KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

arbarnes I remember being pleasantly enchanted by this rather winsome film version of Shakespeare's romantic comedy/fantasy when it first appeared, and it certainly looked beautiful on the big screen with its gorgeous, warm cinematography, composition and production design. It created a pleasant, warm feeling in the audience, delivering a comforting experience, and drawing a few chuckles here and there; smiles rather than belly laughs. For here the comedy is fairly genteel, and often also quite melancholic –there is always another dimension to each moment of laughter, a story beyond, especially with the band of craftsmen who put their heart into performing, despite their lack of any real talent. Their preparations for and ultimate performance of "Pyramus and Thisbe" is where much of the comedy of the play lies, but in this film the traditional comic moments are toned down a great deal. I admire the restrained performances of both individuals and the amateur group as an ensemble, because it is so easy to go over the top with their part in the story. Here we smile affectionately rather than laugh mockingly, and our smiles are warm and sympathetic, as they sometimes are when someone in the family performs at a wedding or similar despite a lack of talent. Kevin Kline as Bottom naturally takes much of the limelight, and gives his character a whole deeper life than is normally seen, as does the very underrated Roger Rees as Peter Quince –he gives an immensely dignified and rather beautiful performance here, full of subtle details that I only really appreciated upon viewing the film again. I found many of the magical scenes with the fairies to be quite mesmerizing, and the careful use of special effects was just right in creating moments of fantasy and wonder without overwhelming the picture. Much of the beauty of the play lies in the lines spoken by Oberon and Titania and Puck, and Rupert Everett, Michelle Pfeiffer and Stanley Tucci give great respect to the language and poetry of Shakespeare, without falling to the traps of prettifying it or making it bombastic –it's poetry, yet living dramatic interaction too. By and large, I think most of the cast do quite well with the text, making it alive and personal, and I certainly am not one of those who despair at American voices uttering Shakespeare; quite the contrary. Here, there is a nice mix of American and British voices, and it is to the film's credit.If I were pushed to criticize the film it would be for its lack of "edge" or danger –passion, if you like. This applies both to the two pairs of young lovers, and the fairy characters and their escapades. Everything is a little too mellow and tame, so that we are lulled more than provoked. A little more spice or audacity would have perked things up considerably, and the story certainly gives room for and even suggests this.But the director has his own vision of the play and is at least consequent in his presentation of that, and it's perfectly acceptable. The interesting thing is that A Midsummer Night's Dream may be tackled in many different ways, and the "world" that is presented here in all its lush, green, dream-like beauty is no less valid than other more provocative versions of Shakespeare's magical comedy.

vstb This could have been a great version of MSND. It has a lot of good things in it. The cast is excellent and the director got great performances out of them (especially Anna Friel,Kevin Kline and Calista Flockhart). But it doesn't quite satisfy. Why?A Shakespeare play is like a Beethoven Symphony. No conductor would think of adding or deleting notes, let alone bars, from the 9th Symphony. The orchestra plays it as written to the best of their ability and their performance is judged on the level of excellence they achieve. It should be the same with Shakespeare's plays.Shakespeare was writing film scripts 300 years before the invention of the movie camera. He knew quite a lot about construction, pacing, characterisation and dialogue. If a screenplay changes any of these things it will probably diminish the effectiveness of the work. That is what has happened in this case. When will producers learn to put their trust in Shakespeare? This film starts with some nonsense about bustles and bicycles and then introduces a new character ( Bottom's wife ).What on earth made Mr Hoffman think he was improving Shakespeare with these interpolations? But even more damaging than the interpolations is the lack of any insight into what MSND is about.It seems to me that Shakespeare wanted audiences to think about 2 things after experiencing MSND ; 1. To what extent is our life shaped by our will and to what extent is it shaped by unseen forces we are not even aware of? That is why Hermia,Helena,Demetrius and Lysander come under the power of Oberon/Puck. Who has never fallen asleep firmly believing one thing and woken the next morning believing the contrary? Why? What has happened in our sleep? Shakespeare puts it down to fairies. Until someone comes up with a better explanation fairies it is! 2. The importance of self delusion in the pursuit of happiness. Philosophers say that to ," know thyself" is the path to happiness but Shakespeare knew better. His players are ecstatic at the end of the film because they think they have put in a performance that has dazzled the Athenian Court. Would they be happier if they knew the truth? Does this film stimulate its audience into thinking about these issues? I don't think so. That is another reason why it fails to satisfy.

William Brown (wdbrown) Let me begin by saying that this is a beautifully acted, filmed and produced version of one of my two favorite Shakepespeare comedies. the other one being "Twelfth Night." That being said, however, I have to caution against anyone regarding this as a totally faithful adaptation. Having performed in and directed "A Midsummer Night's Dream," I think I am on fairly firm ground when I ask, "Where the Hell did Bottom's wife come from?" She is not in Shakespeare's script, and the inclusion of her only serves to make Bottom an even more pathetic character than he already is. Kevin Kline provides an tender, touching portrayal, but the character is not Shakespeare's.I have seen other criticisms and comments and I must take issue with those. I know it is easy to denigrate Shakepeare's language saying it is antiquated, too old, but to replace Shakespeare with a modern translation would be to lose the beauty of his words, and the wonder of his symbolism. I suggest these critics and reviewers get a little more education. I enjoy clever plays with scenery or time. Transplanting the time of the story to near turn of the century 1900, was effective. Changing the setting from Greece to Italy was convenient for filming and didn't detract from the story, but didn't necessarily add anything either.In conclusion, this is still an enjoyable film. But it is no more William Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" than Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was Bram Stoker's.

widescreenguy a very long wait. 43 years to be exact.this was the first Shakespeare play I studied in high school and I HATED it. all the mincing fairy dancing and twinkle toes. wretched stuff for a 14 year old eager to take on the growing challenges of life.sigh.when this one was released, I thought good grief, why couldn't they do *anything else*.and then this year with nothing better to do I took in a free live performance at the university (it was a midsummer night) and they did such a good job that I finally rented this production and was blown away by it. goes to show in the hands of decently professional and intelligent people it can bring out the best and be a true representation of the genius of Shakespeare.I hope some day all those stiflingly boring and bitter high school teachers can be FORCED to sit through some of the better film versions of Shakespeare to see that it can be presented in such a way as to not WRECK the enjoyment and entertaining elements of Shakespeare's works.