Really did want this version of 'As You Like It' to be good. It had potential to be. 'As You Like It' is far from being one of my favourite Shakespeare plays, due to its very thin and quite absurd story and the even more absurd endiing, but the text is full of unforgettable moments, there are some well drawn characters (especially Rosalind and Jaques) and it does have fun and charm. The cast is a good one and certainly have nothing against Christine Edzard, the 1971 film of 'The Tales of Beatrix Potter' which she co-wrote and designed is one of my favourites.
This version of 'As You Like It' just didn't work for me. It is not terrible and it was somewhat interesting to see it in a setting other than the usual and specific pastoral setting (had doubts about it working though). Adaptations of the play on film have varied, of which this one is the worst. More so than the Laurence Olivier film, despite this version having the significantly better Rosalind. Modern adaptations of Shakespeare have varied, of which this is the worst in my view. Being the only one that feels completely wrong in a modern setting and certainly in this one.
1992's 'As You Like It' has its moments. It does benefit from a few good performances. The best one being James Fox's pompous but at times touching Jaques and Emma Croft's very rootable Rosalind. Valerie Grogan is very good too and Miriam Margolyes and Cyril Cusack make much of little.
Some nice photography here and there that deserved a better and more attractive setting to compliment. Rosalind's disguise is at least plausible here, that's the one thing that works in this setting and where the adaptation fares better than most versions of 'As You Like It'.
Otherwise there is not an awful lot to recommend and there is a lot to criticise. The film does not look attractive, pretty ugly actually other than some of the photography, and it really doesn't work in a modern setting. 'Coriolanus', 'Julius Caesar' and 'Titus Andronicus' work in modern settings because they are still politically relevant, whereas 'As You Like It' has a very specific setting and any other setting other than the intended pastoral one just jars with the text. Which is still absolutely wonderful, but doesn't consistently register as well as ought.
'As You Like It' is very sluggishly directed, with nothing new or insightful, and the first act goes at a snail's pace. It also does absolutely nothing to make the ending less absurd, if anything it is even more random and even sillier in execution here. Lots of dullness and over-silliness but not an awful lot of charm. And why even bother to have the wrestling match in, if you are going to do nothing with it? Do have to agree with Griff Rhys Jones being embarrassingly incoherent as Touchstone and not funny at all, actually found him annoying. Also with that the music is very out of place, if it was the specific setting it would have worked perfectly. But it was like it was written and selected without being told that the film was going to be set in a modern setting yet the film stuck it in anyway.
Concluding, underwhelming. 4/10.
This version of 'As You Like It' just didn't work for me. It is not terrible and it was somewhat interesting to see it in a setting other than the usual and specific pastoral setting (had doubts about it working though). Adaptations of the play on film have varied, of which this one is the worst. More so than the Laurence Olivier film, despite this version having the significantly better Rosalind. Modern adaptations of Shakespeare have varied, of which this is the worst in my view. Being the only one that feels completely wrong in a modern setting and certainly in this one.
1992's 'As You Like It' has its moments. It does benefit from a few good performances. The best one being James Fox's pompous but at times touching Jaques and Emma Croft's very rootable Rosalind. Valerie Grogan is very good too and Miriam Margolyes and Cyril Cusack make much of little.
Some nice photography here and there that deserved a better and more attractive setting to compliment. Rosalind's disguise is at least plausible here, that's the one thing that works in this setting and where the adaptation fares better than most versions of 'As You Like It'.
Otherwise there is not an awful lot to recommend and there is a lot to criticise. The film does not look attractive, pretty ugly actually other than some of the photography, and it really doesn't work in a modern setting. 'Coriolanus', 'Julius Caesar' and 'Titus Andronicus' work in modern settings because they are still politically relevant, whereas 'As You Like It' has a very specific setting and any other setting other than the intended pastoral one just jars with the text. Which is still absolutely wonderful, but doesn't consistently register as well as ought.
'As You Like It' is very sluggishly directed, with nothing new or insightful, and the first act goes at a snail's pace. It also does absolutely nothing to make the ending less absurd, if anything it is even more random and even sillier in execution here. Lots of dullness and over-silliness but not an awful lot of charm. And why even bother to have the wrestling match in, if you are going to do nothing with it? Do have to agree with Griff Rhys Jones being embarrassingly incoherent as Touchstone and not funny at all, actually found him annoying. Also with that the music is very out of place, if it was the specific setting it would have worked perfectly. But it was like it was written and selected without being told that the film was going to be set in a modern setting yet the film stuck it in anyway.
Concluding, underwhelming. 4/10.