Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard"

Personally, I was not too thrilled with it. It was interesting to see the "average Joe's" take on Shakespeare and personal experience (or lack thereof), but I never felt that anything was really resolved. I think I would have preferred to see the actual performance in full than what actually ended up on film.

A friend of mine (who knows very little about Shakespeare) thought it was very good. Personally, I found it a bit boring, because it didn't really offer up anything I didn't know. But it's great as an introduction to Shakespeare.

As a theatre teacher I like the way it emphasized the "table work" and the importance of really understanding teh text before putting it on its feet. BUt I find the film over all boring and I don't buy Pacino as Richard at all.

A bit too extemporaneous by for me, Pacino while very talented came across as very novice about Shakespeare - several excellent acting vignettes from the cast, but I was embarrassed for Al, hunched up and stumbling around in regal armour, clearly ill-suited for the role; Richard, the warrior king, deserved better.

Regards, Chas

It seemed to me at points, that Pacino did not have a full understanding of the text. I was disappointed.

C.

I find it a good tool for reinforcement of some of the fundamentals that I teach in beginning classes. I wouldn't show it "cold" to new acting students, though.

I'd lend my own voice to the several opinions regarding the shortcomings of Pacino and several of the other actors (notably Winona Ryder) for the roles they're attempting (others, including Kevin Spacey, came off rather better). But I regard this movie as one of those RARE instances in which the scholars come off as more insightful and better informed than the actors!

(I write this, by the way, as a professional actor specializing in Shakespeare.)