Most--not all, but most--of those reviewers who grouse and whine about this film's historical inaccuracies, Pacino's ego, or the actors' failure to "understand" Shakespeare betray their own cultural pretentiousness and/or ignorance of what this film attempts to do.

This film is neither an academic introduction to Shakespeare nor a history lesson. Nor is it supposed to be an exemplary production of the play Richard III. It is, rather, a documentary about the difficulties inherent in producing Shakespeare in a culture that--for all the bard-worshipping--is fundamentally ignorant about Shakespeare's works.

And it works. If you've ever attempted either to teach or to act Shakespeare, you'll recognize some of the dilemmas with which the cast of this film wrestles, the primary dilemma being the cast's own difficulty in understanding just what the heck is happening in the play. The very fact that people--both within the film and outside it--become so worked up about the whole thing demonstrates the importance that Shakespeare still has in western culture. Or, to be more precise, it demonstrates the importance that we *want* Shakespeare still to have. And in some of the comments--especially from the toothless guy, as several reviewers have noted--we can glimpse, perhaps, the power that Shakespeare still has for those who attempt to read and appreciate his works not as academic icons but as literature with a small "l."

I showed this film to a group of high school students as a way of introducing them to Shakespeare, and I was very surprised at how engrossed they were especially with the scenes from the play. A few of them even went looking for the play on their own, so that they could see what the film didn't show them.

As one student remarked, after watching the scene in which Richard seduces Anne, "He's the man!" I don't know if he was referring to Richard or to Shakespeare, and it probably doesn't matter. He both enjoyed the film and learned something from it.

That's what counts.

An extremely enjoyable video. Pacino shows how shakespeare (specifically Richard III) can be fun and understandable. The video is a journey into an attempt to make the play comprehensible,and why most people do not enjoy or understand it. Shakespeare's plays are not written for our current common ear; that must be acknowledged. Yes, the film does not parse Richard III totally. Clearly is not meant to. Instead it shows how to get to the meat of the story and have fun doing it. All the actors...All seem to be having fun with the effort and the fun is contagious. Ignore the shakespeare snobs and their nose raising reviews. They express Pretentious, Egocentric Nonsense.

The brilliance of this movie is its effort to show us exactly why Shakespeare is still relevant to us today. My personal favorite was the homeless, toothless man who believed that a violent society was the result of our failure to appreciate Shakespearean language and idiom.

However, as a PhD student in British history, I was dismayed by the lack of historical context presented by Pacino, his coterie of actors, and particularly the scholars interviewed. I nearly fell off the couch when one literature professor said that he didn't know why Richard had married Anne Neville in real life. Folks, SHAKESPEARE IS NOT REAL HISTORY. As with most playwrights, the Bard edits and telescopes events to suit his own purposes--in this case, the presentation of the Richmond branch of the Lancastrians as the rightful heirs to the throne. Richard was not hunchbacked or deformed; Queen Elizabeth Woodville was a conniving schemer with an army of grasping relatives, not the innocent we see in the play; Richard and Anne married for love nearly 15 years before Edward IV's death; Richard himself probably neither committed, approved, nor knew about his nephews' murder. A Shakespearean film or play can only be truly appreciated within its historical context, as only then do we see the deft touch of the writer as he manipulates events into his own narrative.