maddiegracestrydom The Merchant of Venice was a slow paced movie with little plot. Whilst the actors conveyed great emotion, I did not like the character development. The transitions were sloppy and the colour scheme made me barf. The costumes were a little higher than 6/10. Nice colour symbolism. Me oh my, that Joseph Fiennes sure was Fienne, however his performance was distracting since I am used to seeing him in the 1998 classic, "Shakespeare In Love" (my fave movie). Next time, maybe they can hire a better actor who wasn't in anything before hand. None of the characters could speak English properly. I barely understood what was happening half the time because of this. I didn't like it but it wasn't 'bad'. The actor who plays Lancelot scared me.

Python Hyena The Merchant of Venice (2004): Dir: Michael Radford / Cast: Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, Lynn Collins, Zuleikha Robinson: Powerful William Shakespeare adaptation about conquest that ultimately leads to self damnation. Jews are persecuted while Christianity dominates but Shylock agrees to lend Antonio money but through a sealed bond, which could result in a pound of his flesh if the bond is broken. His young friend Bassanio has fallen in love with Portia, which leads to Antonio's assistance through the bond. Perhaps the one argument that could be made is that of the forced religious views dealt out during crucial moments otherwise director Michael Radford establishes the look and time frame that are crucial to the viewpoint. As Shylock Pacino has suffered many losses but his anger afflicts him with his biggest loss. Jeremy Irons displays passion and love for Bassanio but reluctantly accepts consequences. Joseph Fiennes is well cast as Bassanio while Lynn Collins steals scenes as the resourceful Portia whose wit comes through during a clever cross exam. Other roles are not so broad and mainly seen as appearances exclusively. Here is one of the better Shakespeare adaptations produced that presents strong images of human excel. It also presents a strong theme regarding the downfall of revenge and how hate can ultimately destroy us. Score: 8 ½ / 10

leplatypus It starts strong: Captions say that the Jewish discrimination and ghetto have been invented in this city of love and it's really the first time that I discovered the fact. It's again a proof that our European democracies are really old senile states plagued by amnesia if it isn't they are just deceptive and try to brainwash their citizens. In my opinion, the red hat worths a yellow star.Next, if the story is a bit hard to follow as we need a time of adaptation to the flow of a classic play, it becomes more and more interesting: Pacino plays an old Jew that denounces dryly this discrimination. So, when Al's talent meet Shakespeare's inspired quill, it's fantastic: His speech about being just another human being is a great moment! His speech against slavery hits bullseye: a law can be cruel as justice needs also mercy. But Shakespeare isn't only a dissident: his speeches about music and love are really stunning as well. If we can regret that the romantic Venice isn't shown (no piazza, basilica or palazzo) and that some back story aren't really interesting (Al's daughter), the movie has a last surprise as the newcomer Lynn Collins is really mesmerizing, especially when she crosses dressed! The way her character plays and fight for her lover with tremendous law ability and heart, you can conclude that Shakespeare draw a beautiful portrait of a strong woman in a time that was strictly masculine.In conclusion, this movie should be a recommendation for those who would like a good introduction to Shekeaspeare's talent: a bit like our French Moliere, his sharp criticism is dressed under comedy and frivolity so the powerful idiots can't understand what it happens! And if you heard that the movie is anti-semitic, it's not true and it's a trick to strangle the truth: opening the veil about an antisemitic world isn't the same as being antisemitic.(NB: a more personal note: I watched it on evening after having finished reading Dan Brown's "Inferno" in the afternoon. Yesterday, I watched "Deerfield" with the same Pacino. The book takes place in Firenze then Venezia. The movies happen in Firenze then Venezia. The probabilities are so astounding that I ask if I should take this a divine wink? If it's a message, which one? I remember that it has already happens with my last "x-files" review and that I actually read Mark Millar's "Secret Service" which shares the same threat (overpopulation) than "Inferno"! Something is building up through my cultural choices, uh … ?)

TheLittleSongbird I was both excited and intrepid about seeing Merchant of Venice, excited because of the cast and intrepid because I worried the film wouldn't leave the cast much to work with. But I was surprised, apart from being overlong with a few scenes that looked as though they could've done with an edit I found The Merchant of Venice to be a very good film. It looks exquisite, the scenery and costumes as well the cinematography are some of the loveliest and sometimes even most ominous of any film I've seen recently. The soundtrack is just as beautiful, the story is just as compelling as the play with the courtroom scene and ring scene quite interestingly done and the writing is nuanced, intense and full of humanity considering the difficulty of adapting the play. Al Pacino is both angry and dignified of some of the best work of his of the past 15 or so years. Jeremy Irons also impresses in a suitably loyal, melancholic and in some way hypocritical(in regard to his religious bigotry) Antonio, while Lynn Collins is luminous as Portia and Joseph Fiennes proves here he is more than a handsome figure. Michael Radford directs with efficiency and sympathy also. In a nutshell, a very good movie, not my favourite Shakespeare-adapted film but worthy. 8/10 Bethany Cox