Released 2004
Stars Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, Lynn Collins, Zuleikha Robinson, Kris Marshall, Charlie Cox, Heather Goldenhersh
Directed by Michael Radford

William Shakespeare's incendiary drama about passion and justice amid an anti-Semitic atmosphere hits the screen again in this lush production starring Al Pacino. Lacking money to woo an heiress (Lynn Collins), smitten Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) turns to his merchant friend, Antonio (Jeremy Irons), whose cash is tied up. But he secures a loan from Shylock (Pacino) on condition that if Antonio defaults, he'll pay with a pound of flesh -- literally.

Summary by www.netflix.com

I haven't read this play, and I was surprised to learn afterwards it's one of Shakespeare's comedies. This adaptation is mostly a drama with some ill-advised attempts at humor. The main problem is this version gives humanity to Shylock and sympathy for his plight, but he's treated like a dog in the end while the other characters, including his daughter, merrily celebrate his defeat. The play is quite anti-Semitic, but I'm sure that's how Venice was in those times so you have to forgive it. The Jews are, however, presented with some level of humanity, and Shylock is given a chance to speak out against their treatment. It's not clear, though, whether he wants Antonio's pound of flesh because he believes Antonio was involved with his daughter's eloping, or whether it's because he simply wants revenge on a Christian. I wanted to know the precise motivation for his ferocious desire for Antonio's death. Earlier, as part of the Jewish caricature, Shylock is observed moaning in the streets about the loss of both his daughter and his ducats, but he later spurns double and triple the payment so he may have Antonio's flesh. It's possible the play isn't clear about his motivation either, but I doubt the play treated Shylock as well as the movie if it was a comedy. So I have to give the film some credit for Shylock's portrayal, but the ending is horrible. After Shylock has everything, including his beloved religion, stripped from him, the rest of the characters spend another 10-15 minutes with some foolishness about missing rings. From that scene, I could the farcical aspect of the play, but it didn't connect whatsoever with the trial that had just preceded it. If the movie wanted to treat the play as a drama, it needed a dramatic ending--not some cross-dressing nonsense. --Bill Alward, June 18, 2005