Sogno di una notte di mezza estate

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.

A tale of gods and mortals and that most confusing of subjects – love. With relationships confused on earth, things become very simple when Puck is given reign to cast love spells on several people to create a complex tangle of love that shows that love never runs straight or true.

I'm that I will be seen as some sort of idiot for not liking this film but, in some vague sort of defence, I'd like to point out that I have seen and enjoyed many other Shakespeare adaptations on the screen and enjoyed many of them. The problem I had with this film was that more time had been spent on the visual presentation rather than the presentation of the story. For this reason I though the film looked really nice and had real imagination and flair behind it – but the plot was not given as much work.

I like to think that I am not stupid, but, were it not for the fact that I had a rough knowledge of the story prior to watching this version, I would have really struggled to get a hold of what was going on, as it was I still found it difficult to keep up with. I would have appreciated it more had the film been a little kinder in helping me understand the characters and the plot without relying on me to catch and understand every word (which I couldn't).

I can read Shakespeare and understand the dialogue fine, however when it is coming at me at machine gun pace, I'll struggle and need the visual aspect of the story to help me out a little bit by making the film free to clutter and easy to understand. I'm afraid much of it was lost on me as I struggled to keep up, and the film suffered as a result. Visually of course, it is great and it has it's witty moments but it didn't really do it for me.

Which, considering the great cast, was a shame. Kline stole most of the scenes he was in and was the best part of the film for me, Tucci was an enjoyable Puck, but with many others I found it difficult to find the characters behind the famous faces. Pfeiffer and Everett were both good but I didn't get much from Flockhart, Friel, Bale or West. The cast is deep in faces but this distracted me even more and served to remind me of how much window dressing this film seemed to have when all I really wanted was good story telling.

Overall I didn't enjoy this film simply because I found it hard to get into. I fully intend to watch it again in the future as I feel it may have been partially my fault, but I must say that I did expect a little help from the film. If you look at some recent adaptations of Shakespeare for the cinema you'll see that many have their own touches (visual, not dialogue) and that many of these help to deepen the characters and add understanding for the audience. This film had none of that – the fact that it was a film was used to make it look good and bring in a strong famous cast, it should have used the media to also make the story more accessible and fun to watch.

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.

Wow... that person who gave it "zero stars out of ****" is a little confused... though not without entertainment value. His comment "Shakespeare would have been apalled" is laughable. why? Because most of his whining was about the plot itself. Does he not realize that Shakespeare WROTE the play A Midsummer Night's Dream, and that that makers of the movie followed the original play TO THE WORD, except for a few dialogue cuts that didn't affect plot? And then he went on to whine about how frivolous and silly the plot is...

you know what? All of Shakespeare's comedy plots are silly and frivolous. That's the point. Remember, in his time, he wasn't an intellectual mastermind... he was an entertainer for the masses. He gave the playgoers what they wanted in his plays, whether comedy, tragedy, or history- and what they wanted was love, mistaken identity, gratuitous violence, a few laughs, and to be entertained. Yes, he was a great playwright. One of the first, in fact, to really give changeability to his characters. Most writers of his time used purely stock characters. Good guys, bad guys, drunk guys, slutty chicks, virtuous chicks, idiots, smart guys... but never 3-dimensional characters. This is what Shakespeare changed. He created 3-D, CHANGEABLE characters.

And don't start on "Oh, you are being shallow". Shakespeare DID put a lot of deeper meanings and metaphore into his plays- but that DID come secondary to entertainment. And even his great plays like Hamlet and Macbeth, with some serious psychological "WTF???" going on, were pretty contrived. I mean, the end of Hamlet involves four dead bodies on the stage, mostly due to mix ups (Hamlet gets stabbed by Laertes' poisoned sword, they keep fighting and manage to switch swords, Laertes gets stabbed with his OWN sword, the queen drinks the poisoned wine meant for Hamlet, then warns him, and he stabs the king AND makes him drink the poisoned wine. Nevermind Ophelia's previous suicide because Hamlet was pretending to be insane, Polonius getting stabbed by Hamlet because Hamlet thought he was the evil king, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern dying in Hamlet's place when they were sent to get him killed, and of course, the death of Hamlet's own father by having poison poured in his ear) So don't start bashing the filmmakers. You said the only good thing they did was the atmosphere... but really, that's all that was left up to them- the presentation. The play was already written, the characters already created, the plot already silly and Chick Flick-y. Sorry. That idiotic "Shakespeare would be apalled" thing just bothers me. I mean, he wrote the fricking thing. So, the only conclusion I can draw from this inane and snooty review is that, like many others, the complexity of the play and its many subplots confused the hell out of you (May I say something about attention spans here??), so you tried to turn it around and blame it on someone else because you're too much of a dolt to figure out what's going on.

Ok, having ranted- I'll make this brief. A Midsummer Night's Dream is like a comedy-chick flick with the added advantage of a cool atmosphere and Shakespeare's poetic dialogue. It's a funny romantic comedic fantasy. If you like that sort of thing, see it. If you don't, then don't. And for God's sake, if you can't understand that dialogue, don't blame it on the filmmakers. There ARE people out there who DO understand it, you know.

A Midsummer Night's Dream is a very complicated play, and can get very silly at times, and this film is surprisingly faithful to the play. Yes, there was an attempt to partially modernise it, therefore the script wasn't as good as it could have been. The film itself is lovingly designed, with lavish costumes, stunning sets(my favourite being the wood set) and handsome cinematography. The music was lovely with clever use of music by the likes of Mendelssohn and Verdi. I thought the acting was very good indeed, Kevin Kline stealing the show as Bottom, most of the time hilarious, especially in the play scene, when we are shown what a bad actor Bottom really is. Michelle Pfeiffer is lovely also, and Rupert Everett is very charming also as Oberon. Callista Flockhart convinces also as Helena, and Stanley Tucci has a ball as Puck. The direction is competent, but my only other criticism is that the film is a little overlong. Overall, I genuinely enjoyed this film, not as good as Much Ado About Nothing(with Kenneth Branagh) or Macbeth (with Jon Finch), so I will happily award it 8/10. Bethany Cox.