Not a total success but engaging and well acted

Rating: Null/10 (5 June 2012)

Not only had I never seen this Shakespeare play before seeing this film, I had never even heard of it and came to it with no lofty ideals or preconceptions about how it should be done or any protectionist feelings towards the text. I mention this because I have read several reviews from critics trying harder to show how intelligent they are rather than reviewing the film but mainly because I have no idea about what this film version has taken out of the original story, or how it has changed the focus, so please bare with me if I am incorrect in something as I only have the film here to go on.
Not having ever heard of the play before did give me pause, because I assumed there must be a reason why it is less well-known and less performed than other Shakespeare work – perhaps it isn't that good or it is very difficult as a body of text? I didn't know but I think part of it may be that Coriolanus is a fairly stand-offish character throughout the story. Again, remembering that I'm not familiar with the text, it surprised me that Shakespeare doesn't really give his lead character any "to-camera" dialogue whereby we learn more of his inner motives and feelings, it is normally such a common device that I wondered why it wasn't done here because at times the character seems quite closed off. In addition to this the character is very proud, which is the point of the tragedy and he is hard to feel for because he is so very trapped behind this wall he has made himself – unable to let even a slight offence pass and happen to burn his city to the ground due to an insult cooked up by media manipulation. It works but he is not the most engaging Shakespearean character I've seen.
The contemporary setting is interesting as a background because it does seem to fit the story pretty well, in particularly the tribunes/journalists twisting the people to feel a certain way while the political classes both sneer at the people but say the right things. Some have commented on how timely the film in because it fits in with news footage of people rioting against their ruling classes, however I actually thought that this was an unfortunate distraction because the film doesn't work as a comment on real life nor does is it really able to do much. So while it is background all this is fine but there are occasions where I felt the "news footage" aspects were being pushed to the fore where really this is about the handful of main characters – not about making a comment on current political unrest.
The cast deal well with this distraction though and as is so often the way there are lots of good performances which help to make the material easier to understand thanks to the contextualising of their delivery. Fiennes is very tight and controlled in his performance which is part of his character's nature but it does unfortunately mean he is shut off from the viewer in the way others are not. Butler manages well with the lines but never doesn't feel like an odd casting choice. Cox, Nesbitt and others are well used but the most fascinating performance is from Redgrave as she is great in every scene she is in; I wanted more from her in terms of time and I got the feeling that background matters were pushing the film away from letting this central mother/son relationship be the core of the film.
Coriolanus is a good film; it is easy to follow and has great flow to the dialogue but it does suffer from its main character being shut off by his pride and not having many opportunities to let the viewer inside. Perhaps this is why it is a lesser-performed play compared to others, but it does make it a little more difficult to go along with the film even if it overall is still worth seeing.