Good movie but grossly overrated

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Strong direction and a superb cast make Peter Hall's 1968 version of William Shakespeare's comedy A Midsummer Night's Dream my favorite version of the film, and one of my favorite Shakespeare adaptations of any film. (I understand that the DVD release does not do justice to the film, so if you are renting, I would suggest the VHS version). The film is performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company and the cast is composed of superb actors, many of whom did not become stars until years later. These include: including Judi Dench as the Fairy Queen, a scantily clad Tatania, Diana Rigg as Helena, a young Helen Mirren as Hermia, the lover of Lysander (David Warren), Ian Holm as the inimitable Puck, Paul Rogers as the most believable Bottom I've seen, and Ian Richardson as the Fairy King Oberon.While the film had a limited budget, the clarity of its presentation may be one of the few adaptations of the Bard that doesn't need subtitles to fully appreciate Shakespeare's poetry. As far as the story, it is a light-hearted and enchanting comedy that uses magic to create a mysterious, mystical atmosphere,. Shakespeare populates the woods outside of Athens with mischievous, but good hearted fairies who mistakenly create unnecessary conflict, then make amends. The supernatural is the essential element that runs throughout the play and Shakespeare uses magic both to confuse the characters, and then resolve their bewilderment. Each character experiences the magic differently. Bottom finds his wondrous dreams to be magical, while the lovers, arguably the most impacted by magic, remember it only as a bad dream. Titania finds magic in her love of a little boy, and Oberon embraces the magic of the supernatural elements in the seemingly natural world. In this play, Shakespeare suggests that the world of the magical fairies is not separate from nature, but a part of it, even though Hall separates the fairies from the rest of the characters by depicting them in shades of green. A Midsummer Night's Dream also displays the author's knowledge of Greek mythology by characters such as Theseus, the Duke of Athens, a mythical founder-king of Athens, and his bride Hippolyta, an Amazonian queen who owned a waist belt that signified her authority as queen of the Amazons. Additionally, two other characters, Oberon and Titania, can be seen as similar to Zeus and Hera, and Puck can be compared to Eros, the Greek god of sexual love and beauty with the flower that Puck puts on characters' eyes is comparable to Eros' golden arrows. The play also owes a large debt to Ovid's "Metamorphoses," likely used in the translation by Arthur Golding, the uncle of Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. The early 20th century delineator of classical mythology, Robert Kilburn Root, says that the whole character of Shakespeare's mythology is essentially Ovidian and that "Shakespeare himself has shown that he was proud to be Ovid's successful ape." As in Ovid's use of a story-within-a story, Shakespeare uses the tale of Pyramus and Thisbe as a play-within-a play for entertainment at the wedding of Theseus and Hippolyta, a rollicking good time. Metamorphosis, a theme central to Ovid is clearly represented by Bottom's transformation into an ass. "Man is but an ass if he go about t'expound this dream," he says, unable to fathom the magical happenings that have affected him as anything but the result of sleep. Shakespeare is also interested in the actual workings of dreams, in how events occur without explanation, time loses its normal sense of flow, and how the impossible occurs as a matter of course. One aspect of the play, not often noted, is how Shakespeare's depiction of women challenged the convention of the time. Hippolyta's role in her relationship with Theseus is striking. The fact that she stands up to Theseus when she disagrees with him in Act V is extremely significant. In Shakespeare's time, it was common practice for the wife to be the submissive, silent partner in a relationship. Hippolyta's first words in the play evidence the prevalence of dreams ("Four days will quickly steep themselves in night, / Four nights will quickly dream away the time"), and various characters mention dreams throughout (Act 1, Scene 1). Animal spirits also pervade the play, including references to owls, ravens, and spiders. In Act 2, Scene 2, Puck delivers a charm to protect the sleeping Titania from tiny creatures common in England associated with the fates, the weaver of illusion, and the women who wove the threads of life, all harmless, though once thought to be venomous."Weaving spiders, come not here; Hence, you longlegged spinners, hence! Beetles black approach not near; Worm nor snail, do no offence."At the end of the play, Puck extends the idea of dreams to the audience members themselves, saying that, if they have been offended by the play, they should remember it as nothing more than a dream. In spite of being a product of the 60s with its mini-skirts and boots, A Midsummer Night's Dream has a fresh and contemporary look and audiences of today would feel right at home with the film's use of jump cuts, and and-held camera (presumably a debt to director Richard Lester). It is a "feel-good" story that is neatly resolved but I certainly would not have wanted it to be any other way, and I suspect Elizabethan audiences would not have either.

This spectacular film is currently experiencing a rebirth on cable TV this month, I've seen it listed several times, in its' completed version, without having the aggravation of commercials or editing. When viewed in it's entirety, you'll gasp and squeal with delight at how so many of these budding young English Shakespearean actors became legends in their chosen field decades later.. A fresh and youthful Judi Densch is spectacular, along with the always sexy David Warner, but Diana Rigg's performance is the one that hammers home the reason why this stunning and statuesque actress was the darling of the 60's and 70's in the acting community in Britain. I'm sure so many of these performers, who'd already made a name for themselves in the Shakespeare community later became absolute legends in film and stage. I was hoping to see a youthful Alan Rickman or Maggie Smith, but beggars can't be choosers... Highly recommended and if you get a chance to watch it on the Hi-Def channels on cable, take the phone off the hook and stock up on the mead...

After seeing this film, I find that I can both praise it as the best in existence, or toss it down and trample upon it. As it stands, I neither love it devotedly, nor do I despise it.There are a few items on which I must comment, and I pray you give me leave to do so. First and foremost, the acting. Ian Holm radiated sheer Puckishness in his role as Robin Goodfellow. As a young man, he was more reckless and boyish than I've ever seen him. (Although that thing with the tongue was a little weird... but still. He was great.) Judi Dench, also, was magnificent as Titania. Although I would've preferred her to be... um... wearing more clothing... or at least SOME clothing. But regardless, she was wonderful. Paul Rogers was pure Bottom from top to... well. Yes. Some of the acting, however, I found to be purely horrid. Diana Rigg (Helena) and Helen Mirren (Hermia) in particular. They rarely put emotion into their voices, and merely spoke in monotone. When they did insert emotion, it was overblown. And besides, they seemed to have only one emotion TO insert - that of "on the verge of tears, oh-what-shall-I-do, poor-little-rich-girl" acting. Ludicrous and not befitting of the character at all.Another thing I must mention is the lighting. You could SEE the lights through the trees. Not very professional - I must admit that for the first twenty minutes I was sure that it was an independent film. The camera angles were also rather ridiculous, and the constant shaky-camera effect gave me a headache and made me not wish to look at the screen.Another thing (though perhaps this is just me being difficult), but did the fairies really have to be green? Really? I found it rather strange, difficult to distinguish the actors from the greenery, and I believe that Ian Richardson may have been allergic to the makeup. Or even if he wasn't, SOMETHING was making his eyes turn red, and whatever it was gave me the creeps.All in all, however, it wasn't too bad. I laughed my head off several times. The donkey was well done (I liked the use of prosthetics), and the children playing the fairies seemed to know their roles wonderfully, and they played very well. I wouldn't recommend it to non-Shakespeare fans, but if you like Shakespeare, I think you'll like this.

This film has a dream cast. Diana Rigg, Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, and Paul Rogers are especially fine. Yet, the film moves clumsily along with all the cinematographic finesse of a home video. So much of the production values of this film are just plain sloppy. Sloppy makeup and sloppy attention to costume detail are just the beginning of the list of faults. Exactly when was this story supposed to happen? It could have been an Elizabethian period piece, yet methinks it could have been the 1960's based on the women's short skirts and very 'mod' boots. There were touches of the directing style of Ed Wood, also. We enter the forest and it's dark. A few scenes later, the sun is shining, then it's dark again. I can't let this review go by without echoing another reviewer's comment -- What exactly were they doing to get so dirty?!?I did find a way to completely enjoy this film. Don't watch it -- listen to it. It works much better as an audioplay than as a film.