The greatest movie ever made..!

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Tempest, The (1908) *** (out of 4) Another Shakespeare adaptation works perfectly well and delivers a very magical feel. Part of this is due to the dreamlike camera work but the special effects are also quite good for their time.King John (1899) *** (out of 4) 've been told this was the first Shakespeare adaptation and if so it isn't too bad for what it is. Running just over three minutes this here takes the final pages of the play as King John dies.Midsummer Night's Dream, A (1909) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Yep, more Shakespeare early style. The actual "story" never really comes across here and the title cards just make things even more confusing but the interesting thing are all the technical stuff. Every shot of the film takes place outdoors and all the locations are very nice. The camera angels are also all set up to perfectly capture the mood of the film.

By the year of 1907, cinema had already reached the point where it wasn't a novelty anymore to see camera tricks or actuality films. While cinema had already developed a certain narrative style thanks to the efforts of film pioneers like Edwin S. Porter and Georges Méliès, many people still considered cinema as a lesser art at best, and a mere sideshow entertainment at worst. To help the new medium to gain more credibility as an art form, the shooting of famous theater plays became a new trend in European cinema, and soon the classic works of Shakespeare and other authors began to appear on movies. While the attempt to give some "credit" to films was certainly noble, this approach soon proved to be flawed, as those movies became nothing more than mere plays put on film. However, some artists tried to use this new trend creatively in order to truly innovate cinema, and British director Percy Stow was one of them.William Shakespeare's "The Tempest" is the story of sorcerer Prospero and his young daughter Miranda. Prospero is the rightful Duke of Milan, but was deposed by his jealous brother Antonio and set adrift along with his daughter until they reached a magical island where they have been stranded for twelve years. On the island, Prospero found a spirit named Ariel, who becomes his servant after Propsero rescued her from imprisonment in a tree using his magical powers. Propsero also found Caliban, a native monster, son of a legendary witch, who helped them to survive on the wilderness but, after attempting to rape Miranda, also becomes Propero's slave, scared by the sorcerer's powers and Ariel's magic. However, another threat is near, as Propero finds out that Antonio is on a ship that is passing close by the island. It is now time for him to unleash the Tempest and consummate his revenge.This version of Shakespeare's classic is actually the very first adaptation of "The Tempest" to film, and was the second work by writer Langford Reed, who would become a regular scriptwriter in many of the movies for director Percy Stow's company, Clarendon. As written above, in those years the norm was to simply shoot a representation of the play without making any changes, but under Stow's orders, Reed made the very first attempt to actually translate the classic play to the new medium. So, knowing his limitations, Reed makes a condensed, yet very complete version of the story (although Caliban's subplot is eliminated) that truly captures the essence of the play and manages to remain faithful to Shakespeare despite the changes, ultimately proving that cinema requires a narrative of its own.Just like Langdon Reed's screenplay moves away from the stagy adaptations that were the trend in those days, director Percy Stow makes his movie version of "The Tempest" a brand new kind of way to tell Shakespeare's tale. Instead of simply shooting his actors performing the play, Stow literally makes the magic of "The Tempest" come alive by cleverly using set designs and special effects to recreate Prospero's magic island. Stow started making "trick films" in Georges Méliès' style, and again he borrows from the French master as "The Tempest" visual look owes a lot to Méliès' famous 1902 film, "Le Voyage Dans la Lune". However, Stow also uses scenes on real locations mixed with his very good special effects to achieve a style that, while fantastic, looks also realistic to a certain extent, and of course, never stagy.Sadly, the names of the cast of this first version of "The Tempest" have been lost forever, as there are no records of who played who in this early British classic. However, it still can be said that the actor who played Propsero did an excellent job in the role, as without any kind of overacting he manages to compel all the emotions that his character represents, and he can easily go from being fearsome to merciful. Still, the star of this "Tempest" is definitively the little teenager girl who plays Ariel, as she manages to steal every scene with her highly dynamic performance that clearly shows that she was trained as a dancer. This unknown young actress certainly had a lot of screen presence and Stow knew very well how to use it to portray the otherworldly nature of Ariel. The rest of the cast is good although nothing surprising, and as written above, the role of Caliban was diminished to the point that nothing is left of the highly challenging role of Shakespeare's play.While this version of "The Tempest" showed that cinema wasn't an extension of theater and in fact was an entire new art form, very few followed Stow's cinematic approach to Shakespeare and the stage-bound adaptations kept appearing during the following years. Still, Percy Stow's creative genius kept shining through the following decade in his "Lieutenant Rose" series of movies, early examples of British spy films. As the co-founder of Clarendon and director of several of the most amazing films of early British cinema (including the first version of "Alice in Wonderland"), Percy Stow's name can proudly stand next to Porter and Méliès as one of the most innovative pioneers of early cinema. 8/10

Released in 1908, the year D.W. Griffith became a film director, Percy Stow's version of THE TEMPEST is shot in a mix of film grammars and to the modern, informed eye, poses the question: which film grammar will be the film grammar of the future: will it be the magic-lantern-inspired editing in use at Edison? Will it be the progression of ideas invented by George Albert Smith? Will it be the Proscenium Arch stage illusion of George Melies, the Zecca-Chomon-Feuillade model popular in France, or something altogether different? Well, today we know that Smith won, so it may seem like a foolish question. Yes, national differences still live on. You can tell if a movie was shot by a French crew, an Italian crew or a Japanese crew by more than the actors involved. But although the vocabulary of cut and framing derives from many sources, the grammar is Smith's.The reason I find this movie so interesting is that it makes an effort -- and I think it is a successful effort -- to combine two of the grammars meaningfully. Prospero lives in a Melies world, bound by the theater's arch and with the scenery painted -- very appropriate, for a magician to live in a stage-magician's world. The others, however, live in a naturalistic world. The edge of the frame is what bounds their world, and they can and do walk right past the edge.Is this a metaphor for the future of cinema? Is the naturalistic grammar of Smith simply better, more expansive? Maybe. Am I reading too much into this? Definitely. But the idea amuses me and, I hope, you. And that's why we look at these old movies: to be amused.

This fun little short, silent movie version of Shakespeare's "The Tempest" shows its age at times, but it is an excellent effort considering all the limitations of the era. It covers much of the main plot of the play, and the first few minutes actually consist of events that had already happened when Shakespeare's play begins, and which the characters in the play refer back to - so it's interesting to see them as part of the story here.The fantasy nature of the plot lends itself well to special effects, and they tried quite a few things that were very imaginative for the time. While some of them reveal the cinematic limitations of 1908, most of them work pretty well and add some real energy to the film. According to the Milestone video, the cast list is now unfortunately unknown. Most of them are adequate, though nothing special, but the young girl playing Ariel is very entertaining, and steals most of the scenes that her character is in.If you like Shakespeare and silent films, you should enjoy this short feature.