Though widely regarded as one of the best of Shakespeare's histories (some would say that it is simply the best), this play has been remarkably under-represented in the cinema. As far as I've been able to discover, there have been no theatrical releases whatever, and a handful of television productions, all of which are fairly hard to find. Fortunately, at least one is superlative.

1960, Michael Hayes: This early BBC miniseries called An Age of Kings was recently rescued from undeserved obscurity by a DVD release, and it's a treasure. It represents a decision to put the whole sequence of Shakespeare's two tetralogies together into a continuous whole and then break them up again into shorter segments. In the process, some of the theatrical structure of the originals is compromised; it is, nevertheless, very competently played. There are some of the best actors of their generation in these episodes, and they are, despite 1960s black-and-white television production standards, eminently worth watching. The first two episodes ("The Hollow Crown" and "The Deposing of a King") cover the material of Richard II. A youthful Sean Connery plays the firebrand Hotspur in the later Henry IV pieces of the series.

Highly recommended, in much the same way as I have recommended The Hollow Crown below. If you can only watch one, the best, to my way of thinking, will still be the BBC Shakespeare. But this is a very acceptable substitute.

1978, David Giles: The BBC Shakespeare Plays version of Richard II is one of the crowning achievements of the series. Derek Jacobi is possibly the finest living Shakespearean actor, and he brings a perfectly-attuned sensitivity to this very difficult role — second perhaps only to Hamlet in its complexity and in the number of contradictions the character has to support. (I'd argue that Jacobi has also created the finest Hamlet on film, in the same series.) In the beginning, he must embody Richard's arrogance and caprice; by the end, he must show us a Richard who has grown in dignity, even as his powers are stripped away from him. To integrate the two parts is very difficult, but Jacobi does a completely convincing job throughout.

The remainder of the cast is likewise excellent. An aging but still healthy John Gielgud portrays John of Gaunt, and so has the delivery of Shakespeare's most lyrical encomium to England; Jon Finch makes the rebel Bolingbroke (Henry IV) likeable and appealing without ever letting us forget that he is, nevertheless, a usurper. His growing uncertainties about what he is doing mesh seamlessly with Richard's ultimate recovery of the knowledge of who and what he is.

If you can possibly find and view this performance, do so.

1982, William Woodman: Starring David Birney — a variably interesting production, with some outstanding moments. It preserves the farcical scene in which everyone is challenging everyone else to a duel, unlike the Jacobi production above, though it is filmed with minimal production values.

Birney's performance, though, is at least committed, and the shape of the play remains intact under this handling.

Worth seeing, if you don't have to go too far out of your way to do so. It is neither particularly revealing nor particularly engaging.

2001, John Farrell: Starring Matte Osian as Richard, this received almost no exposure. After viewing it, I can see why. It seems to be mindlessly pursuing the trend in modern-dress Shakespeare histories marked most notably by the Ian McKellan version of Richard III, but it is made with almost unknown actors, and with a budget that just may have topped ten dollars. It seems to be set in the jungle enclave of a Latin American guerrila: everyone is dressed in fatigues and berets, and machine guns are everywhere in evidence. The score seems to have been knocked together over a weekend on a MIDI keyboard, like a weak imitation of the score from the game "Myst". The sets seem to be disused bunkers somewhere. Either the DVD transfer was very sloppily done, or the original was shot on an inexpensive digital video camera: for something made in 2001, the image quality is quite low.

From my point of view, the most important ingredient in any Shakespeare production is the performances themselves, and unfortunately these are on beyond lackluster. At least some of the actors seem to be confused by the words, which they occasionally mispronounce (cf. "lowering hate" in the first section — which should rhyme with "souring" rather than with the opposite of "raising"). Even when not doing that, they seem to be spitting out the words rather than expressing the ideas. John of Gaunt's speech is cut almost completely, and the rest of the text is mercilessly butchered as well. Pared back to barely an hour and a half, it erodes the text further by giving over lengthy sections to gun fights lacking dialogue altogether. One gets the sense that the makers were really rather bored with Shakespeare, and wanted to convey their indifference to the viewer. The end product seems too long by half an hour at least.

For all that, there are a few terrific moments, and a few inspired shots — as when the exiles are passing down a long road with a huge looming moon overhead; on the balance, though, it doesn't come close to either of the other two productions — all in all, as someone is said to have said about Wagner's operas, it contains a few good moments and some terrible half hours.

Worth seeing chiefly if you are a completist and want to see all the examples, or if it would be a great deal of trouble to avoid. Otherwise don’t bother.

2012, Rupert Goold: A BBC miniseries called The Hollow Crown appeared in 2012, covering the two tetralogies of Shakespeare History plays (that is, not including the two outlying pieces King John and Henry VIII). The second tetralogy is (according to IMDB) expected in 2016, but so far the collection includes very well acted versions of the first four — Richard II, Henry IV, Part 1, Henry IV, Part 2, and Henry V. This production is spectacularly cinematic, played for the camera rather than the stage, and the result has a crisp edge that is hard to beat. There are plenty of particular things in this production one might well disagree with — that's part of the nature of the game. But it's responsibly done and electrifying to watch.

I would say that it's definitely worth seeing, without any real reservations.