Cool News
Here's a peek at A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM
I'm so tired of seeing the trailer for this movie, and I long for the ol Mickey Rooney 1935 version which also starred James Cagney and Dick Powell (along with Olivia De Havilland and others). I'll see this version, but the trailer has my hopes down quite a bit. And this review is a bit depressing, but then... maybe he missed the tone of the film... We'll see soon enough
With all the big special effects movies about to explode, I don't know how
many fans of this site are gonna care about this one, but....just got back
from an advance screening of the latest film version of Shakespeare's classic
comedy "A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM". I guess somebody forgot to tell director
Michael Hoffman that IT'S A FRIGGING COMEDY!!!!
Boy, did I have big hopes for this, especially after going nutty batshit over
"SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE", which proved that it IS possible to make Shakespeare
fun and accessible, not stodgy and pretentious and boring. Which is what
"AMSND" is. I've seen college theater productions that had more life than
this bland stinker.
If you post this, I'm assuming any interested in reading this will be
familiar enough with the plot that I don't have to rehash it here. But for
those who aren't, there sure as hell ain't no prologue that tells about the
advent of the BICYCLE in the Italian town of Athens. All this does is
provide set up for the film's main running prop, the bike. And it kills
kills kills so much fo the potential for comedy. Young lovers are supposed
to be running back and forth through the woods, hot on each other's tails --
not wobbling unsteadily through rocky terrain trying to make their marks and
recite dialogue at the same time. The bike shit kills the comic urgency.
But this ties into one of the movie's biggest problems: too much attention to
art direction and not enough to performances. Far too many shots of lush
scenery and satyrs and sumptuous wedding preparations -- with little
attention to making brilliantly written scenes work.
The actors just ain't directed well at all. Calista Flockhart - miscast as
Helena. Like everyone in the cast, too damn earnest and not funny at all
(and of the 4 young lovers, she's the best part). And in my mind, too damn
pretty for Helena. Anna Friel does well as Hermia, but she's the same height
as Calista! So what, you ask? Well, there's a whole catfight in the middle
in which they trade barbs about Helena being a beanpole and Hermia a shrimp
-- which completely doesn't work! This scene should be the highpoint of the
farcical complications, but it literally winds up in the mud (the two
actresses wind up flopping around in the mud). The male lovers are blah,
especially Christian Bale. Michelle Pfeiffer as Fairy Queen Titania is ever
the eyeful, but again, director Hoffman gives her NADA to do. She recites an
acting class monologue straight to the camera. Yawn.... All the fairy scenes
are too pretty and affected and leaden. Worst of all is Rupert Everett as
Oberon, King of the Fairies. First of all, what is this big ol' gay-man
actor doing playing lover opposite to La Pfeiffer?? Okay, yes, he is playing
King of the Fairies, but he's supposed to be hot for Titania. There is
absolutely no chemistry between them whatsoever, and their scenes should
crackle with sexual tension. Everett SLEEPWALKS through this with a hangdog
look instead of driving the pacing and energy of the middle sequences in the
forest, which he should. And much as I love Stanley Tucci, I'm sorry -- too
flat too old too deadpan too unspritely. His character, Puck, should be
impish, not dryly ironic. Best of all the leads is Kevin Kline as the
hambone actor, Bottom, especially in the disastrous play-within-a-play (the
only funny part of the film). But didn't anyone read Shakespeare's stage
directions? When he's transformed by Puck, Bottom's supposed to look like a
DONKEY not a RABBIT!! With all the cool animatronics & special effects, they
coulda put a real donkey head on him and blew the audience's (and the
character's) minds. Instead, it looks like they ran out of money for makeup
and threw some bunny ears on him. And unfortunately, Kline's scenes with
Pfeiffer are flat flat flat. WHERE'S THE FUNNY???? There are some good
performances, particularly from Bill Irwin and David Straitharn -- but their
parts are supposed to be peripheral. Man, you're in trouble if the most
memorable roles in your Midsummer are Theseus and the dude playing The Wall.
And speaking of the lame makeup effect, finally movies have the technology to
have fun with effects for magic. But all the fairy stuff is weak and cheezy.
Yeah, I know, it's Fox's arthouse division, and they ain't gonna pump
millions in CGI shots into this. But still....
Fox Searchlight is obviously counterprogramming this to all the adults who
could give a crap about "THE PHANTOM MENACE". But it's a good thing they're
releasing both films, cuz "TPM" will easily cover the red ink that this
movie's gonna spill. Oh sure, English teachers will get the video for high
school classes down the line -- but it'll only put off those folks dreading
Shakespeare and proving them right. Man, did they miss the boat on this one.
-- Mr. Bundini
-
+ Expand All
-
This review was such a disappointment. I just saw Midsummer performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company at Stratford and, let me tell you, this play can be absolutely hilarious. The fact that the movie clearly misses this point can be attributed to the director as well as the casting director. I mean, Calista Flockhart as the beautiful tall blonde Hermia? I don't think so.
-
I too saw the production of A Midsummer in Startford only a few weeks ago, wonderful, how the hell did the fuck up so badly?
-
I hope this movie spells doom for the perplexing career of Calista "I don't have an eating disorder" Flockhart, that Pfeiffer wanna-be. Tiny waifs who constantly whine whine and whine and who act in a "daddy's little girl" manner to flirt with men set the feminist movement back about 300 years. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
-
...saw Puck in the trailer, I was off this movie. What are those, warts on his forehead? He looks more like a poopy-pokin' version of Lemmy than the mighty Puck. Hey, Mickey Rooney was on the Simpsons last night! You know, he was the #1 box office draw from 1939-1940. That spans two decades, baby! Jimminy Jillikers!
-
I have only seen the trailor, and I'll probably wait for this one to come out on video. But has Michelle Pfieffer ever looked more gorgeous?! I don't think so. Without a doubt, she is, and has been for some time, the movie industry's greatest 'best-looking' actress. Meaning, her talents more than match her beauty.
-
...this review depresses more than you can possibly know! I have worked at various Shakespeare festivals across Canada and seen some incredible versions of this play, Stratford's in Ontario and Shakespeare on the Saskatchewan in Saskatoon come to mind, so I know this can be entertaining even for people who don't "get" Shakespeare. Why couldn't Brannagh have done this or McKellen? Or anyone with talent, just not Luhrman (sp?), god, I hated Romeo + Juliet!
-
It's too bad this project sounds like it's gonna tank. There have been some great Shakespeare films in the last few years: Brannagh's HAMLET, McKellen in RICHARD III, even Leo and Claire in ROMEO AND JULIET, which was loud and annoying but stylish. But it sounds like the material is just played wrong in this movie, that the director chose artsy over funny. I've seen this onstage a couple of times over the years, and it's really a riot. Oh well, maybe if we're lucky someone'll try TWELTH NIGHT next. (Considering the ending of SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, it seems almost inevitable.)
-
I can't take your review seriously because you are obviously prejudiced against rupert everette and the other performers, Maybe when watching a film you need to be able to separate yourself from the real world, if you don't think that the big "gay ol'man" can play straight maybe you should check out "The Comfort of Strangers", you can see the gay boy play convincingly straight and a bonus of an extra creepy performance by Christoper Walken, I suggest you drop some of your biggoted, preconcieved hatred for members of society before you ever assume you have the credibility to comment on anything!!
-
...bigotted, preconceived hatred is what this country is all about! The only thing more apalling than the tregedies that continue to occur all around us is the fact that some of us still can be so offended and surprised by them. Nobody has it any worse off than anyone else, so stop whining.
-
Weeeeeooooooweeeeeoooo... "tragedies," not "tregedies." Fwaping!
-
Uncle Cracky: If you truly believe that no one in this society has it any better that anyone else, you are living in a complete fantasy world. And though such equality is an appealing concept, it just doesn't exist. But I digress. We're here to talkback about the movie review. The *point* that I believe mpGOD was trying to make was that Rupert's real-life sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to his character's, and therefore has no place in any review of the movie. It makes no sense. Straight actors have played gay characters for years now; to suggest that a gay actor is not able to play a straight character is completely ridiculous. Um, that's why they call it...ACTING!
P.S. Uncle Cracky, I hope you didn't think I was picking on you. Despite my disagreement on the "no one has it better than anyone else" point, you *do* have a point in that occasionally various groups exaggerate their "plight" for political leverage. I am not blind to this. I just think that the real truth lies somewhere in between your assertion of total equality and someone else's assertion that they are completely under someone else's foot. -
I got to see this stinker a couple of months ago, and didn't even bother writing in a review... I agree with what was said about Bottom being the best thing about this, but it made me wonder about who decided to throw the emphasis his way. Kline's reading of the character as a tragic figure who no one understands is completely off... This character would almost benefit from more of a Kelsey Grammar type reading (someone who is a well-meaning clueless jackass) Other than that my biggest issues were with the cheesy "Star Trek" sets (why not shoot in a real forest?) and with the boring lovers (agch! The mud-wrestling scene is just a lame excuse to have wet clothes clinging to beautiful bland young actors!) Oh, well... Skip this one.
-
I reviewed this film a few weeks ago on the site, and I think Mr. Bundini has a couple of misconceptions which prevent him from understanding and enjoying this film.
1) In shakespeare's time, "comedy" just meant "put a wedding at the end." It had next to nothing to do with funny, and reading "Merchant of Venice" will prove that.
2) In purely shakespearean terms, this movie does have a great deal of funny stuff, but not in the way we view comedies these days. This film sticks predominately to the original text (I read along, as I have the complete works of shakespeare on my palm pilot) with only the tiniest of variations.
AMSND is not Rush Hour, is not even comparable to the modern settings and pacing for comedy writing. It is, however, IMNSO, Shakespeare's funniest comedy, and my personal fave. Any lover of Shakespeare's work (i.e. every English major in the country and some other random assorted wackos) will adore this adaptation.
The setting of the film, as explained in the press material I stole, is not Athens at all but turn of the century (this century) Italy. That, as you can guess, changes things, but it's almost the only change to the original thought. Hence, the bike becomes a logical and useful plot device here.
Likewise, I disagree with his view of the 4 lovers -- I remember viewing reading Demetrius as this bland, blond stiff and this film's version held up to that perfectly, even loosening up and letting the stick fall from his bunghole at the end.
Callista did seem taller than the Hermia character, in my view, maybe I was watching another movie.
Oberon, likewise, isn't supposed to be much "guy" at all (according to the shakespeare profs I took in college), but more like an elemental force -- with that, Rupert's performance was intense and perfect. "Ill met by moonlight, proud Titania," which IMNSHO the character's best line, was delivered with threat and gravity, just as I thought it should have been. Puck was just wacky enough without Tucci stealing the movie, and Kline has this silent scene with his wife that really impressed me, saying a great deal with no words.
I will allow Kevin Kline's donkey makeup looked horrible.
This is not a modern comedy, its tragic and serious sides more mirroring a "Sports Night" or a "Big Chill." Fox Searchlight makes older demographic and art films, and this is a brilliant addition to their catalogue. I believe Mr. Bundini is not the type of viewer this film is aimed at -- no offense intended -- and would perhaps enjoy different genres of film.
Reporting live from the City of Lost Angels, this is the Lord of the Storm, signing off.
-
Of course I live in a fantasy world! Who doesn't? Anyone who claims they do not live in a fantasy world is, by that very assertion, living in a fantasy world! I can understand your point of view completely, and do not disagree. However, a quote from Mel Brooks' can sum up my position most eloquently: "Tragedy is when I cut my finger; comedy is when YOU walk into an open sewer and die." It's all relative. Sure, I don't have any terminal illness(knock on wood), but does that mean the problems I face in my life are any less of a challenge? I really doubt it. And if I'm obligated to discuss this silly movie on these Talkbacks, all I have to say is: The old grey mare just ain't what she used to be.
-
I haven't seen this film, nor have I seen the trailer - though there's been no lack of ads and standups at the cinema. Speaking as King of the Fairies, however, I'll be quite cross if this as as bad as Master Segue makes it out to be. Someone here made a good point about Shakespearean "comedy," and we should all bear that in mind in seeing it; however, it conversely doesn't mean that all the joy should be sucked out of it, either (see Branagh's 1993 Much Ado About Nothing, sometimes hit-or-miss, but not too far off target, for an example of a modern film interpretation of a Shakesperean "comedy."). And before we ignite a simmering debate on homophobia, I think the point Segue was trying to make - and we'll have to judge for ourselves whether our good man is off base - is that there was absolutely no chemistry or sexual tension between Pfeiffer and Everett. Whether Everett's homosexuality was a possible cause, completely irrelevant, or a lens that distorted Segue's vision of the movie is, well, difficult to say until the rest of us see the bloody thing (if any of us still have the stomach). Feel free, of course, to flame each other, things are tough since Moriarty's Talk Back filled up. And now my fair Titania calls, and I must bid adieu...
-
First of all, a great many people think Sir Francis Bacon wrote those plays and that Billy Shakespeare was just a front for him. Who cares about that anyhoo?
SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, and as far as I can tell from all the teaser clips and trailers, A MIDSUMMERS NIGHT DREAM, suffers from some weird form of groupthink. Let me explain. In most of the recent Shakespeare adaptions to hit the screen, most of the actors appear so happy to be acting in a Shakespeare movie that they forget to actually act and instead act gleefully insane and chomp scenery without abandon. And it isn't pretty to watch either. -
...if nobody cares, and nobody brought it up, why would you bring up the Bacon/Shakespeare thing? I'm confused or are you just fronting an opinion heard in class to start an intelligent Talkback (this is not an attack, just a simple question)? BTW, John Barrie once said "I know not sir if Bacon wrote the word of Shakespeare but if he did not, it would seem to me he missed the opportunity of a lifetime."
-
I too have seen the movie in question and your reviewer is right on! The lovers have no snap to them. The film is a big bore, and no matter how funny the play-within-a-play is, it comes an hour and 45 minutes too late!
-
Twelth Night actually was done a year or two ago. I saw it at one of the art theatres here. It has Ben Kingsley as the fool and Helena Bonham Carter as Olivia. That's one of my least favorite plays (yet strangely one I tend to end up seeing the most). Still it was a pretty good adaptation with quite good direction and acting. I think it is on VHS and possible DVD.
-
To start off, I think what Uncle Cracky was trying to say was not that we are all equal, but that we all get equally screwed over in life. Just take me for example. As a young white anglo-saxon protestant male, I can look forward to being part of a group that is stereotyped as being the richest, greediest, most bigoted, most power hungry group in the world. Now to the actual subject of the Talk Back.
It's really sad to hear about this film. Just a couple of years back I saw MSND performed at a theatre in Indianapolis, and it was brilliant! You have to see Shakespeare performed to appreciate it. And yes, different original meaning or not, this play is a comedy in the modern sense of the term. The audience was all highschool students, and they were dying of laughter. There are so many great moments in MSND! Maybe someday someone will do this RIGHT. -
Dig.
-
Finally!! Kevin Kline in a Shakespearean role onscreen. While Kline's movie career hasn't been much to brag about (excluding, of course, his role in A FISH CALLED WANDA), Kline has had a brilliant stage career, appearing in contemporary and classic productions over the years, most notably in Shakespeare. Kline has played Richard III, Henry V, Benedick (MUCH ADO...), and Hamlet. In 1990, Kline co-directed a production of HAMLET for GREAT PERFORMANCES on PBS. This occasionally turns up during pledge time (I'm not sure if it's on tape), and Kline gives an excellent performance.
-
This comment has nothing to do with the movie but I just have to address something Uncle Cracky says. I agree with you to a point that in some way or another we all belong to a minority that gets dumped on for one thing or another, but to say that the dumping is equal or even close to it is way off base. Just look to our Government for proof. Uncle cracky can legally marry someone he falls in love with, alas poor Rupert Everett can not, nor any other gay person in the country for that matter.
-
This has nothing to do with gay rights, womens' rights, anybody's rights. I'm not talking about social equality. Social equality is just a popularity contest that exists because the people around us say it does. I'm talking about REAL life, not what any one government tells us it is. I, too, am a caucasian heterosexual male. Does that make my life easier? NO, IT DOES NOT. I've got complications and trials and obstacles just like everyone else. But I don't go whining to others every time I cut my finger or walk into an open sewer. I don't condone or approve of any type of discrimination, but at the same time I also don't believe anyone deserves any special recognition for their social status. I don't expect eveyone to live their life this way, but it is what has kept me from the edge for a long time. If you're deformed, you deal with it. If your gay, you deal with it. If you're blonde-haired and blue-eyed, you deal with it. I'm not going to feel guilty for who I am, and NOBODY is going to get my pity for their hard-luck stories unless that compassion originates in my own heart. If you act like a victim, you get treated like a victim; it's not naive assumption, it's the truth. The only way to cope with our individual situations is to take responsibility for ourselves. I may be getting way off base and wildy preachy for no reason, but there it is. I am not offended, and I have no intention of offending anyone. I'm just voicing what I believe is a valid point. My apologies to all those who came here looking to discuss a Shakespeare film.
-
Of course I'm only joking! I think everyone has done an excellent job of expressing opinion thus far without resorting to needless flaming. Minority status is a somewhat delicate issue, and not one that everyone can agree on. And as someone else just pointed out (sorry guy, I forgot your nickname!) you can be negatively stereotyped just as easily by belonging to a group that is percieved as a priveliged majority. The truth is, life isn't easy for anyone. It is however, more difficult for some. This is directly related to another truth: Life isn't fair. And it wasn't meant to be, either! We may all now forward our complaints on this matter to the proper authorities... Oh, and Cracky? "Tragedy is when I cut my finger; comedy is when YOU walk into an open sewer and die." TOO FUNNY! Thanks!
-
Uncle Cracky, I don't think you have been at all offensive, and I certainly don't think you owe anyone an apology for commenting on the issue that was before us. You are not the one who made an issue of Rupert's sexuality. It was in the review. And face it, it was just a *dumb* thing to have been written in a review. If the reviewer had meant that it was the chemistry between Rupert and his co-star that was lacking, then he could have said so without making reference to Rupert's sexuality. To have even mentioned it was, again, just plain dumb.
-
... if you readers think this Shakespeare film isn't aimed at a mass audience but at a smaller, more well read and intellectual niche who'll appreciate the fact that Shakespeare's comedies are not truly comedic, then why do you think the film was cast with such mega-watt stars and is being released by the "indie" branch of the same Hollywood studio who is bringing us Star Wars? Surely, if the film was meant for such a narrow demographic audience and the film's backers knew they may lose money, why didn't they go the Twelfth Night or Richard III route and cast lesser-knowns? Because they've caught the Branagh bug and want to make a BIG film with BIG stars that will win BIG awards and do BIG business. And they figure the film can do this if it is FUNNY and has romantic appeal. Not because it's a drama with a wedding tagged onto it. If the print and TV reviews aren't positive for this film, it will be gone before you can say Phantom Menace. But it'll fly off the shelves at Blockbuster.
-
Saw a free preview last night. I was relatively pleased -- text not too butchered, better than decent art direction.
It had its problems, though. Calista Flockhart was pathetically miscast. She has some of the best lines in the play, but she doesn't have any fun with them at all. Kevin Kline did an excellent job with what he DID, but didn't make the right choice. (Bottom's a boor, not some sadly misunderstood genius!) I thought Rupert Everett and Stanley Tucci were right on target. (Everett and Pfeiffer had no chemistry, but so what? That's not the point of their parts.)
It's not the best interpretation of the Bard I've seen on screen, but it sure isn't the worst. (Anyone else think Pacino should've been arrested for making 'Looking for Richard'?)
-
After watching that film again and comparing it's Richard III scenes to McKellen's version, there is no doubt in my mind that the Pacino version played the story for the obvious and was nowhere near as good as Sir Ian's. But that's not to say that I didn't enjoy Looking for Richard. Not at all. As a documentary of sorts on the craft of acting and the kinds of questions actors ask in understanding a text, it was invaluable. But that's not to say that the show they actually did put on turned out as good as it could have been. And I think it's because they went for the obvious Renaissance (sp?) look and feel to it. With all those American (esp. NY) actors in it, a more modern and urban rendition of R3 would have been more appropriate and entertaining methinks. The version they ended up with struck me as a college theater group's reunion show. But as a freebie acting and directing lesson, Looking for Richard was great. Really humanized the whole acting process for me. Whenever I read about Pacino preparing for a role, it sounds like some deep psychological, ethereal process involving muvh wailing and gnashing of teeth and undercover work. To see him actually trying to get what it is he is saying as this character, and to realize he's just a man of average intelligence and education attempting to act and is not some god, was inspiring.
-
....but you're an idiot.
Comedy does not mean laugh at loud. It means that there's a happy ending, with everyone who was in proper society winning and those who weren't "proper" getting their comeupance...which is why the ending of Much Ado About Nothing is so forced and sudden....John HAS to be captured and punished.
Anyway, the reviewer knows damn near nothing about Midsummer Night's Dream...but that's ok. I find it interesting he finds fault with Everett's portrayal as a somber fellow...most portrayals lately have done that....from the god-awful 1934 version (Rooney just makes me want to get my smackin' hand out -- I teach Midsummer's yearly and the kids make me fast forward every scene with Puck, even though he's their favorite character) to William Hurt in Central Park some years back.
I will admit that Cagney spoiled me for Bottom. -
I'm a TA for a Shakespeare course, and one of the best perks is getting to show and see amazing movies like Branagh's Henry V and McKellan's Richard III--films that, even if the text is pretty heavily abridged, really connect with the viewer without spoon-feeding..the kinds of movies you want to see again and then make all your friends watch. I suspected the new AMND wouldn't be one of those films when I checked out the studio website for Midsummer Night's Dream, and there were about three pages of the director along with Calista Flockhart congratulating themselves ad nauseum for the incredible, cutting-edge, no-one-was-ever-this-smart-before idea of introducing *bikes* into AMND. Geez, that's funny--I just saw the 1996 Royal Shakespeare video of AMND, and all the way through it Bottom and company are scooting around on motorbikes. Hey, way to fib about being original, guys. Any time a filmmaker starts talking in interviews about how, through his ingenuity, he figured out a way to make something "funny," it ain't--it's guaranteed to reek of trying too hard, which sounds like AMND's problem. Hopefully I'm wrong--but that website of theirs has flop sweat all over it.
-
People do have to realize, as stated above, that comedy in the Shakespearean sense only means that the "good" people get married at the end. This is why THE TEMPEST is considered a "romance" and not a comedy, though it has many comedic elements. So, in actuality, this leaves Shakespeare's comedies, as well as his tragedies, to various interpretations. No one who talked about McKellan's RICHARD III noted the almost overblown comedy in that show. Remember the final frame of Richard falling into the fire, smiling and waving? Also, those who mentioned the TWELFTH NIGHT with Kingsley and Bonham-Carter spoke nothing of how dark and serious it was. Kingsley plays Feste THE CLOWN, and I tell you there is nothing clownish about his performance. And although I was expecting laughs, I was not disappointed that there wasn't many. Instead, I respected the interpretation of director Trevor Nunn and the cast as a different, fresh approach. Why shouldn't directors try new things with Shakespeare? Why would they want to do the play the same way it has been done for over 400 years?
-
A while back I read a rumor that Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean were developing a film version of A Mid Summer Night's Dream. Does anyone know if there was any truth to the rumor, and if so has the current release hurt its chances of being made?
-
Thanks for your counterview Seker. I think you made a good point about Shakespeare's comedies, they frequently have very dark undertones just as Shakespeare's "tragedies" have many comic moments. The differences is in the endings. Romeo and Juliet could have easily changed into a comedy if Romeo did not kill Tebult. And as you pointed out, the Merchant of Venice's is probably Shakespeare's saddest "comedies." It really takes a good director to walk that fine line Shakespeare has presented. I think that Midsummer is one of his more difficult plays to make work. When it works, it's hilarious and touching. When it doesn't work, it's a god-awful mess.
I have to admit, the trailers for this newest adaption of AMSND do not look very promising to me, but I'm such a Shakespeare-phile that I'll probably see it anyway.
Someone wondered when they were going to do a version of Twelfth Night. Someone already did one about two years ago. It had Helen Bohem-Carter in it. The Shakespeare play that I would really like to see adapted is As You Like It. I still think that it is one of his better comedies. I love the weirdo Pheobe.
Oh, and for the reviewer of the article - what's so unusual about "The Wall" being good? I made a damn good wall.... In this same interlude it doth befall that I, one Snout by name present a wall... yeah, I still got it in me.
-
Well, I would just like to say that apart from this review, every other
review of AMSND I have read has been positive. There have been some
quibbles here or there, but nothing even close to the Mr B's decimation of
the film. And the positive reviews I have read have been from a variety of
people, from teens to the much older set. All have enjoyed it. Now this
raises an issue:
You have to question yourself if you are making a decision about seeing this
film simply because of the opinion of one pseudonym. look around, see what
others think. Or wait for respected film reviewers, who know what they're
talking about, to post their feelings in their columns.
If you are still undecided, just watch the film yourself and make up your
own mind.
Mentioning Shakespeare's comedies, they aren't meant to be laugh-out-loud
funny. Comedy ages, tragedy doesn't- that is the way it is with Shakespeare
. So don't expect to go into the cinema to see something akin to There's
Something About Mary. You won't be rolling in the aisles. Just as it was
with other films based on Shakespearean comedies, like Much Ado About
Nothing and Twelth Night, AMSND will be generally serious with some
wonderful moments where you will be forced to smile. You are simply there
to look at and share in the joie de vivre of being young and in love.
And Michelle Pfeiffer is a goddess!
If it is true that the average person who gets information from this site,
will not like this film because there is not enough comedy, action etc. for
them, perhaps it's better that they just go and see The Matrix again. Or
pull out their copies of Romeo & Juliet and watch that film again. I just
find it sad that films that stay close to their tradition are so totally
shunned by filmgoers today. And this is the future of cinema...
-
Talk about doing Midsummer correctly... I saw a preview screening of the first part of the other Midsummer that shot in Dallas last year... very sweet! Hip and cool, great soundtrack, perfectly cast with contemporary actors. I can't wait for that one to come out - I bet it will kick ass. As for this Kevin Kline vanity project... sheesh, talk about bad high-school-quality theatre!
-
I'm last, bee-yotches. Unless someone posts after me. But, seing that it's been 7 years since anyone has posted on this talkback, I think I'm safe. Last!!! Looooosers.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 199 total posts 199 posts
- Tom Cruise Saddles Up For A Remake Of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN!! -- 133 total posts 131 posts
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 142 total posts 128 posts
- Mark Millar Offers Some Interesting Insight Into The KICK-ASS Movie Sequel!! -- 108 total posts 108 posts
- Quint sees some DJANGO UNCHAINED footage at CANNES!!! -- 327 total posts 88 posts
- A Fire Definitely Rises In The New DARK KNIGHT RISES One Sheet!! -- 215 total posts 87 posts
- When there’s no more room in Hell The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day will walk the earth. -- 70 total posts 70 posts
- SPOILER ALERT! AICN COMICS/POPTARDS PODCAST: JUSTICE LEAGUE! DANCER! INCREDIBLE HULK! HARDCORE! NEW CRUSADERS! INVINCIBLE IRON MAN! DANGER CLUB! -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- Stay Away From The Creepy Girl Alone In The Parking Lot For THE POSSESSION's Poster!! -- 43 total posts 41 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 41 total posts 41 posts