You won't be disappointed!

not horrible nor great

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

As a rather hard line traditionalist I tend to hate modern adaptations of Shakespeare but in this lovely 2003 TV adaptation of the 12th Night I forgot the modern jetsam and got lost in the play. The explanation of the modern context I found irrelevant but once Parminder Nagra came on the scene I was entranced. Once again Shakespeare shows his absolute timelessness, where, whatever the dress, furniture, architecture and scenery his brilliant lines taken up with sensitivity and skill still have the power to move you to tears again and again. Even though the 1996 adaptation with Imogen Stubbs was quite brilliantly acted it pales before gentle sincerity of emotion shown by Nagra. Probably not a performance for the uninitiated but for a Shakespeareophile pure bliss.

Normally, modern adaptations of Shakespeare tend to be clunky and forced; Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" and Michael Almereyda's "Hamlet" are perfect testament to this. Even Richard Loncraine's "Richard III" falls on dull devices trying to place the action of that play in the imagined setting of World War Two. Perhaps it is that the tragedies and histories do not lend themselves well to being updated or embellished (see Julie Taymore's "Titus") and would best be left as they are.This adaptation of Twelfth Night, however, benefits greatly from the liberties Andrew Bannerman and Tim Supple take with it. Not only is the story better for the adaptation, but the songs are beautifully rendered and the acting and stage direction is superb.Also incredible is how much they accomplished with so little. This is quite obviously a low budget television adaptation with only a dozen or so sets and very few frills, but what the producers and directors manage to achieve with so little is startling. Whatever Bannerman and Supple made this for could not have exceeded the cost of a luxury car, but the film is a far better ride.

I find this an almost impeccable film version of this very subtle Shakespearean comedy, far transcending my former favorite, the 1996 film version by Trevor Nunn, which now pales in comparison. Shakespeare's TWELFTH NIGHT was probably written shortly after HAMLET, around 1601 or 1602, and thus embodies all the complexity of thought and feeling that dominated Shakespeare's greatest period of dramatic productivity. This is not COMEDY OF ERRORS or even MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. This is a hilarious comedy tinged with darkness, with Shakespeare probably finally processing the death of his only son, Hamnet, in 1596. This film version of the play captures all that complexity. It is outrageously funny in its dark way, deeply thoughtful, and very powerful in its emotional resonance. This film elucidates characters, character relationships, and situations as no other production I have ever seen. Even the usually, nearly invisible Fabian becomes an important figure in the play. I am especially thrilled by the fresh line readings, many of which have opened new doors for me after nearly 40 years and dozens of experiences with this text. However, many people will be put off by this version's style, which is liberated and far from what people expect from Shakespeare. If one can open one's mind and heart to what is actually here and accept the film's style as a legitimate artistic choice, the appropriateness and power of the camera work and soundtrack become part of this film's strongest features. It is a version that can move those inexperienced with Shakespeare and those who know the text intimately.

I have always liked Shakespeare's Twelfth Night - it's my favourite play. As such, I have seen many versions of it, both on film and in the theatre. With a play as old as Shakespeare's are, that's performed as much as this one is, it's difficult to get an adaptation that's new. I think this version managed to do that without taking it so far out of context that it didn't make any sense. I really enjoyed this version, as it was completely different to any I've ever seen before. I thought the leading cast members were all very good, especially Parminder Nagra who plays Viola. I loved the setting and agree with the decision to leave the Shakespearean language, as I think modernising language in Shakespeare never works - I have never seen one that does. The language is as much a part of the play as the plot. Overall, I don't think it was quite as good as the 1996 film directed by Trevor Nunn, but that's setting an impossible standard.