NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Charles Herold (cherold) This review is from someone who struggles with Shakespeare. I have enjoyed productions of Shakespeare well enough, and usually can follow the story enough to follow it, but I just can't adapt to the language. At times it's like watching a foreign movie without subtitles.For someone like me, a fan of Welles but less so of Shakespeare, Chimes at Midnight is a tough one. The movie is beautifully directed, full of Welle's unique approach to composition and movement. Only Welles would put cross talk into Shakespeare, and much of the film is as visually glorious as Citizen Kane. The battle scene is electrifying and brutal, making most battle scenes feel like bowdlerized lies.I could generally follow the story. Falstaff is a scoundrel who is friends with the disapproving King's sons. There are various escapades and a war.But while I got the shape of many of the conversations, much of the time I had no idea what people were talking about. I have rarely struggled this much to understand Shakespeare, and I'm not sure why. It may be that the film is built out of the later plays, which are a lot tougher than something like Romeo and Juliet. It may be in part an effect of sound issues critics complained about at the time. I do wonder if it has to do with Welles approach to the material. Shakespeare's plays have a rhythm to them, and I wonder if Welles own rhythm is simply harder to follow. Would I follow Henry IV plays better than this revision of them? I just don't know.I don't understand the dialogue well enough to speak intelligently on any flaws there may be in the film's structure. I can only say that your enjoyment of this film will be conditional on your comfort with and familiarity with Shakespeare.

treywillwest It's not exactly daring to declare Citizen Kane to be Orson Welles's most groundbreaking and influential movie. That does not, however, mean that Kane is necessarily Welles's most entertaining and satisfying film. I have long held the latter to be Touch of Evil, but now that I have seen the long unavailable Chimes at Midnight, I might have to reconsider. Welles is indisputably the primary creative force behind Kane and Touch. With Chimes he had some pretty decent source material with which to start. The script is composed of scenes from Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor, Henry IV Parts 1 & 2, and Henry V reconfigured to make Falstaff, Shakespeare's most famous supporting character, into the primary figure of the narrative. But this creates an entirely original story with entirely different themes and politics than those of the original works. This is one of the most contemporary feeling Shakespeare films ever made, even though it in no way departs from the plays' medieval settings. Indeed, the magnificent art direction subtly but powerfully conveys a world of spectacular barbarity where even the most sympathetic characters wander an earth littered with tortured, mutilated, broken bodies displaying not a trace of emotion. There is so much understandable attention paid to Welles the director that we sometimes overlook what a truly gifted actor the man was. And in that regard, this is his masterpiece, the performance of his life . His Falstaff is a soulful hedonist whose gift for gab can make most anyone forgive his rather parasitic nature. This is not the likable, but sometimes violent criminal the character is sometimes imagined to be, but a man who wants his stories to amuse and make one forget or overlook the characters intense vulnerability, and indeed cowardice. Welles always conveys vulnerability, even in his least sympathetic characters, but this is a spectacularly moving performance in which the old Welles uses his physical awkwardness, his jarring girth, to manifest a man who tries to entertain a world he cannot change, or even nimbly navigate. Falstaff is a moving character as written in Shakespeare's three plays that feature Henry V. Yet those plays are ultimately, necessarily, celebrations of feudal power and conquest. The young Henry enjoys the rapscalrony of Falstaff's company, but when the time comes to assume power, he dutifully puts aside childish things and starts a war of conquest for the glory of the nation, which is to say the Crown. Falstaff is, in these plays, that which must be repudiated for the sake of glory. Nothing in this twentieth century work makes feudal power seem glorious. When Henry turns his back on Falstaff it seems the victory of conformity over comradery, of obligation over empathy. It goes without saying that the film is visually sumptuous, characterized by the brilliant deep-focus and chiaroscuro lighting that are Welles's visual hall mark. But one scene stands out as one of the aesthetically greatest of his career as a director. Falstaff, ostensibly a knight, is fitted with a ludicrous, almost tank sized suit of armor to try to contain his rotund form. This machine of awkwardness is plunged into a brutal battle, equipped only for impotence. The image almost had to have been inspired by Max Ernst's near identical 1921 painting, The Elephant Celebes. But where as Ernst's round robot is terrifying, Welles's knight is the clown prince of all that is human.

gavin6942 The career of Shakespeare's Sir John Falstaff (Orson Welles) as roistering companion to young Prince Hal (Keith Baxter), circa 1400-1413.Who can say bad things about Orson Welles? His work was often neglected in his lifetime, both by audiences and critics. Looking back now, I wonder how they could have missed the genius of "Citizen Kane". But yet, they did for many years.This film is considered to be Welles' favorite of his own (I am unsure of the source for this claim) and has been influential. Yet, it is hard to get a decent copy (the one I have was a Portuguese import). There was no actor with such a presence as Welles, so Shakespeare is natural for him. He has successfully brought the stage to screen.

Boba_Fett1138 This is one great and also quite unique Shakespeare adaptation.One of the foremost things that makes this movie unique is the fact that it's not simply based on one William Shakespeare play but instead is a compilation and free interpretation of 5 different ones. So even those who already are very familiar with Shakespeare, will still find plenty of surprises in this movie and get plenty out of it as well.Another thing that makes this movie special, is that it's a very lively production. You can say all you want but most older movies based on Shakespeare plays are incredibly dry and static ones. Almost like you are watching a stage-play, if you will. Not this movie however. It's surprisingly fast paced and with its 113 minutes, it's also 'pleasantly short'.It also has a good and pleasant story in it, that definitely feels and sounds truly Shakespeare. It has all of the typical ingredients and also characters in it, which is no surprise of course, since this movie is being a compiled version of 5 of his different plays.It's all being very well told and directed, by Orson Welles himself, who also plays the main lead. I don't know what is better, Welles his acting or his directing of this movie. It's really pleasantly told and paced all, with often humor but also always a sense for drama and tension in it. His acting is sublime as well but man, did Welles look huge and bloated in this movie. Quite amazing the psychical transformation he went through, throughout the years.But of course Welles is not just the only great actor in this movie. Shakespeare actor John Gielgud also plays a very good role, as Henry IV and I also quite liked Margaret Rutherford, who is perhaps better known as the first and original movie Miss Marple. It's also a pretty good looking movie. It's black & white, like basically every classic Shakespeare movie adaptation and it uses some good looking settings and sets. It most certainly did not look like a cheap production, while the movie still apparently only cost $800,000 to make.Really not much bad to say about this movie. Definitely a must-see, if you are into these sort of movies or Shakespeare. 9/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/