposed to be the history of WWII. It is the dramatization of the myth that has become a dying nation's necessary lie. In stirring fashion, it excels in depicting a man and a nation at their most heroic, but unfortunately only hints at the Pyrrhic victory that World War II was for Britain.

Yes, a corrupt populace did turn against the nation's hero in his hour of victory and voted to become dependent, socialist slaves. But World War II was far, far more destructive than that. Churchill was a pugnacious, purblind fool who bankrupted his nation, destroyed its hard-won Empire, sapped its strength and consigned it to vassal status in an American Imperium. And for what? To destroy a country that every historian acknowledges had no aggressive intent whatsoever against Great Britain?

Even more than Britain's parochial travails, that horrible war is the direct cause of the impending doom of our entire race. The war was a victory only for an internationalist and materialist elite- of Capitalist, Communist, Socialist or Liberal denominations- that aimed for the regimentation, subjugation and amalgamation of the entire globe. One of the first orders of business was the destruction of the physical existence of the self-aware, advanced, proud and independent peoples of the Western World, which was initiated with nonstop egalitarian propaganda and deliberate open borders policies (the 1965 Immigration Act, in the case of the U.S.). Now, every White nation is being flooded with a tidal wave of Third World invaders, as the deracinated and degenerate peoples of the West cheer their own destruction. Does anyone think that English people would be getting beheaded by Moslems in their own cities if Hitler had won the war? The British people can thank Winston Churchill for ensuring the destruction of our people's last, best hope.

Two minor complaints, one historic and the other aesthetic: 1. the movie accurately depicts the scene where Churchill admits that he would jump at the opportunity to have peace by giving up Malta or Gibraltar. However, it then has Churchill shoot down that idea by saying that the Germans can't be trusted. He did not say that. I guess showing his willingness to negotiate would have killed the myth of the indomitable British bulldog this movie was trying to perpetuate. 2. The actor who portrayed FDR played him as a genial old cripple and not the kind of man who, after meeting him, Carl Jung described as "perfectly ruthless, a highly versatile mind which you cannot foresee...a most amazing power complex...the stuff of a dictator absolutely."
1976741
I've been studying this play for English, that's why I read it.  I originally thought it would be boring, but I was totally wrong!  It's dramatic, tension-filled, and gives you a lot to think about, even if you're not a religious person.  The last scene is especially powerful.  Admittedly, when reading the play, some of the comic scenes come across as rather annoying - they really need to be seen on a stage - but it doesn't harm the book to any great degree.  I would have appreciated less comedy, but I still recommend this play.
4862475
I would just like to provide a counter view to the rather prudish one-star review. Yes, the play falls into the genre of grotesque black comedy and Phillip Ridley revels in creating a dark surreal fantasy world. These characters are not you and me; they're the sort of people we have nightmareas about.

Cougar Glass is a narcississtic thirty-year-old for whom every birthday is his 19th. The relationship between him and his friend Captain, who unrequitedly loves him, is comically endearing but also tragic as we see the effort Captain goes to maintain Cougar's perverse fantasies. His "nineteenth" birthday party is really just an excuse to seduce beautiful schoolboy Foxtrot Darling (yes, the names are wonderful). Unfortunately Foxtrot is straight, and he turns up with pregnant fiancee Sherbert. Then in the tradition of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and other dinner party plays, the fun begins.

Ridley's talent is to mix childhood fantasy with dark perversity. Whilst the play is dark in many respects, there's also something quite innocent about it. The characters are well-developed and the dynamics are strong. If you want to say what the play is about, it's about adults who are obsessively and unnaturally in love with their youth, and how those who love them perpetuate these fantasies just to stop the fragile protagonists from breaking.
490429
"Masterpiece Theatre" was originally designed to show dramatized versions of great classics or of historical periods from England's past. "The First Churchills" led the way and many a great adaptation of a novel or a biography has followed. (Alas, a lot of junk was soon considered "masterpieces" and the glory of the series faded.) Among the best of them was the 13-part miniseries titled "Lillie," and it is now available in a boxed set of Acorn Media DVDs. Grab it!

 Part of the plot of the 1940 film "The Westerner" is concerned with Judge Roy Bean's infatuation with an English actress named Lillie Langtry. That character shows up in "Lillie" just once but memorably, but the scene does raise the question of how just another pretty face could so become the rage of England and America without its owner having any other particular talents (they say her acting was amateurish at best)--except an iron will to get what she wants and a high degree of intelligence.

As played by Francesca Annis, whose own good looks make the story believable, Lillie suffers an early disillusionment when she marries Mr. Langtry (brilliantly played by  Anton Rodgers) because he is a "gentleman" (= an utterly useless person) with a yacht. Then she quickly realizes he has far less fortune than she thought and even less understanding of how a wife should be treated (after their wedding night, he spends the rest of the day in town). In the years that follow, although she becomes the mistress of the Prince of Wales (Denis Lill) and of several other men, Langtry doggedly refuses a divorce--and his end is possibly just what he deserves or rather a bit more than he deserves. The very fact that I wonder about this shows how deeply I felt for these characters as I again watched this 672-minute miniseries, which was first shown on American public television in 1979.

 Actually, my fondest memories of "Lillie" are of the unforgettable Oscar Wilde of Peter Egan. Having seen Robert Morley, Peter Finch and others play the role, I have to call Egan's Wilde the very best. If one views only those scenes in which he appears, the price of the set would still be worth it.

 The cast list on the Internet Movie Database runs for seven pages, and I refer my readers to that website. I ran off a copy and kept it near my chair to identify familiar faces along the way, one of which was that of Jennie Linden who portrays Lillie's closest friend, Patsy Cornwallis-West.

 I will be replaying this one over the years to come. Ten stars out of ten.
4898625
It's rare that filmed versions of great theatre plays come across with a sense of feeling and emotion the reader receives from the book.  Made in 1973, this Broadway Threatre Achive features a magnificent performance of Katherine Hepburn, and in my opinion, the only really great performance.

The drama focuses on a family living with their illusions and delusions.  Amanda, whose husband deserted the family, is delusional about her past life, the gentleman callers, the ones who got away, She lives in the past.  Tom, a poet, dreams for more, but works in the warehouse and sees movies all the time.  He is a dreamer.  Finally, crippled Laura, anxiety-ridden, whose fantasy of life is the small delicate glass animals and the victrola.

Mother is domineering and very critical of Tom, and she has asked Tom to invite a gentleman from the warehouse for dinner, fearing Laura will be an old maid.  Amanda's hopes are high.

The Gentleman Caller
Jim was done well, maybe a little too exuberant.  Even though Jim was everything in high school, (little mention), he became a warehouse worker, still dreaming for what he was supposed to be.

The Role of Laura - looking depressed
When we READ the dramatic play, we attach a face and personality to the character.  In this production, least impressive was Laura.  To me, from the book, Laura was alive in her own world and hardly concerned about men, but she was more whimsical and innocent.  But this actor came as depressed and emotionless, certainly not who Tennessee Williams' created.

Sam Waterston ???
Although he wasn't as bad as the actor portraying Laura, I just didn't see this guy as the meek and mild "poet", warehouse low wage earner, and a real loner going to movies all the time.  It just didn't fit.

The gem of it all - Katharine Hepburn
There's no doubt this was an amazing portrayal of the Southern belle Amanda.  One of the best scenes were her telephone soliciting, or when she discovers the dream is over with the gentleman caller.

Don't forget to view the previews from other great theatre works. Plus, another version exists on this great play.&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Glass-Menagerie-The/dp/6301045734/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Glass Menagerie, The</a>&nbsp;directed by Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward stars.  I plan to see it soon.

Lauret Taylor - we will never see that performance
According to the&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Broadway-The-Golden-Age-by-the-Legends-Who-Were-There/dp/B000649YA2/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Broadway - The Golden Age, by the Legends Who Were There</a>&nbsp;the legends of Broadway all raved and raved about the performance of Lauret Taylor, as Amanda, in the very early days of theatre.  Too bad we may never see that  For another grand performance in theatre see Katharine Hepburn in&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Long-Day-s-Journey-Into-Night/dp/B0001US6DM/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Long Day's Journey Into Night</a>..... Rizzo
3851779
This a play about Christian love versus secular sentimentality. The statement certainly makes this play irrelevant in today's world.  The subtleties and the philosophical musings will infuriate the contemporary reader as most certainly the miracle that occurs. Yet the questions posed and (surprising) answered should resonant in each generation.

The contemporary reader may find this play too didactic and stylistically the characters do present an aesthetic problem, three major characters, three great problems, all are resolved. Yet that was his worldview and certainly works better as a play than a reading experience.
4974457
It may be difficult to imagine how one would stage this play effectively: it's length is prohibitive and it moves around from location to location, each described in great, novelistic detail by the playwright, and utterly impractical in a theatrical context. But it's a riveting, rigorously intelligent and utterly damning take of Pius's unforgivable reticense regarding the Holocaust. What with the Vatican's continued talk of canonizing Pius -- in spite of its much-ballyhooed (by the Vatican only) talk of repentence for centuries of murderous anti-Semitism -- this is a timely play and should be read widely.
1055711
This is a good play, but it does not match Shakespeare's other history plays. In my opinion too much of the play revolves around a doting mother who wants to see her underage son on the throne even though he is very  incapable of ruling. Furthermore, any intelligent observer can see that the  King of France only wants Arthur on the crown because a child would be a  lot easier to manipulate than the shrewd King John. Remember, John WAS NOT  a usurper. Richard the Lionhearted named John as the heir to the crown! On  the positive side, Richard I's illegitimate son is a powerful and  convincing character. John is an interesting 3 dimensional character. At  times he comes off as  harsh and cruel. But he also shows himself at times  to be  to be a strong and competent king. And at times we can feel sorry  for him. Shakespeare also manages to squeeze some comical touches in. I  feel that to appreciate this play as much as possible, you must realize  that Richard I named John the heir to the crown. I also feel you must  understand that John did prove himself to be a competent king. (Unlike his  unfairly blackened reputation in "Robin Hood.")
1093946
First, I'm not sure why "Verified Purchase" is not listed with this review, as I definitely bought this DVD from Amazon.  Anyway:

I've been a fan of the 1966 movie but was highly intrigued by this production with some excellent actors, so I bought it. This 1988 film reflects a somewhat different approach to the material (even though playwright Robert Bolton wrote the screenplays for both movies). In a nutshell, I found the 1966 version more riveting and entertaining, except for several features of the 1988 version that were definitely better:

 Benjamin Whitrow does far, far more with the character of Thomas Cromwell than Leo McKern does in the 1966 version. Don't get me wrong. Leo McKern is a great character actor, but Whitrow (who is of course famous for playing Mr. Bennett in "the" definitive "Pride and Prejudice") is just DELIGHTFUL (!) to watch as the cunning, duplicitous Cromwell. Every scene he is in energizes this movie, not just dramatically (for example, a brief amazing vignette with a candle) but also comedically (some very amusing repartee with other characters). Indeed, I'd venture to say that Whitrow's scene-stealing performance is the single most noticeable improvement over the 1966 movie.
.
 I will admit that I didn't think that Heston did as well as Paul Scofield with the character of Thomas More for the first half of the movie, but I must also say that Heston definitely held his own, if not exceeded Scofield in the more emotionally intense drama of the second half of the play. The farewell scene in the Tower had considerably more emotional punch than the '66 version (ironically, of course, the '66 portrayal may be a bit truer to the "muted" , restrained style of handling emotions among patrician English men and women. But I think Heston and Vanessa Redgrave surpass Scofield and Wendy Hiller in this scene).

 Richard Johnson's Duke of York is a much more interesting to watch character than Nigel Davenport's rendering in the 1966 version. The Duke of York is an important character for the plot and character development of More, and Johnson breathes greater life and humanity into this character. Consequently, the More-York friendship had a deeper dimension in this 1988 version.

Otherwise, the performances of John Hurt (as Richard Rich) and Robert Shaw (as Henry VIII) were (much) more captivating than their counterparts in this 1988 version. And I had mixed feelings about the greater prominence of the Common Man in the 1988 version: sometimes this character deepened the story and experience, sometimes it detracted from it.

Perhaps 3 stars is a bit harsh in light of the several points made above, but that is based partly on the idea that if you could only watch *one* version, I'd recommend the 1966 version. But the best recommendation is: watch both.
3704520
This play is ridiculous and is still not over the top considering the subject matter is protesters.  The humor is rampant and at the same time there is an element of truth throughout that grounds the levity and keeps this from being lighter than air.  It's funny the other reviewer cites a male monologue, when the the feature really is two marathon female monologues in the first ten pages.  This is a character play of the highest magnitude and this is coming from Nicky silver, the epitome of flamboyant character writers.  Hey, when you're good, you're good.
3574101
This is easilly my favorite play ever.  Last year, I directed it for a Student Directed Production at my high school and had a lot of success and strong audience response.  I had people walk up to me hoping for more performances because they had laughed SO HARD.  Some of my closest friends actually said they had fallen off their seats laughing.  Involving a small cast of 7, this production creates what reviewers say is "one of the funniest plays ever written".  The plot begins with architect Willum Cubbert getting a surprise birthday party from his girlfriend Tansy and his room mate and play-critic, Axel.  From the beginning, the characters are establishes, but the plot takes a little while to catch onto.  Tansy talks about leaving Willum for a job opportunity in Washington because she feels like she's spinning her tires with Willum.  Finally, Willum's boss, Waldgrave, his wife, Clelia, and son, Thor, arrive.  From this family's entrance, they're a comedy routine on their own!  Waldgrave is edgy and very high strung, while Clelia presents herself as a very calm and collected special ed. teacher...while their son, Thor, is a hellian! :)  After a while, a man who once saved Willum's life in Vietnam, shows up on the answering machine.  And this man, named Rick Steadman, shows up, and is a bumbling oaf and a complete NERD!  All in all, Rick drives EVERYONE nuts!  Clelia smashes dishes to relieve stress, Waldgrave screams and pitches a fit, and Thor locks himself in the bedroom.  After a LOT of comedic setups, the Waldgrave family exits with muddy clothes, soaked shoes, and a psychologically messed up delinquent.  Willum, Tansy, and Axel result in constantly being driven up the wall by Rick.  So, Rick decides to stay...permanantly.  Willum doesn't feel as if he could just tell Rick to leave, so he stays and DRIVES HIM UP THE WALL!  After dedicated attempts at ridding themselves of Rick, they decide the only way it's possible, is by performing bizarre Pagan rituals.  After dancing around the room, Willum, Tansy, and Axel all realize that Rick is ENJOYING himself!  Finally, Rick joins the chant and shouts for them to throw cottage cheese out the window.  They do.  And Waldgrave reenters the apartment with a pile of cottage cheese covering him.  In the end, Willum is fired completely because of Rick.  And that is when Willum decides to tell the schmuck to leave.  And in a very awkward way, the nerd makes his exit.  And Willum, now jobless, decides to take a job offer in Washington, so he can remain with Tansy.  A love setup was caused by a secret plan by Axel and the actor who had played Rick Steadman the entire time.  Willum may go to Washington realizing that he's now jobless, but as "Rick" says "by that time, I'm sure he'll be so happy he'll forget to be mad" and the curtain closes.  There is no perfect way to review this, due to all the humour within the dialogue.  I simply will say, BUY THIS!  YOU WILL READ IT, and if you're a theater lover, you'll read it again and again!  It's the best!  All around, it isn't incredibly deep in meaning, but involves a very simple and cute love story.
1228090
This play within the play sees the ghosts of Richard III and his wife Anne summoned up on stage by their fool to try and stop the umpteenth performance of the slanderous shakesperean play on the last Plantagenet king in our modern times.

They will manage to show the truth about how their relationship developed and about Richard's deeds in general, but the audience in this case will still prefer Shakespeare's version because the words employed in it are so powerful that it makes the play more entertaining than the actual truth. Yet, Richard will at least be able to take the opportunity to speak the words he could not use with his wife just before she died and show her the truth about his unconditional and undying love for her.

This play moved me deeply the first time I read it and made me cry in the end on second reading. I hope someone will eventually find the courage and the funds to bring it on stage, in the meantime you can at least read it: the lines are so well thought of, Richard and the actors on stage will come up to your mind vividly as if they were in front of you.
1222712
Michael Radford, director of "Il Postino," turns his attention to Shakespeare with his somewhat abbreviated version of "The Merchant of Venice." This production has much more right with it than wrong: By prefacing the story with the real-life, institutionalized anti-Semitism of Venice in 1596--including Antonio, at the time quite without reason, spitting in Shylock's face--Radford provides the motivations for Shylock's blood-lust in a way the stage never can. (Radford also seeks to "epater les bourgeois" early on in the film, with bare-breasted whores, a close-up of a lamb being slaughtered, and a very strong suggestion that Antonio and Bassanio's relationship is homosexual.) The film looks impeccable, thanks to the dark, rich production design of Jon Bunker and the even darker and richer cinematography of Benoit Delhomme. And as Shylock and Antonio, Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons cannot be faulted. Eschewing his recent tendencies to ham it up, Pacino exhibits a controlled rage worthy of Michael Corleone. Irons is the first Antonio I've ever seen who made me feel that character's humanity--his anguish at his mortal peril, and the wild yet all-too-common contradiction between his benevolent gentility and his virulent bigotry. Yet for all this, Radford's version of "Merchant" for me just missed being a great cinematic adaptation of the Bard. "Merchant" is a notoriously difficult play, the director left trying to balance the dominant themes of anti-Semitism with the fairy-tale, comic side story of Portia and Bassanio's romance. Radford succeeds better than most, but though his abbreviations help the plot to move along, they do harm to the play's greatest asset--its poetry. Certainly he commits murder most foul by condensing Lorenzo's great soliloquy on music. For me, it's the most beautiful part of the play, indeed one of the most beautiful things Shakespeare ever wrote (certainly Ralph Vaughan Williams thought so when he set it, in its entirety, as "Serenade to Music"). And the younger actors, though they're undeniably very good, simply didn't move me as much as Pacino or Irons. Not even Joseph Fiennes (who actually, famously played Will Shakespeare) or Lynn Collins, who has received the lion's share of the critical praise as Portia. She is certainly excellent, as well as a luminous beauty (splitting the difference between Gwyneth Paltrow and Cate Blanchett), but she just didn't reach my heart the way Pacino and Irons did. So Radford's version of "Merchant" is good but not great, worth seeing but not quite a transcendent experience.