Parker Lewis I haven't seen many Shakespeare movies. I've seen Macbeth - the one with Jon Finch and I saw Shakespeare in Love with Gwyneth Paltrow. I thought Macbeth was gruesome in some respects, but it has nothing on Titus, which is a level 11 (to paraphrase This is Spinal Tap) on the gore level. And this was centuries before Nightmare on Elm Street.I liked the merging of modern day settings in this, e.g. the army tanks, the SS stormtrooper type garb, the modern kitchen ware. The finale was quite innovative, where the dining table scene transfers to a modern stadium with onlookers. I wonder where that was filmed? Croatia or one of the Yugoslavian republics? Jessica Lange was superb in Titus. Interestingly, in New Zealand Lange is pronounced "Longy" - one of its Prime Ministers was David Lange and that's how he pronounced it.I wonder what the stage play would be like. I haven't seen it and I heard some patrons fainted during a performance at the Globe in London not so long ago. Can you imagine a high school putting on Titus instead of High School Musical?

leadolphin There are artsy movies, and then there's Titus. Titus was like to the movie "Fountain" directed by Aronofsky. It focused so much on visuals that the plot and substance of it was more of an undertone to the monstrosity that it was. Titus made everything that happened symbolize something greater, which is a horrible offense to a movie. Symbolism, when used sparingly, can convey themes much larger than the medium that they exist in. However, if everything that happens in a movie conveys that symbolism, it makes even the most meaningful parts of the movie meaningless. Another major problem I had with this movie was the pseudo realism. Not only were there roman-style soldiers all over the place in the beginning, but there were also 40s styled cars and motorcycles, along with microphones from the same era. This only adds to confusion, it conveys little meaning to the actual movie. It only succeeds in annoying the viewers- or at least the viewers who aren't into pretentious art- movies. All of the characters seemed flat, even those played by big-name actors like Anthony Hopkins. Part of the problem with this is, admittedly, the script. It takes impeccable acting and directing to create complex characters out of the script that was written by Shakespeare. If the directing and/or acting is poor, then the dialogue will sound awkward, because nobody speaks in Shakespearean English now. As the directing and the acting was poor, the entire movie was just one awkward transition to the next. From what I was told about this movie (I saw it in a Drama class after we finished reading the play) the budget was relatively low, so the visual effects were, as expected, not that great. But the thing is, the only visual effects that you would really need in making this movie would be what it would take for the gore scenes. The beginning choreography with the roman soldiers was unnecessary and confusing, the explosion in the opening scene was confusing, and all of the over-the- top costumes were annoying, especially Saturninus', Tamora's, and Chiron and Demetrius'. Really, this movie would've been so much better if the visuals conveying characters' thought were scratched, and if the director had chosen which time period the movie would take place in. Another huge problem that this movie had was the scene where Marcus finds Lavinia. There was surprisingly little blood (except for when she did this weird thing where she turned around and spat blood at Marcus in slow-motion), and her hands had been replaced by branches. I found this odd, because I don't think that Chiron and Demetrius would bother with doing this. I know hat this is supposed to be a take on the line saying, more or less, that she had been rid of her branches (meaning hands), but if she had lost her hands, and the text says branches, how does it make sense to put actually branches on her arms instead? "Titus" also over-glorified the character of Young Lucius. I've been told by many of my friends who were in the same class that this character is supposed to show how this kind of tragedy affects someone, and to make it less confusing when Young Lucius first shows up, but both are invalid arguments. It only makes things confusing. First of all, I would like to point out that it's not really that weird that Lucius "randomly" shows up halfway through the play. It actually makes sense, because a child would not be present at the ceremonies occurring in scene one of the text, the hunt, or the trial of the other two sons (the ones who were executed, I forgot their names). Young Lucius' omnipresence actually makes thing more confusing, because he doesn't talk until much later, and even the quietest kids would speak after seeing many of the things that happened, especially Lavinia after she's raped. One of my least favourite parts of the movie was the opening scene. When the movie starts, you think you're watching the wrong one, because it's some kid in a 40s or 50s style kitchen, making a mess of things with some action figures that resemble the characters that you meet later on. Then, there's an explosion, and some hulking guy just appears out of nowhere, and carries this kid down this really long staircase that likewise appeared out of nowhere, that leads to the Colosseum. This leaves you wondering as to what had just happened. Is the kid in some kind of coma? Has this actually happened? Is it all a dream? When is the movie going to start? It takes about 7 minutes of opening credits and marching soldiers in pseudo Ancient Roman armour, marching around in a display at, what you find out to be, their return from war against the Goths. I already had taken issue of the sudden switch from 40s/50s to Ancient Rome in such a bizarre way, that the existence of mummies in ancient Rome really annoyed me. I found the entire movie to be filled with annoyances like that. Basically, this was a horrible movie that no one should ever have to see, unless they want a movie filled with bad visuals, "artsy" cello music, and horrible acting and directing.

Brent Trafton Before there was "Saw," "Hostel," and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," there was Shakespeare. Titus" is a really well made film and it is also the most repulsive film I have ever seen. SPOILERSThere is a lot of body parts cut off and out. A young woman is raped and has her tongue cut out and straw stuck into her shoulder sockets where her arms were before they cut them off. It climaxes with a women's son's being cooked into a pie and being fed to her.END SPOILERThis is not for the squeamish. On the other hand, if you like that sort of thing but think that Shakespeare isn't for you, you might like it.The acting is fine and the costumes and sets are absolutely first rate. I actually liked the surreal mixture period and modern sets and the bizarre and colorful costumes."Titus" is definitely not for everyone. Watch it at your of risk. Don't say I didn't warn you.

jimb77 After watching Julie Taymor's screen adaptation of William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, Titus, I can now understand why so many people feel alienated and baffled by Shakespeare's excellent plays and why in many cases they believe them to be the province of a pretentious pseudo intellectual elite. For myself, having read the play several times, but never fortunate enough to see it, I was disappointed to see this stunning play sullied by gimmicks delivered without tasteful discretion. Surely the Bard's brilliance speaks for itself? However, yet again I'm bearing witness to a production where the directorial decisions appear to be serving personal ego rather than gifted artistic integrity.The context of the play is ancient Rome, yet the viewer is treated to a hotchpotch of clumsy visions filched from various time periods, to name but one example stylised Roman Legionaries - impressive in themselves – but then motorbikes and cars! Whatever happened to the beauty of straightforward, clear simplicity? Shakespeare was a genius, remembered and admired to this day because of the universality of his themes, brilliance of his characterisations and his awesome way with words. Scarily, Julie Taymor thinks she's better than him - or perhaps she know's she's not and is simply creating a smokescreen. The soundtrack frequently drowns out speeches; obviously what the characters are saying is not as important as Julie Taymor's crass visuals! Imagine the crassness of Lavinia (raped and mutilated off-stage) by psychedelic tigers. I'm torn between saying "Emperor's New Clothes" and just plain embarrassing.However it is the misdirection of the actors that is my main gripe and the film's major flaw. With the exception of Anthony Hopkins and James Frain who valiantly bring a degree of sincerity and believability to their performances, the film is rife with overacting, incoherent gabling and in many cases amateurish performances – Jessica Lange, Matthew Rhys and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers are particularly culpable - the unfortunate product of an untalented director and actors who are for the most part out of their depth and have no idea what they are talking about! A wasted opportunity and a crime that is all too frequently committed!