t_atzmueller True, transporting the "eternal bards" works into a modern setting isn't exactly everybody's cup of tea, but I must admit that I have always rooted for those, having greatly enjoyed the modernized "Romeo & Juliet" and "Richard III" with Ian McKellen still being one of my favourite Shakespeare adaptations.Let's talk about the positive aspects first: Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange are in the shape of their lives; every nuance, every movement, every line being a pure delight to watch. However, it is Harry Lennix that steals every scene he's in (as would behold the villainous Aaron); indeed, I feel rarely compelled to applaud while watching a movie in a cinema, but during Lennix scenes, especially the infamous "confession of Aaron", I just couldn't help myself.This, and the soundtrack is magnificent.Now, let's talk about the bad: when I beheld the younger cast, to mention Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Alan Cummings as examples, I kept wondering what could have prompted a film-maker to put those bit-actors next to the above mentioned cast. Were they related to the director? Could this have been an extreme case of nepotism or did Cummings and Rhys-Meyers witness director Taymor committing an axe-murder, and hence had something to blackmail her? Years later I would have to witness Rhys-Meyers as King Henry VIII in the TV-Series "The Tudors", where his blue eyes and well-shaped stature must have appealed to an audience consisting predominantly of impressionable teenage girls (explaining the high ratings). Still, what the young man performs – both in "Titus" and "The Tudors" – could by no means be classified as 'acting'. Same goes for Cummings, whose performance almost made me bite into my tongue, temporarily mistaking it for a ham-sandwich. Cummings highlight as thespian would be him playing Nightcrawler in "X-Men 2"; the excellent make-up added greatly to his performance.Apart from the (partly) unfortunate casting, we must also admit that director Taymor seems more at home at producing theatre plays than she does in film. That in itself is not necessary a bad thing; so was Shakespeare himself (for obvious reasons) but not every theatre director is capable of transporting the material onto the big screen and hence Taymors work seems often forced. Again, what saves the production is the excellent acting by the seasoned cast.A fine, albeit often flawed film; 7 points from 10.

gambitvoleur In "Titus," Julie Taymor takes an already strange play and gives it a post-modern drug trip. While a few scenes are fantastic, others are chaos, and all the CG in the world can't put humpty dumpty back together again. This is a Shakespearean tragedy known for gratuitous gore and imperfection--so much so that at times scholars did not want to attribute it to Shakespeare. In many ways, the film's greatest problems are extensions of the play. An adventurous out-of-time setting tries to compensate for the play's shortcomings by serving up rich, saturated visuals with costuming and décor that jumps between roman classicism and 20th century modernism, in effect meeting somewhere beyond either. While Titus is depicted as an armored roman soldier, his emperor appears as a jackbooted Nazi. It works, to a point, unless the goal is to dazzle us out of a critical eye. Because fascism is bloody enough to handle the content in "Titus," and because the Nazi's themselves co-opted classicism, the look holds together, if bizarrely. But all the style in the world won't fill the void of substance. "Titus" is as kooky as the 1990's "Romeo + Juliet," but it's not nearly as good. The daunting scope of such a project must have appealed to Ms. Taymor, who has a knack for taking on impossible tasks, while I assume one particular detail at the end appealed to Anthony Hopkins, who has a knack for playing weirdos. Hopkins was appreciated, but his character had no growth to begin with. Though Alan Cummings does well as a mind-warped sado-fascist, for me, Henry Lennix's performance as Aaron the Moor was absolutely riveting. He's the true star of the show, and he alone justifies the viewing. (With fairness to the Bard, Aaron is also the play's most compelling character.)Since few playhouses will spend their time on a lesser-loved play with more gore than wit, it's nice to be able to see some production of Titus Andronicus. If I hadn't been reading the play within the context of a college course, I might not have known what to do with the movie at all. As an adaptation alone, I would rank it much higher. But taken as a whole, the flaws are too significant and too numerous. If you don't know Shakespeare stay away or defer to a more welcoming adaptation of the better-known works. For others who have a little background and don't expect a normal experience, it's an interesting trip, though doomed from the start.

dancechick115 I love Shakespeare's plays. I hated this film. I found it static, boring, and lacking any sort of substance. The characters, including the main characters, were very one-dimensional. The film was poorly structured, tediously drawn out, and confusing.Taymor's attempt at placing her cast in multiple time periods was distracting. The film opens with a child playing in a mid-twentieth century inspired kitchen. When I watched this film, I thought I was watching the wrong one at first because of this particular scene. Throughout the film, scenes would spontaneously jump from one time period to the other. I will say this: motorcycles, cars, techno music, and twentieth century weapons do not belong in an adaptation of Shakespeare's work. Characters should not be wearing Roman fashions one moment, and looks ripped off of Christian Dior's "New Look" of the postwar era the next. It comes off as nonsensical garbage. The content, albeit using the original dialogue, is a mishmash of sex, obnoxious violence, and serves as a poor attempt at creating a psychological thriller. The film only proves to be another failure at "modernizing "Ancient Roman society, and Shakespeare himself. I viewed the interview with Taymor regarding the film's production, and believe that she views this film as an artistic masterpiece. This is a shame. There is no artistry in this movie. This movie is only an insult to history and to Shakespeare. How pitiful.

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!