Coriolanus (Blu-ray + DVD)

The trailers for Ralph Fiennes' directorial debut CORIOLANUS are deceptive, and if there had not been the indication that this was a work of Shakespeare, most would have been under the impression this was a film about a current conflict filled with battle sequences and political strife.Apart from the "current" part, they'd be right on.CORIOLANUS is a powerful tale of General Gaius Martius (Fiennes), a powerful and great soldier for Rome whose sole purpose in life is that of waging war. He cares nothing for the citizens of Rome that he fights for, and he makes that very clear in early scenes of the film. His mother Volumina (Vanessa Redgrave) has great pride in forging a warrior of such ferocity and strength. His wife Virgilia (Jessica Chastain) loves him without really understanding him. The only true friend he has is Senator Menenius (Brian Cox), who loves Martius, warts and all. But absent the love of the people, he takes to war, battling the Volscian threat to Rome led by Aufidius (Gerard Butler), a strong, almost Che Guevara-type of revolutionary. Martius ends up on his own on the Volscian's turf and kills many Volscians and finally squares off against Aufidius. Their fight becomes a draw amidst the chaos around them, but Rome declares Aufidius defeated and looks to Martius, now called Coriolanus because of the city where this battle took place, to become consul, a move wholeheartedly supported by his family and friends, but not to the joy of the people and members of the Roman senate whose positions are threatened by Coriolanus' rise. The serpentine manuverining of Tribunes Brutus (Paul Jesson) and Sicinius (James Nesbitt) moves Coriolanus into an indefensible position of making his feelings of the common people of Rome known to all. This hurls Coriolanus into exile, and after some time, he seeks the aid of the Volscians and particularly Aufidius himself to help him exact his revenge on Rome.What makes this film so strong and impassioned is most of the performances and the filmmakers' brilliant work in adapting and modernizing this work without changing the language or the intent of the piece. It's set in present day amongst the 24-hour news cycle which acts as the chorus of this film (and as an easter egg of sorts, the TV station's name is Fidelus), examining the man Martius and his deeds. The use of modern war machines and weapons and with Fiennes' direction, the brilliant cinematography of Barry Ackroyd (who's done other great work on Kathryn Bigelow's THE HURT LOCKER, and Paul Greengrass' UNITED 93 and GREEN ZONE) and John Logan's (GLADIATOR, THE LAST SAMURAI) adapted screenplay, the film is given even greater urgency, a skillful reworking and a more unsettling comparison with our own society. The most visceral scene is the great battle scene which Fiennes and Ackroyd handle with scope and great excitement and tension. The intimate moments work just as well. Frankly I wasn't surprised at how well this film was created visually, even with it being Fiennes' directorial debut. Fiennes is one of our very best actors, and he has moved even more forward in deserved esteem with a striking first film. Another sad star of this film is the use of Croatia as the location. The desolation and destruction are the perfect setting for this tale, but reminds of the reality that still affects that ground to this very day.From a performance standpoint, this is where the film does sway a little from what would normally be a five-star film to a four-star one. Fiennes is absolutely great as Martius. He plays him as a man who would not have political office because of the politics involved, and finds a greater comfort in the arms of his greatest enemy than that of his wife. Cox continues his hitting streak of great performances and remains a horrifically underrated character actor who is deserving of much more acclaim. His love for Martius is evident even as, as demonstrated in one of the most powerful moments of the film, Martius turns away from the life he once had. The brightest star here is Redgrave who gives an unnaturally brilliant and impassioned performance as mother Volumina, who always looks to take her son to the heights she knows he deserves, and never sways from that belief, even if he does. Chastain, one of the hardest working women in films right now, with films like THE TREE OF LIFE, THE HELP, THE DEBT and this, is cast well as the soft, almost demure wife Virgilia, but in fairness, she seems to be more there for her look of softness rather than her skill because she doesn't have much to do in this adaptation. James Nesbitt, who I've loved for a long time with Steven Moffat's TV show JEKYLL, in Paul Greengrass' BLOODY SUNDAY and lately in FIVE MINUTES OF HEAVEN, plays Sicinius with just the right amount of falseness and fear. Sadly, the poorest showing here is Gerard Butler who I have loved when he was in the right role. I've followed his career since the guilty pleasure DRACULA 2000 and through similarly not-too-good films like TIMELINE and REIGN OF FIRE until he exploded on the scene with 300. He was an actor that seemed to shine far above his co-stars in all of his scenes. Then suddenly, he became the go-to guy for sentimental rom-coms or action rom-coms or just general garbage, so I was thrilled to see someone wanting to take Butler seriously as an actor, especially someone like Fiennes. The shock of his performance in this film is that he holds his own quite well in the scenes with Fiennes, which shows why Fiennes cast him, but it's in most of his other scenes in which he doesn't seem to really find his rhythm with the character of Aufidius. However, the scene in which Aufidius proclaims his love and respect for Martius is a stunner.Most people, myself occasionally included, are thrown off by the Bard's tongue. Listening to the precision in which he uses language and the good ol' Iambic Pentameter, people are generally turned off to Shakespeare if they haven't studied it. The problem with that is, that in a general sense, it's not the audience that should be afraid of not understanding it; it's the players and the director that should be afraid of not making it understandable and accessable to everyone. Shakespeare's work was never written for the elite during his era; it was written for the poor and played by and large in what most would consider a community theatre production. Nowadays, we get the feeling that Shakespeare is only for learned people. The onus is not as much on us but the performers and director in communicating this language and the meaning behind it to us without simply rewriting it and somehow making it more easily understandable for modern audiences. Since CORIOLANUS is also without a particularly relatable protagonist, since most of our main characters exist in a morally ambiguous grey area, this is also problematic for audiences, but it actually makes the characters more interesting because they're not cut from the same cloth as your traditional hero or villain. I can also sense that Fiennes and Logan had a difficult time determining what kind of film this was going to marketed as; Shakepearean tragedy or primal war film? This is not necessarily a fault of the film, but let's face it: Shakespeare isn't easy to sell, especially if it's one of his least famous works. This may account for Logan and Fiennes really trimming this down to a slender 2 hour run-time. It cuts directly to the meat of the tale, and it still works well, but I did sense a lack of material that might have made things more focused. I'm looking forward to seeing this on Blu-Ray (saw it through Amazon Instant Video through my PS3), because I'm very interested in hearing Fiennes' commentary on the film.CORIOLANUS is very powerful storytelling, and mostly very powerful acting, and is very worthwhile to anyone who is a fan of the Bard or just a fan of terrific filmmaking.

I do not normally write Amazon reviews, but am doing so now in part in response to a previous reviewer's complaint, and in hopes that my comments may be helpful to a prospective viewer.This film is a modern take on Shakespeare's Coriolanus, with Ralph Fiennes in the title role. While the play, and the real world events upon which it is based, took place in the ancient Roman Republic, the film takes place sometime in the early 2000s. There are cars, machine guns, cell phones, (I noted the flip phones, which is why I place it around 2006 or so), electric lights, and, yes, black people, including in positions of authority, in this depiction of the Roman-Republic-made-modern. Whether one takes this, as one reviewer did, to be "blackwashing" or, as I did, simply as part of the film's attempt to set the play in the modern world, seems to me to depend on how comfortable one is living in said modern world, where we indeed have plenty of distinguished public servants of various complexions. If you resist this aspect of modern life, then this film is not for you, as, again, it is set in the modern world, with all its internal combustion engines, television screens, and elites of not necessarily ("purely"??) European background. However, it strikes me as peculiar to complain about this one aspect of this film's modern setting, while accepting the rest. Alas, it is not a "blackwashing" of the past that occurred, but a "whitewashing" of the present that is sought. As for the work itself, I imagine prospective viewers fall into three categories: those who have read/seen the play, those who have heard of it but not read/seen it, and those who have no idea whatsoever about the play or the events it depicts. While those in the first group may be able to detect where the Bard's original words have been edited or adapted, I was not able to, as I fall into the second category. As a fan of Shakespeare, and a student of the ancient world and Western Canon, I merely sought more edifying entertainment than the usual streamed movie offers during lunch. It met this low bar, and although I am not in a place to judge entirely, I suspect the film's adaption of the original play was faithful enough that the literary qualities of Shakespeare's words and narration are fairly depicted. Upon my first viewing, I would not put the play in the same great heights of Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, King Lear, Macbeth, etc. However, I would not put it far below, either. There are several complex and ambiguous characters and situations which raise the eternal questions about life and society in the way that only Shakespeare can. Nonetheless, I found myself reaching for a pen to jot down quotations far less than while recently watching Julius Caesar (a Royal Shakespeare Company setting in contemporary Africa is fantastic and free for Prime subscribers) and Richard II (also free for Prime subscribers, I think by the BBC). As for the film's adaption, I thought it was mostly done well, although there were a few scenes that felt clumsy or cheesey, for example, in attempting to dress a Roman bread riot in the garb of a modern street protest. Similarly, for a person such as myself who is primarily interested in Shakespeare's work, the whole thing could've probably been 20 minutes shorter by dispensing with the cinematography, scene shots, etc. which of course were not part of the play. Nevertheless, the adaption is well-done overall, and the scenes of violent discord in the Senate may be discomfortingly familiar to viewers in the post-Trump, post-Jan. 6 United States.Finally, for those in the third group, who have stumbled completely unknowingly upon this film, a brief description of the story: Coriolanus was a general in the early years of the Roman Republic who defended the city against non-Roman invaders, then attempted to translate this military success into political success by campaigning to be consul. Although he impresses the city's aristocratic elites, he is disdainful of the common people, who in turn not only deny him the consulship, but banish him from Rome for his insults. He turns traitor, joins his former foes on the outskirts of Rome, and would have pillaged the city were it not for the appeals of his mother, wife, and child. Having called off the slaughter and negotiated peace with Rome, Coriolanus is then done in by his non-Roman foes-turned-allies-turned-foes-again. It is perhaps more political and more ambiguous than many of Shakespeare's plays --there are no heroes here, and Coriolanus' stubbornness is matched by the fickleness of the masses. As with all great literature, we are left with more questions than answers, regarding duty to one's country, loyalty to one's family, and the motivations that make us all tick.2 hours well spent.

Great movie

Heard about it via a friend but was not sure about that kind of adaptation.... Really was amazed by how it worked and came into place so well.. Big fan now... really well done, brilliant cast, beautifully acted... 10/10

No muy fiel adaptación sobre la obra homónima de Shakespeare, llevada a una sociedad más actual, aunque entretenida, no obstante.

La película no me ha gustado nada. Son dos grandes actores. Guión absurdo. En un tiempo distinto. Un invento raro .

gefällt mir gar nicht und wird sofort verkauft. Kein 3D also komplette Schlappe. Schade eigentlich, die Besetzung hörte sich gut an.