wagthedawg-70968 Reading the Amazon write-up, I expected a Roman times thriller ... instead I got a modern day thriller taking place in a non-Rome "Rome," with ancient Roman names, and, of all things, Shakespearean language. Great actors and great acting aside, I'm one of the vast majority who despise Shakespeare and his unintelligible manner of speaking. I'm happy for the .025% of folks who enjoy this kind of thing, but for the rest of us, please warn us ahead of time, OK? Unless these fine actors were working for scale, this flick had to have lost multi-millions, taking in (according to IMDb) a pitiful $600k+.So if you LOVE Shakespeare, you'll love this flick. If you don't, stay FAR, FAR away!

gizmomogwai Finally, after over 50 film versions of Hamlet, someone ventures into new Shakespearean territory, bringing the Bard's last tragedy, Coriolanus, to the big screen for the first time. Some may complain it's a lesser work- as if they want more of the same, and showing the audacity to pan Shakespeare- and specifically the play TS Eliot considered the Man from Stratford's greatest! In truth, Coriolanus is a perfect play for times of political turmoil, probably simpler than Hamlet but rich in its conflict, with international war tied up in domestic politics. We have a protagonist who heroically serves his country, but his tragic flaw is his anti-social nature and smugness that makes him unpopular at home.We can see the decision was made to recast the play, based in ancient Rome, to the modern era. It's a device we've seen before with Romeo and Juliet (1996) and Hamlet (2000), and while it would seem appropriate to place the first Coriolanus film in its own time, the story translates to an age of media and modern warfare relatively well. Slate magazine considered the argument that placing Coriolanus in a new setting and making it work proves it is Shakespeare's greatest play. However, the magazine rejected that argument, noting Hamlet has been placed in every setting imaginable. Certainly, Macbeth as well has been adaptable- Orson Welles transported it to the 19th century Caribbean, while Akira Kurosawa brought it to feudal Japan. While this film may not prove Coriolanus is the best of Shakespeare's plays, it nevertheless reflects that the neglected play is brilliant.Fiennes' film has a strong look and helps the viewer feel some of the intense conflict, though it's not a great film. Reading the play for the first time this week, I felt the politics were a lot more gripping than what was brought to the film. Ideally, Fiennes' film might encourage other filmmakers to make their attempts at more successfully adapting Coriolanus, or bring it back to its original setting. Alas, the poor box office performance of this film will likely discourage that- but I still salute Fiennes for his effort.

JaydoDre I don't like Shakespeare.I tried him on multiple occasions and in multiple forms and by now I could write an essay on all the reasons why.However, Coriolanus the movie, is very palatable and the lack of popularity this movie has puzzles me as much as the popularity that Shakespeare has.There are some familiar core problems. Some of the dialogue is poetic nonsense, for which you have to pause and rewind so as to try grasp for some meaning. There are some issues with the story as the wordy dialogues sometimes ignore to explain some basic story aspects, motivations or fail to concentrate on the plot making the movie feel on the slow side. Again, not sure that is the movie's fault rather than Shakespeare's (or the source Shakespeare ripped off). For example, the two main men of this film state that they want to be together and then repeatedly say that they hate each other, with no clear explanation for either of those polar opposite attitudes.The general dialogue is nonetheless understandable so that one can follow it. It is helped by the good acting of everyone involved. Ralph Fiennes in the main role portrays the Roman general Coriolanus with his overly proud screws loose. His eyes alone could cut you. Good casting there.The main hook of the movie is that the it is Shakespeare in modern times where Rome is shown in the style of a Western country while the Volsci neighbors are shown in the cultural style of the Balkans. This is not completely novel but it works well and the cultural styles are portrayed well, interesting to look at. There is a lot of hand held camera (but not shaky cam) and it makes things look more gritty and personal. Good cinematography overall, though the real action is not well shot as the cuts are too fast..The overall plot is interesting. There are no real villains, which is always refreshing. There is no cheesy love interest or a hero. The movie instead explores the clash between patriotism, personal pride and duty to your people. It is an off-beat story.With so many movies being a copy of the same 4-chord pop song formula, this Shakespeare based film is like a breath of fresh air. And on top of that, it is well-acted and for most part well shot.

xavierPoulain In his directorial debut, Ralph Fiennes shows that not only he is capable of directing film, but that Shakespeare's insights into human behavior, especially in observations of politics, remain timeless. He puts the play written in the early 1600s in modern context, and gives such an raw, real performance you can't help not recognize from. Gerard Butler amazes in his performance no one thought he could do, because all roles before and since 300 have been beefcake roles and questionable performances. Butler masters Shakespeare with such depth and tactics that fulfill that his performance is one of the best he's done. Vanessa Redgrave's Volumnius is one of many phenomenal performances she has done in her career- the scenes where she is talking plans with her character's son and the scene outside of the Senate are excellently done. Redgrave has done Shakespeare before, and can easily make the language accessible as the speaker. Jessica Chastain shows her versatility in her performance in this film greatly, but, as Shakespeare wrote, it cannot be said that she is underused because of that. Chastain gives a great supporting performance of a character who is still not well known of Shakespeare's tragic heroines. A great film that speaks of our time, where officials of wealth and privilege feel the need that that wealth and privilege makes them special enough to disregard the right and voice of the people they claim to represent, and where officials with their own interests can stir the masses for private gain.