The Merchant of Venice (2004)

Set in late sixteenth century Venice, a time when Jews were heavily persecuted in Europe, Shylock is a Jewish money lender who is approached by Antonio, a wealthy merchant who has previously abused him. Antonio needs a large loan to help his good friend Bassanio woo the beautiful Portia; he is given the loan, interest free, but Shylock demands that if the loan in not repaid by the stipulated date he will have a pound of Antonio's flesh… literally. Antonio isn't worried though as he owns several ships that should return to Venice with valuable cargo before the loan is due. Shortly afterwards Shylock's daughter elopes with a Christian and Antonio's ships sink… this leads Shylock to look forward to the day that he can extract his pound of flesh as revenge for all those who persecuted him. Meanwhile Bassanio successfully woos and marries Portia but no sooner has he got the ring on his finger, which he swears to never remove, does he hear about Antonio's plight; he rushes back to Venice but it looks as though his friend is doomed… until a boyish young doctor speaks at his trial.This is one of those stories that is so famous that everybody thinks they know it… it's the one about the avaricious Jew who demands a pound of flesh… of course in reality it is much more than that. For a start Shylock is a surprisingly sympathetic character; he and his people are reviled and it is clear that far from being motivated by avarice he is motivated by revenge. Of course it helps that Al Pacino gives a fantastic performance in the role; making the viewer feel his pain. The rest of the cast are impressive too; Jeremy Irons is great as Antonio; especially when it looks as if he is going to die, Joseph Fiennes puts in a solid performance as Bassanio and Lynn Collins is a delight as Portia. The story itself is an enjoyable mix of comedy and drama; sometimes at the same time. The film looks great with lots of impressive Venetian settings; it certainly doesn't feel stagy. Some viewers may be surprised at the sight of topless women in a PG rated film (UK Rating) but this is shown if a fairly matter of fact way without any titillation. Overall this was a fine film that I'd recommend to anybody wanting to watch this classic story.

The Merchant of Venice (2004): Dir: Michael Radford / Cast: Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, Lynn Collins, Zuleikha Robinson: Powerful William Shakespeare adaptation about conquest that ultimately leads to self damnation. Jews are persecuted while Christianity dominates but Shylock agrees to lend Antonio money but through a sealed bond, which could result in a pound of his flesh if the bond is broken. His young friend Bassanio has fallen in love with Portia, which leads to Antonio's assistance through the bond. Perhaps the one argument that could be made is that of the forced religious views dealt out during crucial moments otherwise director Michael Radford establishes the look and time frame that are crucial to the viewpoint. As Shylock Pacino has suffered many losses but his anger afflicts him with his biggest loss. Jeremy Irons displays passion and love for Bassanio but reluctantly accepts consequences. Joseph Fiennes is well cast as Bassanio while Lynn Collins steals scenes as the resourceful Portia whose wit comes through during a clever cross exam. Other roles are not so broad and mainly seen as appearances exclusively. Here is one of the better Shakespeare adaptations produced that presents strong images of human excel. It also presents a strong theme regarding the downfall of revenge and how hate can ultimately destroy us. Score: 8 ½ / 10

One of Shakespeare's best works, yet incredibly underused in cinema; involving such memorable characters like the Venetian merchant Antonio, his friend Bassanio, Bassanio's beloved Portia and, of course, the Jewish moneylender Shylock. Antonio takes money from Shylock so Bassanio can use it to compete for Portia's hand; however, when he fails to pay the debt, Shylock takes him to court for the right to his bond: a pound of flesh, from Antonio.The story is very good, as often with Shakespeare's plays. Director Michael Radford (who had previously made the best adaptation of Orwell's '1984' so far) manages to make a captivating scenario in the form of 1586 Venice; almost every scene is nice to look at, with both the city itself and the costumes looking straight from a Renaissance painting. Jeremy Irons is excellent as Antonio, conveying the sad and contradictory nature of his character without needing words; yet, he is upstaged by Al Pacino, one of the best and most sympathetic Shylock I've ever seen, complete with one of the best rendition's of the famous 'Hath not a Jew eyes?' speech.It is often with 'The Merchant of Venice' that Shylock completely steals the show, and because of it a film adaptation of it is often avoided. It is no wonder: as a Jew character written in a time Jews were badly seen, he (and his ultimate fate) often makes the play seen anti-semitic. Yet, Shakespeare doesn't make the mistake of portraying him as any less than a human; Radford reinforces it, which combined with Pacino's masterful acting makes us truly feel for Shylock, sad for his daughter's actions, for his treatment by the Venetians, and makes his anger and actions comprehensible though still wrong.There are problems, though. Within the play, that is often a fault of Antonio and Jessica, Shylock's daughter. They are far too contradictory and Antonio is often too mopey, to the point of both being unlikable without a good performer portraying them (and flat-out insufferable with a bad one). Thankfully, Jeremy Irons is a great one: his Antonio isn't the 'oh I suffer so much!' kind of character I dislike in most plays, but one whose suffering is both explainable and sympathetic.On the other hand, Zuleikha Robinson does an overly poor Jessica; yet, by making Jessica that unlikeable it ends up making Shylock the more sympathetic in his suffering. On another negative note, is the 'comedy' side of the play; far less compelling than the tragedy of Shylock and serving little other than starting and ending that side, it doubles here by having a very weak performances. Joseph Fiennes gets around by way of his pretty-boy looks rather than acting skill (the opposite of his brother, Ralph Fiennes); plus, he looks far too mischievous and treacherous for the good guy Bassanio. Lynn Collins, likewise, is rather uneventful as Portia and, while far from bad looking, doesn't really seem all that worthy of Bassanio's and Antonio's sacrifices. However, she shines in the courtroom scene, not really matching but being a worthy foil for Pacino's Shylock.Overall, a very good film and adaptation of one of my favorites from Shakespeare. The excellent scenarios and visuals, along with masterful performances from Jeremy Irons and Al Pacino, more than make up for the minor drawbacks; I just wished this story would get to see the light of day more.

This film is billed as,"William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice". It is not. It is Michael Radford's Merchant of Venice and all its faults are Radford's. The first line written by Shakespeare isn't heard until the film has been running for about six and a half minutes.Its seems that Mr Radford didn't know much about Shakespeare's plays when he did this film. He obviously didn't know that MOV was one of Shakespeare's comedies. There are no tragic figures in the comedies! Shakespeare's comedies were meant to be light and quick in performance. Instead he has given us a heavy handed version,slow moving as a glacier,full of darkness, pointless pauses, and very annoying whispering/mumbling, mostly by Joseph Fiennes though other actors follow his example from time to time. Even the episode with the rings is played with deadly seriousness. It seems Mr Radford can't recognise comedy when it is staring him in the face.Trying to turn a comedy into a tragedy is as foolish as trying to turn a tragedy into a comedy. But Radford was determined to make Shylock look like a tragic figure deserving of our sympathy so he went ahead and did it. He is not the first director to make that mistake.This is a very disappointing version of a great play. It takes second place on my list of worst ever filmed versions of Shakespeare (just behind a version of Julius Caesar starring Jason Robards)