this is the highly subjective way I read and interpret literature
(the emphasis lies on literature, so you'll only find a couply of trashy readings here and there)
Richard III. Hm.
Well, I think the beginning is a bit slow (not to say tedious) and there are a lot of characters. Maybe this play is less confusing for the English, because they have more insight on the War of Roses and the whole history of their monarchy. But I have no idea, how all of those characters are related to each other and even after I read it up, I still forgot and/or confused a lot of them. Luckily for me, most of them died anyways throughout the play.
I had the feeling, that the quality of Richards character was declining as the play advanced. Which is really sad, because I think Richard III is a fascinating role. For me he started out multilayered and actually quite likeable but ended somewhat flat and one dimensional – and not that likeable any more. The same actually applies to the other characters as well.
By the way, does anyone here understand, why Lady Anne agrees to marry him? (I can somehow understand how one could fall for a younger Ian McKellen in the movie adaption, but seriously, I do not really understand that woman).
With the exception of the last act, most of the action is happening off stage, so you are left with the appearance of messengers reporting the latest executions from the Tower. The play itself focuses mainly on intrigues and scheming, which can of course also be entertaining.
The introduction to the play in my edition says, that there is a special relationship between Richard III and Macbeth. Well, I don’t see that one. Actually, Richard III reminded me a lot of Julius Ceasar, but hey, why not throw in a little bit of Macbeth as well?