More Strange Than True

This is frankly an awful film. Shakespeare must be turning in his grave, as More Strange Than True poorly draws on A Midsummer's Nights Dream for inspiration. It's difficult to summarise the film as the writing is sloppy, badly constructed, awkward and incoherent at the best of times. The auteur doesn't understand the play, which is why the experiment fails. So bad textual analysis.

Admittedly, the film did seem promising at first. Experimental Shakespeare, indie, along with the whole double exposing idea etc. In reality, it's a bunch of people regurgitating badly written dialogue in a basement. No variation. The actors are talented but deliver the lines as if they were on stage. So bad direction of the actors. The auteur, by the way, doesn't know how to double expose properly or use lighting, so it makes it very hard to watch. So bad cinematography.

On a technical level, I wouldn't know where to begin. Lots of mistakes.

Interestingly, after reading the reviews from its defenders below, it is clear that the film needs to be explained in order to be understood. This means it fails. A good filmmaker should never need to explain his/her work for it to be understood and, of course, a bad filmmaker will blame the audience for not understanding. As far as experimental or being original goes, the idea is okay. As far as execution goes, impressively poor directing. Amateur, passionate film making, if I am to be kind. I won't be wasting my time on the director's other works.

Double exposure for the whole film really helps make the whole movie feel arty and over indulgent, which some people might love - as it is really unusual and stylish. The actors vary in quality, though overall they are quite consistent, and seem to be playing along with the unusual content - basically performing the lines as they were intended: a little tongue in cheek. The best thing about this is probably the film's themes, which somehow tie-in nicely with its source of inspiration, there's a touch of feminism, post-modernism, film references, intellectual comedy and circumstantial aloofness which really makes the whole thing quite enjoyable. It really isn't as bad as all these reviewers are saying - clearly they're expecting a bit too much from a £1,000 budgeted film inspired by a surreal play, which runs around 90 minutes. Besides, it clearly is a fun experiment with its unusual photography.

Here's the truth - this film is hardly an adaptation, though it never claims to be. It is, instead, listed as being 'inspired by' the play. And that is what it does brilliantly.

Have you ever seen a Shakespeare rendering so bizarre it almost reinvigorates the idea of staging the plays, or their stories for that matter? Who would have ever thought of double exposing A Midsummer Night's Dream in a darkly set wood with stark flashlights?

This film achieves much more than one could expect from a low-budget indie - its both bold in terms of style, and sharply written: hitting notes of youthful escapades, cinephile film references, and brashly feminist with its approach to tackling the ideals of marriages and pressures young people have to grow up. And the cast throw themselves into their roles brilliantly, absorbing the madness with their scenes.

People complaining about how this film is cheap, or is a bad staging of the play, aren't getting it. Its an experiment, not a big budget Hollywood event for the popcorn viewers.

Sure, its a far shot from a classic, or even a great film, but it is really original. And for that, and its special technological look - one which appears almost like an art instillation, I think it earns high appraisal.

​This is sadly the worst indie, micro-budget film I have ever seen. The director destroys Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream through his confused, experimental attempt to fuse surrealism, comedy and paraphrased extracts from the original text. After 10 minutes of watching his work, it is clear that Shakespeare's masterpiece has been misunderstood, and that the director's comprehension of the text is superficial. The opportunity, for example, to modernise Shakespeare's exploration of the difference between appearance and reality is there but is squandered.

Because the film is difficult to follow, due to its lack of visual variation and choice of shots, the film feels disjointed and clumsily put together. Maybe even rushed. It looks as if it was shot in a basement with no proper lighting or professional equipment. The cinematography, in part due to the poor lighting, is a disappointment - a shame as the film could have been, at least, a visual delight. The music is bad and the actors look like they belong on stage. They are terrible too.

I assume the director is a beginner, so perhaps all credit to him for at least trying! However, it is a perfect example of awful filmmaking - and a great example why the leap from amateur to professional filmmaking eludes the vast majority.

I think a lot of people are not going to get this film.

It's like an art instillation piece, and really does change the play quite a lot.

But, having said all of that, it's really original, and an unusual film.

The double exposure takes a while to get used to, but it really adds an experimental feeling to the film that is beneficial to the film, and the experience of watching it. It also enhances the modernization of the play, which the actors really engage with, playfully acting out their scenes in small spaces.

It's a really unusual film, I enjoyed it.