Watch it at Amazon
32 out of 36 people found the following review useful: One Movie Buff's Opinion, 12 December 2004 Author: Daniel Halton Billings from NC
I have seen criticism of this movie saying that the language should have been changed to our post-modern English instead of being the original late-middle/early modern English that Shakespeare used. But those who say that miss the point that what makes these plays so magnificent IS the language that Shakespeare used, and to change it would be to ruin the movie.Anyways, the acting is marvelous, as it should be from such a cast as this. Michelle Pfeiffer plays the part of Titania with the utmost perfection. Kevin Kline as Nick Bottom is equally as good, and the two end up having a chemistry that is unmistakable (even if he is an ass at this point).The directing is also great - almost as good as the acting, if not as good. Costumes, sets, everything with exception of there being headlights on the bicycles, is perfect. Michael Hoffman truly pulled of a great feat with this movie, and I would recommend it to anyone.Also, on a side note, if you have trouble understanding the language, though it be English, watch the DVD and turn on the subtext.
31 out of 38 people found the following review useful: Excellent Job of a Difficult Task, 25 July 2004 Author: tvsterling from Northern California
I'm a professional live theatre stagehand. People who are too centered on movies will have a hard time with this picture. If you could see the original first run performance of this play in Elizabethan England you would think you had stumbled into an over-costumed poetry reading. If the movie is hard to follow try & imagine what viewing that play would be like. It is the measure of Shakespeare's greatness that now 400 years later & in a medium born of photography that this greatest of fantasies still rings true. Try to show some respect; Shakespeare defined modern English. In comparing the lines to the original I thought that the adaptation was sensitive & well thought out. Simplified to fit the film medium but not sacrificing any of the truly great lines that actors drool over. The fairy world sets seemed cramped to me & reminded me of Cocteau's Beauty & the Beast. I personally found the setting of the movie in turn of century Italy kind of fun. Resetting Shakespeare in times & places other than he wrote is pretty much standard practice. The bicycles & the phonographs were amusing to me & generated some fun business for the actors. Kevin Kline was excellent as the ass. He got you to sympathize not pity or deride. In fact the whole amateur troop was memorable. Stanley Tucci was the quintessential Puck. Calista Flockhart threw everything including the kitchen sink into her part. Don't accuse her of overacting though; you'll only give away that you have never been deeply in love. Michelle Pfeiffer was radioactive beautiful, probably fatal closer than ten feet. Rupert Everett maintained perfect believability in a difficult part which is essentially support for Puck. As an answer to anyone who thought that things were a bit oversexed. The Renaissance was all about the rediscovery of the fact that people are noble & beautiful, not sinful & ugly. Shakespeare was one of the greatest products of the Renaissance. The movie is true to those Renaissance ideals. To sum up; a class act & class acts are not for everybody.
28 out of 36 people found the following review useful: Charming Fairy Dust, 14 May 1999 Author: Matthew Ignoffo (mermatt@webtv.net) from Eatontown, NJ, USA
Though some critics have dumped on this film, I was charmed by it. The movie literally sparkles. The settings are full of rich colors and magical lighting. The romantic classical music is all well chosen to help induce the hypnotic or dreamlike qualities. And the cast is an utter delight.This is a fluffy cloud of fairy dust -- just as Shakespeare intended.
19 out of 22 people found the following review useful: Surprisingly faithful adaptation, 19 October 2004 Author: Liza-19 from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
As a general rule, I normally don't post comments unless I have enough time to write a thorough review, and have given it much thought before hand. I'm sorry, but even though it's 2am, I can't bear to go to sleep and let the review before me just sit there. Obviously the reviewer before me seems to have no idea that the complicities that arise from the various plots go back to Shakespeare himself - and it is a great achievement by this film to manage to keep all the plates spinning and all the stories interesting.I am amazed by this film. I am a life-long Shakespeare fan and it's great to see a faithful American production. The British/American cast all worked fantasically well together - Christian Bale, Anna Friel, Dominic West, and Calista Flockheart were all perfectly cast as the four lovers. The fairies and the actors both worked very well to frame the story - and the director has managed to keep it both visually unique and incredibly entertaining.I'm not quite sure why they decided to change the location from Greece to Italy, but in an age where Kenneth Branagh is trying to make a 1940s musical out of Love's Labour's Lost, I say, the changes could be a lot worse. All in all, this is a very impressive adaptation. I'm just happy to see that Shakespeare hasn't lost his appeal to modern audiences.
14 out of 17 people found the following review useful: very nice to look at, 9 August 2000 Author: andre-71 from Bonn, Germany
I admit, that I have not read the play, so probably all of the credit for the idea goes to Shakespeare himself. But I was also caught by the magic of the pictures. The actors and actresses were so pretty, the story so nicely recited, and the atmosphere somehow magically ravishing. I got a lot of positive feelings out of this movie, and when I walk through the forest now, I am reminded of them. Well, this film did leave a wonderful trace in my mind. Hopefully, it lasts for a couple of days. I give it an 8/10.
17 out of 23 people found the following review useful: DEELIGHTFUL! YES!!, 2 April 2001 Author: artzau from Sacramento, CA
This is a wonderful film and an excellent version of the classic that was done so very, very well in 1935 and 1968. No, this is not the Royal Shakespeare Company, it's Hollywood but damn good Hollywood. Why? How can canned commercial movie-making compete with the Bard's best? Why does this version make that of the RSC three years before PALE? Well, there's the cast, for one. Stanley Tucci is delightful as a drole erring Puck carrying out the directives of Rupert Everett's pompous Oberon. The delightful Cast of Players, including Rockwell, Irwin, Rees, Wright and (tah-DAH!) Kevin Klein as Bottom. The scenes with the lovelier than lovely Michelle Pfeiffer's Titania are wonderful and poignant. It is delightful to see that gentle erotica can be suggested without nudity or slathering tongues, sucking lips as well as the usual grunts-pants-moans, etc. The lovers are likewise delightful with great, fun-packed performances by Christian Bale's Demetrius and Dominic West's Lysander in complete tune with Anna Fiel's Hermia and Calista Flockhart's Helena. Even David Strathairn's Theseus and Sophie Marceau's Hippolyta are wonderful. The story is moved from Athens Greece to Athens, Italy, at the turn of the 19th century with the lovers escaping on bicycles. Stanley Tucci's confrontation with the bike is a delight. This is a wonderful film with some new twists that depart from but do not detract from the Bard. The bit with Kevin Kline's wife, hard-looking but attractive Heather Parisi, works well with the setting of this fun-filled, joyful presentation.
8 out of 11 people found the following review useful: Gorgeous film not bad Shakespeare adaptation, 20 February 2000 Author: Dan Franzen (dfranzen70) from United States
There have been many adaptations of Shakespeare plays over the last decade or so, most of them aimed squarely at younger viewers. You know the drill: The director picks out rocking, hip tunes to spice up the soundtrack and some hot, young stars to broadly interpret the Bard's work.That's not the case here. Kevin Kline gets to ham it up as Nick Bottom, the base mechanical with delusions of thespian grandeur, and Michelle Pfeiffer gets to show off her own acting chops as Titania, the Queen of the fairies. Okay, so maybe a little knowledge of the play itself would help the average viewer, but if you're not a fan of the play, you can still witness some absolutely sumptuous camerawork and some funny, funny scenes - many of them dealing with the spellbound Bottom, who's been turned into a jackass. Stanley Tucci underplays (somewhat surprisingly) his role as the mischievous Puck, and even Callista Flockhart turns in a solid performance as one of four human (non-fairy) lovers.
9 out of 13 people found the following review useful: Great Entertainment, 23 July 2005 Author: birdmuse from United States
I'm amazed at all of the negative critics out there. I guess there is no accounting for self-styled esoteric esoteric bozos. It is beautifully filmed with an outstanding and sensitive cast(Calista Flockhart has Shakespearian experience, and it shows). We need to remember that first ,last, and always Shakespeare is entertainment meant to be seen and enjoyed, not analysed to death.. When he is stylized into oblivion by myopic critics the very essence and greatness of his genius is lost. This is an extremely pleasant way to introduce yourself and/or children to the wondrous magic of Shakespeare and even better if you do a little plot research. Spectacular performance except for those with scales on their eyes.
6 out of 9 people found the following review useful: A great classic Shakespeare film!, 7 December 2005 Author: Sylvia Marciniak (sylviastel@aol.com) from United States
I believe that this film version of William Shakespeare's classic, "A Midsummer's Night Dream" is better than the 1968 Royal Shakespeare film version. Now I am not saying that the acting is much better, it could fare better with this cast like Kevin Kline, Michael Tucci, Calista Flockhart, Michelle Pfeiffer, David Straitharn, and others to mention. The quality of this film is superior to the 1968 version starring Dame Judi Dench C.H., Dame Diana Rigg C.B.E., and Dame Helen Mirren. The quality is shown by the location, costumes, and the expense it took to make this film look first rate. It tries to be faithful to the text and I believe it is more than satisfactory. I hope this film version is shown in schools because I believe that if you are going teach Shakespeare that you should do both comedy and tragedy. His comedies like "Much Ado About Nothing" and "A Midsummer's Night Dream" shows Shakespeare's sense of humor and playfulness with the living as opposed to watching a tragedy. Most high schools are working on the tragedies like Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth, and Julius Caesar but I think they should also do one comedy for each tragedy than maybe students would not cringe with distaste over doing Shakespeare at all. I gave it a 9 because I think the acting could have been better or improved.
6 out of 10 people found the following review useful: Delightful--Shakespeare for Dummies, 3 December 2005 Author: grandfunkfan from United States
I somehow managed to get through high school without being forced to read most of the classic stories that so many students dread and fear based on hand-me-down horror stories from siblings and friends. Later in life, natural curiosity drove me on several occasions to force myself to enjoy the great works of literature. Usually I was so lost in trying to translate the jargon or the author's intent, that I could never enjoy the story. My choice of watching A Midsummer Night's Dream was inspired by a recent trip to Barnes & Noble. As planned, I met my 14-year-old daughter at the checkout line carrying my usual stack of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Mystery stories, while she had chosen for her reading pleasure several Shakespearean works. I told her that I was very pleased with her fondness of reading. Regardless of the material, reading is generally better, i.e., thought provoking, than watching a movie. This delightful movie, however, made it possible to enjoy the Bard's magnificent story telling ability without a translator. There was sufficient Shakespearean dialogue to make me pause the DVD a few times for thought, but generally the story flowed with enough vitality to entertain as the thoughts and inspirations of human foibles were driven deeper into my subconscious for later analysis. The only shortcoming is I can't say, "I liked the book better than the movie."
Add another review
