Richard ParkerII Excellent. But I found that I had to use the English subtitles on the DVD.Stands head & shoulders over the usual Hollywood pap that is pumped out.Shakespeare's critique of democracy? 'Pressure Group' politics shown. Confusion about who should Lead, be the CEO.Warfare scenes in early part of movie seemed very realistic - urban battles, house to house. Also, a group similar to the modern 'Occupy Wall Street' movement seems to be portrayed demanding bread & confronting the army of General Martius.Also, General Martius has an Arch-Enemy, the leader of a nearby terrorist nation, who threatens the modern 'Rome' of the 21st century .Kept my interest (thanks to the help of the subtitles) all the way. IF YOU WANT TO SEE GOOD ACTING, i.e., EXCELLENT ACTORS AT WORK, SEE THIS.SPOILER ALERT: Shakespeare's tragedy could have been called 'From Hero to- Enemy of Rome - to Zero'

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!

douglas lally The fact that Shakespeare remains the most studied, influential, and produced playwright in the modern world is testament to the genius of his storytelling and it's transcendent, universal narratives. His plays remain timeless for this reason. Coriolanus, however, one of the last composed by Billy Shakes, is not one his more popular plays and consequently doesn't see the stage time of his other Histories. There are really four reasons for this. The title character is lacking the emotional range, depth, and just plain interestingness of say a Hamlet, Lear, or Macbeth. He is pretty much single minded and predictable. Reason two is there is no love interest to speak of, although he has a wife, she does not play a compelling influence on his life or events of the story. Reason three, the topicality emphasizes the political rather than humanistic. Reason four is it's an intense, humorless, dark play. In essence, Coriolanus is a heavily flawed man who doesn't know it and for many that makes him boring. There are no internal conflicts, only external. The play is really a commentary on the bearing of social class on the general welfare of any given nations citizenry and the toxicity of political privilege and hubris. Many theater goers, even in Shakespeare's time, were uneasy with the subject matter. Aristotle asserted that theater should serve two functions, entertain and instruct,but do so evenly. Coriolanus does more instruction where an escapist audience wanted to be entertained. Let's call Coriolanus, then, a Shakespearian political PSA. But...this re-imagining of Coriolanus is spectacular. Like many modern adaptations of Shakespeare it has been modernized to suit the times, making it more accessible to audiences unfamiliar with the Elizabethan English or even the story itself. There are no robes, tights, or rapiers. There are instead tanks, helmets, and helicopters. There are suits and ties and cars and televisions and a contemporary cultural backdrop that could be literally any one of thousands of locales in our present time. Ralph Fiennes direction really drives home that this could be you, which I thought worked exceptionally well. The use of modern media, such as television talk shows and news broadcasts to deliver dialogue originally intended for an ancillary character was both clever and useful in keeping the flow of the story as well as staying true to the spirit of the original work.Coriolanus is a general, a politically valued but socially inept political figurehead central to the corruption of the Roman government and the chief architect of that government's subversion of civil liberties and basic needs among it's population. For that reason he is despised by the people and feared by the politicians. Yet he is also a prized component of this society as a fearless, ruthless, and brilliant military commander. The built in irony for Coriolanus lay in his professional conduct as a soldier defending his nation, advancing it's interests through conquest, and all the while expressing utter disgust for that nation, the common man especially whom he regards as interloping rabble or a distraction to his ambitions. He is what we would call a megalomaniac. Serving only himself and those that can benefit him. Really, he functions as guardian of a status quo for himself, and no one but himself. As a side note, can't imagine that Coriolanus wasn't an influence for Aaron Sorkin when he crafted Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men. One should familiarize themselves with the story before embarking on Coriolanus. It should be said more often that production value, costumes, and theme will never replace an audiences need to understand what is going on. Let's face it, there's a language barrier with Shakespeare and nothing will substitute for an audience member who doesn't know that musty superfluidity means weakness. And perhaps that's why Shakespeare on film doesn't have the reach it should. But I do love this effort and the attempt to advance a 400 year old tale of a dysfunctional system and make it real for anyone living it today. Nuts and bolts of the film. I loved the action sequences, the editing, and the brevity as much of the script was deleted to streamline the film. Gerald Butler was in his element as Aufidius, the foil to Coriolanus. Ralph Fiennes exploded as Coriolanus and gave him an unspoken internal dialogue; I hated this guy and then it occurred to me that I was supposed to, and when that happened I know they did it right. Some things I did not like. The overuse of shaky cam as if this were live footage was not all that convincing. Thought some of the combat scenes were pushing too hard. And at times, for reasons I can't really explain, felt the whole this is modern times and we are making a point of that fell flat. Maybe it was all the shots done in TV studios and board rooms. Overall an excellent film, and a very relevant story to modern times. Both entertaining and instructive. Evenly.

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.