Goes about as well as could be expected for a play I was never fond of, and a particularly rough period for the Welles man.

It is visually bold, sharply edited, generally acted well (Welles is of course the highlight) and feels far more cinematic than Welles' stagey and rigid Macbeth adaptation. The best scene is the much praised scene in the Turkish bath, though other scenes certainly stand proud like the final murder and the glorious opening and closing marches. It is a really good adaptation that is ruined by it's rubbish sound quality - you literally can't hear something like a quarter of the dialogue!

655

Some very interesting camera angles, and an extremely nasty Iago played by Michael MacLiammoir, but the film looks rushed and cobbled together, and the audio is always poor and sometimes unintelligible. Welles didn't have the money he needed, and it shows.

Orson abimiz benim cektigim filmde bir zenci oynayacaksa onu da ben oynarim diyerek cok yonluluge ayri bir anlam katm%u0131is.

#526

Considering the circumstances under which it was made, it's sort of the best home movie ever made. Wonderfully shot and acted (I could watch Welles all day), but emotionally distant - probably due to the jarred and threadbare filming.

# 551

Sorry, but like with so much Shakespeare I was bored stiff

Not as great as Welles' other Shakespeare adaptations, but still pretty great. It just feels a little less magnificent; the photography is less stunning, the story less involving (though I love the play), the acting less impressive. Or maybe I'm letting my opinions be colored by the rougher, unrestored cut I saw. Either way, it's still an excellent, taut film and technically outstanding as always.

I will be forever in awe of Orson Welles; especially for not letting hardships and obstacles to dampen his flair and vision. Had he had money would have he produced even more memorable masterpieces? Maybe, or maybe not. Perhaps his genius has been specially triggered by all the drama. Not his best (Well, his best is THE best) but certainly commendable.

The audio in this film survives in a rough state, and about half of the dialogue is pretty tough to decipher. Even so, each character's relationship with another is clearly defined, and its themes are presented coherently. The plot's progression is never lost on the viewer. Masterful angles and compositions, efficient editing, and strong physical performances make this a triumph of cinematic expression. Welles is great, but it's really Micheal MacLiammoir who steals the show as Iago.

588

I didn't comprehend roughly 40% of the dialogue, and spent the first act feeling very confused. The film itself feels rushed, and undoubtedly large portions of the tale have been excised. But it's still a really compelling tale, and although it's not one of my favorites by Welles, I liked it far more than I expected to. Except for the incosistent blackface and some poor ADR work, the film is technically stunning. Almost every shot is breathtaking or unusual or just looks freakin' cool.

Themes and editing don't make a film good, but in this case they at least make it worthwhile. The plot is just frustrating to watch when everything is telegraphed from about 10 minutes in and the themes, while plentiful and important, are criminally underdeveloped. Still Welles did some interesting things visually and, while I think he would have been better as Iago, he made for an interesting Othello. The final minutes also were good enough to make up for some of the preceding slowness.

This is compromised by Welles's limitations as an actor; as usual, he makes virtues of his faults. A muscular film, bounding rather than smoldering with jealous energy. Exultantly theatrical and filmic.