This film rather surprised me. First, the dialogue appears to all be genuine Shakespeare, or otherwise modern writing in convincing Shakespearean fashion. As a result, the dialogue is fantastically poetic and a joy to listen to, especially as the cast delivered the lines superbly. The acting is almost without exception of the high level one could expect after a look at the cast.
Although the play is one of Shakespeare's earlier works and therefore not his best, as the result of some odd and not so subtle twists and turns, the story is still thoroughly enjoyable. A good story with mesmerising dialogue and great acting... how can this not be a masterpiece? Why the two-star review?

Well, unfortunately, the film was largely ruined by the director's insistence on using any number of intentional anachronisms. Throughout the film, different time periods are mixed, resulting in Roman soldiers using WWII weaponry, characters left, right and centre being dressed in twentieth century… more »

This film rather surprised me. First, the dialogue appears to all be genuine Shakespeare, or otherwise modern writing in convincing Shakespearean fashion. As a result, the dialogue is fantastically poetic and a joy to listen to, especially as the cast delivered the lines superbly. The acting is almost without exception of the high level one could expect after a look at the cast.
Although the play is one of Shakespeare's earlier works and therefore not his best, as the result of some odd and not so subtle twists and turns, the story is still thoroughly enjoyable. A good story with mesmerising dialogue and great acting... how can this not be a masterpiece? Why the two-star review?

Well, unfortunately, the film was largely ruined by the director's insistence on using any number of intentional anachronisms. Throughout the film, different time periods are mixed, resulting in Roman soldiers using WWII weaponry, characters left, right and centre being dressed in twentieth century clothing and cars being used in various scenes. Although various explanations have been suggested for this use of intentional anachronism (most commonly it has been suggested that it shows the play to be timeless), this practice has resulted in a constant breaking of the film's magic. As the intentional anachronisms permeate the film, they are highly invasive to the story and strongly influence the entire viewing experience.
Furthermore, the director also occasionally uses vision-style graphics which tend to be very over the top and none to subtle, whereas viewers could have easily filled in a blank here or there.
A last major nuissance is the shift of focus between play and film. The audience largely views the film through the character of a young boy, Titus's grandson, who becomes one of the main characters, where the play leaves him mostly untouched. This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the useless moralising role he ends fulfilling and, well, the point that his very presence on screen is in itself rather annoying.

In conclusion, I would argue that as long as one is happy to see constant blending of time periods, with Roman soldiers on motorbikes and many more such anachronisms, the film is definitely worth watching. The story, acting and dialogue for a mesmerising film that is highly enjoyable, but unfortunately, the anachronisms completely ruined the experience. Others may feel differently about this mode used by the director; in fact, some reviews I have read elsewhere have applauded the daring move and regard Titus as the best adaptation of a Shakespearean play that one can find. If you're not put off by images of Roman soldiers in WWII clothing, it will be worth a watch!