Mr. Radford had taken up a daunting task to make a perfect film adaptation of this classic. But he got on his side enough budget, a superb cast and a brilliant screenplay. And so he succeeds to come out with one of the best film adaptations of Shakespeare. Radford gets an original take on anti-Semitism. From the very opening of the film it is quite evident. Many stage versions of the play portray Shylock as the uni-directional villain. But the tragic-hero Shylock, a victim of Christian-Jew sentiments that we always crave for is totally present in Radford's vision. But Radford needed an actor to work it out completely. And he got the best candidate.

Dustin Hoffman reportedly wanted to play Shylock in this film. I can't say how he would do; but Pacino's performance is enough to experience the character's every essence. The way he says "And for these courtesies I am to lend you money" , the way he screams "I want her dead at my feet" , the way he shows impatience when Antonio says his last words to Bassanio in the courtroom are unforgettable touches of his genius. On the other hand Jeremy Irons gives a flat performance as Antonio who is also a complex character. Same can be said about Joseph Fieness's Bassanio. What fascinated me is Lynn Collins' take on Portia. This virtually unheard classic beauty captures the character's intelligence quite nicely.

It is rated R for some nudity. I think those shots add effectively to the beauty of this film. I'd certainly recommend young people to watch this film. Because even the most avid Shakespeare-lover would be proud to see such an adaptation.

Al Pacino is terrific in this film. I loved his performance. Jeremy Irons is also great.

I would have rated this film even higher, but it is based on Shakespeare's play, and Shakespeare did not handle this play's plot very well. He put a comic romantic scene near the end of what is otherwise a very tragic story. This "rings" scene near the end makes no sense to me. It does not fit in with the rest of the film, either in storyline or emotional tone. And because this scene comes near the end, it ruins what until this point had been a terrific cinematic experience.

am i naive? i don't believe -- nor from the background piece to the film i read by director/scenarist Michael Radford -- that Shakespeare -- whomever he was -- was indeed antisemitic; i believe that if anything, given the breadth & depth of the Bard's canon, his intention was to portray the extent to which the Jew was put-upon in those times; and, furthermore, that appears to be reason enough for resurrecting the play to film now by Radford; in fact -- and, yes, i've read the play, but only once thru -- what i took away from the film mostly was how righteous one may be in this world, but, alas, to no avail, since the world too often rewards the guilty, or, at least, the less than innocent (cf. Albert Camus's "The Fall"); for what really does Shylock in is not that he is wrong, but, rather, his rectitude: he is in the right, howsoever mercilessly so, and he has the oath to prove it -- but he cannot beat the world at its own gamesmanship; think ye anon of thou liege who doth provide thine victuals and how oft thine liege wrongeth thee and yet prove right for, after all, thy liege is thy liege and thus be thy master; in other words, the boss is never wrong even when you know yourself to be 100% right cuz he doth sign thine paychex, fardel.

as for Radford's film itself, i suppose it belongs in a class with Lord Olivier's Shakespearian cinema works & Peter Brook's King Lear, which is to say, it merits viewing & possible re-viewing; Lynn Collins is an able Portia & ranks with Emma Thompson's work as Princess Katherine in then-husband's Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V" for astonishing first work noted by this writer; production design, costume, cinematography are of high standards as they should be.