Shakespeare can do no wrong... WRONG!

Rating: 3/10 (28 February 2012)

The assumption that William Shakespeare is a god amongst men is just about as absurd as it sounds. Yes, he is an exceptional writer. Yes, he did make some amazing plays, "Hamlet" being the pinnacle of his writing career. And yes, he is just about as fallible as everybody else.
Shakespeare's greatest asset is, without a doubt, his ability to utilize the English language to nearly its absolute maximum. However, he often falls into a trap of "lazy writing" in his stories. "Coriolanus" is a perfect example of that. William just didn't think it through well enough with all the consequences as a result.
There are two major plot holes in the play. Aufidius declares eternal vengeance against Martius (but not Rome, for some reason), but then embraces him as a brother once Martius decides to defect. Really? Eternal vengeance is something one doesn't declare lightly. Not only that, but Aufidius gives Martius half his army to do as he pleases. In my opinion, it would have made a lot more sense if Aufidius swore vengeance against Rome, whilst respecting Martius as a worthy adversary.
The second plot hole is basically the same as the first. After being exiled, Martius then Coriolanus, swears bloody vendetta against the citizens of Rome. Nearing the end of the campaign his mother comes to him in order to plead for mercy. He submits... Really? Bloody vendetta is not something one declares lightly... Again.
Coriolanus as a character is probably the worst. He's a whining mommy's boy, despite looking tough. Not once, but twice had he been screwed over by his mother's wishes. The first time being her attempt at making a politician out of a soldier. Oedipus complex, anybody?
Other than that, the story could have been really good. Just change the antagonist's motivations and mutate the ending by, you know, locking your family in a cell whilst you burn all the Rome in your quest for revenge. Problem?
As for the film itself. The idea of Shakespearian plays being integrated into the modern world works just about as well as "Warhammer 40k" with orcs and "elves" running around, wielding swords and plasma guns. What's the word for it again? Ah, I remember: "stupid". Not to mention that it is really, really overdone. Ralph Fiennes didn't bring anything new to the table. Even "Romeo + Juliet" was better, at least it was executed a lot more competently in its cinematography.
Acting is good though, but both Fiennes and Butler are decent actors, so no surprises there.
In the end nor the movie, nor the play it was based upon are that good. A grave Shakespearian stamp on this work should not make it immune to criticism. And it won't make it so, not as long as you and I dare to think for ourselves.