ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

lordnimbo It took 2 nights (not sequential) to get through the entire film.What stood out in my mind, was that it appeared to be a combination of the orgiastic scenes from Bob Guccione's "Caligula" and the 'period shifting' element from Kenneth Branagh's "Hamlet".I have mixed feelings about it, ranging from the 'lowest' (vocalizing, out loud, pure disgust that someone spent money to make this film) to 'highs' (being impressed with certain actor's scenes that stood out, and should have been employed in a better film). I especially appreciated Harry Lennix's moments on screen, who's dialogue had the most 'character' and best portrayed the words spoken.I'm not sure what the intention of the direction was, but feel that it was either just some San Francisco ("Frisco") Bay Area crap, which many other reviewers have also stated as being 'artsy' and 'high minded'. Or, that it was an attempt at allegory to display the decadence of the portrayed Roman period in relation to more contemporary times (again related to the "Frisco" culture). One should wonder what would result from a choice to give control of the nation, to the former mayor (Gavin Newsom).Though other reviewers have stated that 'this' is the worst film they've ever seen, I know that there are many more that would exceed it in that category. I would rate it as being alongside "War Horse", though I spent most of my time viewing 'that' film 'laughing out loud' at its absurdity, as apposed to 'cringing' at the bad elements of this one.The best thing I can say about the movie, is that the DVD quality was exceptional, which along with the modern upscaling of my Blu Ray player and LED television, presented an HD-like picture quality with beautiful color and clarity.

david-sarkies This is an incredibly gruesome movie, but then again the play upon which it was based is also incredibly gruesome. Titus Andronicus, the Shakespearian play upon which this movie is based is actually one of his least popular ones, so when I discovered that somebody actually made a movie of it I was thrilled, and it thrilled me even more when I saw it and was absolutely astounded by it. Anthony Hopkins plays the role of Titus Andronicus absolutely beautifully.The play is set in Imperial Rome, though the actual period is very speculative. It is suggested that it could be at its height as Titus has returned from a successful campaign against the Goths, and it could be near the end as the movie finishes with an invasion of the Goths. However I would be hesitant to call it an invasion simply because Lucius is asked to go to the Goths and raise an army to help Titus seek revenge for the crimes committed against him and his family. The story itself is fictional, however it is not something that Shakespeare created himself (The Tempest is his only original work). There are also numerous references to Greek mythology, particularly the cannibalistic meal at the conclusion.Titus is a movie about vengeance, and it is more so than Hamlet because most of the characters have a bone to pick with at least one of the other characters. In fact it is about how being consumed with hatred and vengeance is a vicious circle with is constantly descending until there are no survivors. The Emperor Saturninus is vengeful because he has been denied the woman that he wants, simply because she loves his brother, but because he has been denied, he takes it out on Titus, a loyal and faithful general. The Goth Queen seeks vengeance because Titus sacrificed her older son despite her pleas, and when she exacts her revenge upon the Adronici, she earns Titus' wrath.The play seems to shift about halfway through, and I believe the cinematography captures this brilliantly. The movie does not set the action in a set time or place, it is the modern world, but it is a world torn apart by violence and anger. It is still Rome, but it is a Rome of the imagination, and the movie is bookended by scenes of the action taking place in a Colosseum, which places the film clearly into the realm of the imagination. This is good as it is further distancing ourselves from the violence erupting within the film. It has also been said, by the director, that the entire film is seen through the eyes of a child. In the play the child plays a minor role, but in the film, he is ever present. It opens with the child playing with toys, but the play becomes ever more violent, and in fact the entire room in which the child is explodes in a ball of fire, indicating the violence that is about to swallow the lives of the Andronici.The centre piece of the play is where Titus is pleading for the lives of his sons. He has previously killed a son, has seen his daughter raped and mutilated, and then watches with helplessness as two of his sons are lead off to be executed. It is all apart of the Queen's plan to destroy Titus' life. In this scene his brother, Marcus, is encouraging Titus to slay himself, this was common in the Roman Empire when somebody had been dishonoured and his life had been destroy. However Titus is strong in will, and will not desert those who have been wronged. He knows that he has been dishonoured, but he knows that to kill himself is to give up, and especially leave his beloved daughter unavenged.There seems to be no redeeming features in any of the characters, though none of them are strictly villains. Even Aaron, the Moor and the Queen's lover, is motivated by jealousy in that his lover has been stolen from him. However he considers himself a wicked man, and when he faces execution he is more that willing to spill his guts that to remain loyal. However, when he is finally given his punishment, he even repents of any good deed that he may have done. I don't sympathise, or even empathise with any of the characters. True, Titus has shown nothing but loyalty to his emperor, but has only been a victim of circumstance, or so it seems. The key here is the sacrifice of the Queen's son. Granted, human sacrifice was not tolerated in Rome, at all, that is one of the reasons they went to war with Carthage, so it is tempted to believe that Titus went overboard, until we consider the play. Titus is convinced that it is something that he needs to do, and he cannot back out of it, though I still cannot help thinking that maybe, just maybe, the sacrifice of a human was not necessary.

Luke Titus, a Roman general (played by Anthony Hopkins), finds his world falling apart around him when a scorned enemy, Tamora (Jessica Lange) gains the power to exact revenge against him. At his lowest point Titus begins to plan his own even more terrible revenge against Tamora who shows no sign of stopping her tormenting him.The story, set in a timeless almost fantasy like Rome, is more gruesome than Hamlet (1996), another Shakespeare film with a theme based on revenge. Tamora's revenge is terrible and is aimed mostly at Titus' family. She has two of Titus' sons framed and executed for murder and his daughter raped, her hands and tongue cut off because as he says "He that wounded her hath hurt me more than had he killed me dead." She also has Titus cut his own hand off in the false hope that his two sons will be spared. There is a lot of focus on children and family in the use of revenge and Titus' revenge is no different, he serves Tamora her own two sons baked into a pie, which she eats in front of him and seems to enjoy.Julie Taymor uses dramatic costumes to help portray the personalities of the characters the costumes are all a mix of Classical, Elizabethan, and the more modern World War Two German uniforms. Particularly interesting is Saturnus' (Allan Cumming) costumes. Most of his costumes have features from World War Two Germany and his hair cut is an exaggerated version of Hitler's, he wears the effeminate make up of men from the 1920's the whole effect portraying him as a sniveling but vengeful and dangerous dictator.The use of symbolism is also strong throughout the movie. One notable scene is just after Tamora has pleaded to Saturnus of Titus' innocence. She pauses to look at Titus and the image of flames arise between them, then the burning limbs of a statue representing the limbs of her first born son that Titus had cut off and burned and finally a statue's torso bearing the same mark as Titus used to mark her son. This gives Tymora reason to hate Titus and plan her revenge. Another good use of symbolism is the scene where Lavinia, Titus' daughter relives her rape. Tamora's two sons represented as tigers pounce on Lavinia wearing a white dress that is blowing up reminiscent of the famous Marylin Monroe scene from The Seven Year Itch (1955). This moment is where Titus likewise begins to plan his revenge.Revenge is best served cold but the characters that indulge in terrible revenge in this movie all wind up dead, consumed by the destructive nature of their sense of justice.

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.