Looking for Richard (1996)

This is How Movies Should Be Made

A Disappointing Continuation

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

For having a relatively low budget, the film's style and overall art direction are immensely impressive.

Poor King Richard III. He's killed all his rivals for the throne and there's no one left to bow and scrape. And he can't even find a horse to ride away.Al Pacino doesn't explain why he chose this play of Shakespeare's 37, but he very successfully uses this gory history drama as a prism through which to demonstrate that Shakespeare is full of sound and fury, signifying a lot -- if Americans will just take the time to be aware.Wearing shades and a baseball cap, and clutching a copy of Cliff Notes, Al Pacino travels from New York to England talking to all manner of folk about the Bard, from men-in-the-street to ivory-tower English scholars. And he dramatizes the best scenes from the play with an ensemble of crackerjack American actors. The result is a compelling argument for giving old Will another look.I read in the IMDb notes that Pacino had originally intended to film his own version of "Richard III" but decided against it when he realized he couldn't outshine Lawrence Olivier's 1955 masterpiece.It was probably a good call.Pacino comes up with something entirely unique here and it's a delight through and through. Highly recommended for anyone who'd like to know more about the writer who knew us best.

"Looking for Richard" has Al Pacino, over a four-year period while he filmed various other things, delving into Shakespeare's Richard III with a cast of wonderful actors.The premise is that American actors approach Shakespeare too reverentially. Pacino gathers various actors, using places such as the Cloisters and St. John the Divine Church, to analyze, rehearse, and perform Richard III. Pacino amassed something like 80 hours, cut down to two.There are interviews with stars such as Kevin Kline, Vanessa Redgrave, F. Murray Abraham, Viveka Lindfors, Kenneth Branagh, Kevin Kline, John Gielgud, Peter Brook, and many others, including the man on the street. The final players include Kevin Conway, Kevin Spacey, Winona Ryder, Harris Yulin, Alec Baldwin, Estelle Parsons, Aiden Quinn and others.Scenes from the play are interspersed with discussion and rehearsal. Pacino's Richard emerges as raw, tough, and manipulative, whereas Olivier's was a complete slimeball. Both approaches work.This is an excellent film to show to high school students learning Shakespeare as Pacino takes some of the language apart -- the film makes the language and the human feelings and motivations behind the words very accessible.Truly excellent.

This is Al Pacino's first movie in which he both directed and acted. We see here that Pacino is not only an actor who takes part mostly in movies about gangsters, but within his brain he carries a perfect director. Looking for Richard is definitely what he really wanted to make; unlike the movies he is well-known to act in, it is an unusual combination of both a documentary and a drama based on a classic Shakespeare work. And Pacino made a wonderful choice in working this way. There are many versions of this Richard III story, both taking place in medieval Britain - as was the original script was - and in different places and times, like in the 19th century for a change. If he only made a drama or only a documentary, it would be a very usual and even boring thing, as repetitions of the same thing, even if it is pleasant, becomes annoying with time. This is definitely the best movie ever made, but was not a hit, because it can be understood only by a minority of people - I'll be a bit arrogant here, but I think I am right - above a certain IQ and cultural level.

Al Pacino is one of the most dynamic and charismatic film stars ever; yet he has always been hampered by his inability to pick good projects other than his hits for Coppla and Lumet. This film gives some clue as to why: he appears to be as stupid as a block of stone. A big screen version of Henry "Fonize" Winkler's Shakespeare T.V. show, "Looking For Richard" is a harebrained idea run into the ground. "Richard The III" is one of the easiest to follow of all the Bard's works, that the dark prince is the bad guy stabbing everybody in the back is about all you need to know. Yet Pacino begins with the idea that the play is impossible to bring to modern audiences, it's just too complicated. His solution? Only do the juiciest bits with his Hollywood pals. Unintentional hilarity ensues. Beyond that, Pacino is a ceaseless bore, surrounded by sycophants who encourage him to make a behind of himself. In one scene, Pacino seems to be suggesting to young people that Shakespeare is cool because you get to seduce Wynona Ryder. In another, he keeps interrupting a bored John Gielgud. It's never mentioned that Pacino's on stage Richard III was an infamous production laughed off Broadway in about a week. Maybe it wasn't Al's fault. But the critics were a lot kinder to this silly film than they were to Pacino when he really took a crack at the Bard.