Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

paybaragon This is not only the best version of the play available on film, it is easily one of the five best Shakespearian films of all (at least in English).The fact that it was made on less than a shoestring budget is totally irrelevant. Whether or not there are any special effects, the photography by the renowned Peter Suschitzky ("Dead Ringers", "Empire Strikes Back", "Spider") is excellent. It's not only pictorial, but contributes greatly to the spontaneous, irreverent, slapstick-esquire approach to the whole production, which Peter Hall and his marvelous actors worked so hard to achieve. The locations are also ideal, given the modernized, anglicized look of the production.Director Hall's interpretation of the play comes as close to 'perfection' as an enthusiast of the Bard could possibly ask for. He refuses to reduce the play to an erotic fantasy, as so many other have done (i.e. the 1999 film), and he rejects the even more common temptation to turn it into a loud, garish costume-ball. In other word, Hall presents the play as Shekespeare wrote it.It relies for its appeal on marvelous words and gestures, not on costumes and special effects.As for the cast, one only need to look at the big names on the list to see that this production was literally one-of-a-kind. Actually the least famous major player in this company is the one most worthy of note: Paul Rogers, a wonderful character actor and a frequent collaborator of Alec Guinness, is quite possibly the best Bottom that most of us (in this day and age) are ever likely to see. Both Cagney and Kevin Kline were terrific in the major films, but Paul Rogers IS Bottom.It says something about both film audiences and readers that the 1935 Warner Bros. film with James Cagney is rated more highly on the IMDb than this production. In that pretty but vapid collection of songs and dances, you could hardly hear any of Shakespeare's words, and if you could you would have to cringe, since almost none of the actors could adequately speak the lines. Cagney was good, but the rest was silence. GO WITH THIS VERSION INSTEAD! Fortunately, it was recently made available on DVD.

Bologna King This movie looks like it was hastily committed to film by high school students. The lighting changes constantly so one is never sure whether the scene is intended to be at night or during the day. The fairies appear to be various shades of green at different times. The lovers get muddier and muddier as the story progresses, and the stains migrate around their clothes and faces. The sound is exactly the same wherever the action is. There is a frequent use of jerky stop action to move the scene from place to place and to show fairies moving at the speed of light. The dreadful music is earnestly trying to be avante-garde and succeeding in being cacophonous and out-of-place. The costumes were trendy then but look rather silly now.The virtually uncut script, an advantage for students, has the disadvantage of occasionally slowing the action to a near stop.It's a pity because these are great performances by an amazingly talented cast. Helen Mirren's Hermia, less strident than most, Ian Holm's doglike Puck and Judi Dench's near naked Titania are standouts certainly. Best of all for me was Derek Godfrey as Theseus. He brings a lot of dignity and urbanity to a part often played as a pompous bore or a chump. Theseus is given a lot of lines, sadly cut in many productions, which comment on literature and drama. "The best of this kind are but shadows, and the worst no worse, if imagination amend it." You need a fair bit of imagination to amend the shortfalls of this film, but the effort is well worth it.

artzau This is the Royal Shakespeare Company at its best. I mean, hey. Not only do we get a treat to Diana Rigg's Helena in her pre-Emma Peel days but look at lovely Helen Mirren's delightful Hermia. The youths, David Warner and Michael Jayston are great, twirled and swizzled by Ian Holm's delightful Puck messing up the good intentions of the bug-eyed Ian Richardson's Oberon. But, a semi-nude Judi Dench-- all in green-- is likewise delightful in her cavorting with Paul Rogers's Bottom. The rest of the players within a play, Swift, Shaw, Eccles, Normington and the great Bill Travers (who can ever forget him in 'Big Time Operators,' or 'Wee Geordie?')as Snout. There is wonder in this romp through the woods, where the lovers keep getting dirtier and dirtier, as the sprites, fairies and gnomes are green. This is a wonderful version that will only be approached 31 years later. As for the later (1996) RSC version..., well, you'll have to go there and see my comments. But, in my view, it can't approach the fun, mirth and joy of this wonderful production.

Craig Gustafson There are three reasons for seeing this movie. Diana Rigg, Judi Dench and Judi Dench's miniscule costume. What a hot li'l pixie she was thirty years ago! She wears body paint nicely.Other than that, we are treated to one of the least funny adaptations of a Shakespearean comedy I've ever seen. The director is far more interested in having the actors talk to the camera than each other. The Focus is on The Words, which would be fine for a radio adaptation, but it makes for a snooze of a movie.The Kevin Kline/Michelle Pfeiffer version was better... and I didn't like *that*. Maybe this is just too delicate a comedy for the movies and needs to be seen live to be appreciated.But Judi Dench... WOW! There is nothin' like a Dame.