SPOILERS Every year the Royal Shakespeare Company produces some wonderful performances of the bards plays. With an entire catalogue of actors, the company has produced some of (if not all) of Britain's best actors for decades now. One of these actors is Sir Ian McKellen, and one year while touring as Richard III, Sir Ian had the idea to write a modern twist on the tale. Relocating the story of the evil, disfigured king to a fictional 1930's Fascist Britain, McKellen has produced a sublime piece of cinema with top notch acting and some great cinematography.

In 1930's Britain, the House of York is on the throne. Led by King Edward IV, the family are happy and content. That is, all except Edward's crippled brother Richard (McKellen). With eyes on the throne, Richard will kill and scheme to get what he desires the most.

The play of "Richard III" is perhaps one of Shakespeare's most well known plays. Used at the time as propaganda against enemies of the Tudor Dynasty, Shakespeare corrupted the public view of Richard so successfully that to this day his lies about Richard resonate in History discussions.

Relocation of the story of Richard from it's original time frame to 1930's Britain was a masterstroke by Sir Ian McKellen. Using Nazi style clothing (McKellen even wearing a Nazi uniform for the majority of the film), banners (replacing the Swastika with Richard's Boar) and military processions, McKellen has created a twisted past. This Britain, this Fascist land with it's royal family in their clothes of the era, is a disturbing place which sticks in the mind long after the end of the film.

Another novel approach to the story is the notion of certain members of the family being American. Designed to represent the social climbing, the idea works brilliantly, with Annette Bening being the best of the American's involved.

There are problems with this adaptation however. Whilst both minor, and with good motivation, they do ring true. Firstly, the dialogue is trimmed by half. Whilst necessary to prevent the film becoming a four hour epic, it always feels like a minor tragedy when people begin to amputate Shakespeare's works.

The second problem with McKellen's work is to do with the soundtrack. Whilst the idea of getting a Marlow poem and setting it to 1930's music is an absolutely wonderful idea, it does ruin the end of the film. At the beginning we hear the music and we forgive it as it sets the scene. Come the final few scenes of the film though and the music ruins the mood. The jolly beat of the tune is unnecessary and destroys the tone of the conclusion. In effect it would be like something with a reggae beat playing in the background as the main hero died in a love story. Basically, whether good music or not, it is an inappropriate choice for the moment in time.

There's minor awkward flaws in Sir Ian McKellen's "Richard III", but with so many outstanding acting performances, and some stunning use of the time era, these flaws are forgivable. Whether as good as older interpretations of the story or not, this version of the tale is completely underrated and well worth a viewing.