This is probably Shakespeare's tragedy at it's most entertaining. I like the recent surge of films that reset the bard's works into modern times. Sometimes they work (like the luster of Branaugh's breathtaking 'Hamlet') sometimes they don't (as in the busy rock video 'Romeo + Juliet').Richard III sits somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure that this is the most fitting to present Shakespeare's tale of murder and bloodlust in a German coup circa WWII. However, as an entertainment I have to say I was captivated.I liked the touches of having Richard III (Ian McKellan) deliver his opening monologue while standing at a urinal and I have to say that I loved McKellan shouting 'MY KINGDOM FOR A HORSE' while his jeep is stuck in the mud. McKellan plays the daylights out of the character (It's not as good as it is onstage but I can forgive him for that).It may not be right to play around with Shakespeare's settings but I'm just glad Hollywood is interested in him again. This is a minor adaptation the bard's work but I still enjoyed it.

Interesting allegory on Balkan syndrome and very good directing in artistic way, but this is about it. Everything else is a failure. Composition that mostly comprehends directors impression on Balkan phenomena and its reasons and consequences. Role of the film that has been recorded and hidden is probably the formula for Balkan happiness that can't be found. Beginning of the world civilization, beginning of all great wars and conflicts and world in small - these are the Balkans. But no trace, no reason no recipe, no solution. This is good. Very well represented - artistic as the film suppose to be and by all means I do support Theo by that. But ... I don't believe that you can make a film that is going to be slight idea of an expressionist understood only by himself. The film should be artistic way to show the reality to the spectator, an art lover. I have lived most of my life on Balkans, where I was born, among that many years in Greece, but still I cannot follow all the impressions of the director placed in the film. I believe that impressions are for the audience - as a spectator but also as a film maker. All in all, great actor as Harvey Keitel could be used in much better way. The same for the never ending resources on Balkan ideas. 5 out of 10 for Theo.

Truly a masterpiece, perhaps the best film of the 90s. Angelopoulos made an incredibly beautiful, poetic and deep film. When you consider its title, many people pay too much attention to the word "Ulysses", when "Gaze" is probably more important. This film is about the loss of innocence. The main character, "A", searches for the Mannakis films. Pioneer filmmakers in the region, "A" wants to recover their innocent sight, that first sight of the early days in cinema. That search takes him on a journey around the Balkans, during the war. Angelopoulos wants to show us that, just as we have lost our innocent gaze towards films, there's no possible innocent gaze in a war, no objective approach. There's too much history behind, too much baggage, too much hate. There are no good or bad sides; everybody kills each other. That's why the final showing of the Mannakis tapes is so touching. Finally, a clean sight, an innocent gaze.

Somebody once said that DW Griffith is to blame for having a wide open horizon, full of possibilities, and settling for melodrama as the blueprint of the movie-going experience.However, once in a long while, a film comes along that breaks the mold and shows us once again what can be done. Glimpses only, hints at untapped potential. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is one such example. Fellini's "Satyricon" is another. "Solaris" by Tarkovsky. And so is "Ulysses' Gaze". There are more.I like to be challenged, even as I enjoy some standard Hollywood fare. I like to be shaken up with the promise of a nudge towards enlightenment. I love to feel awakened from my everyday, sleepwalking mode.Granted, "Ulysses' Gaze" is NOT for everyone. But to dismiss this film as "another one of those art films", to call it bloated, is an exercise in laziness. And to condemn Angelopoulos of arrogance, well, how about considering the terms confidence and conviction instead? I do not pretend to understand "Ulysses' Gaze", the film is so riddled with ambiguities and leaps back and forth into the realm of the subconscious and the surreal. I just allow myself to go with the flow, and regard a world that is so outside of the grid that it is like watching a transmission from another planet, with real people I identify, sharing genuine affection in small gestures. And even though the English dialogue is lacking at times, there is not a single one of those "Hallmark moments" that seems to pervade in contemporary Hollywood fare.As for the prolonged landscape scenes, they show parts of the world (Albania, Bulgaria) that are as unknown to me as the bottom of the ocean. If just for this alone, I am hypnotized.To make the effort, to absorb "Ulysses' Gaze", is a small step towards understanding the ruthless, constant plight of the people of that small corner of the world that is the Balkans. Just one small corner. Imagine.I have to say that "Ulysses' Gaze" is an incredible film, one of a few by which XX century's great cinema should (and will) eventually be regarded.