Waste of time

terrible... so disappointed.

Fantastic!

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

THere are three British dames in this film adaptation: Dame Judi Dench, Dame Diana Rigg and Dame Helen Mirren. While the cast is outstandingly directed by Sir Peter Hall, the costumes appear to be weak and cheaply made. When Titania played by Dame Judi Dench kisses a horses' behind, you can see his eyes. The costumers dressed Titania as a green fairy which was just painted on like silly. The William Shakespeare play is a festive comedy for the light-hearted and entertainment of its audience. It's not an expensive production but it's worth watching to see three Dames in their younger days. Everybody in the cast has been part of the Royal Shakespeare Company and are veteran actors by now. THe play does entertain and I can poke fun at the cheap costumes and lack of expense towards the production. It's nice to see Dame Judi Dench before she was ever a Dame. Not even an O.B.E. in this 1968 production. She appears to enjoy playing the role. Dame Helen Mirren is also cast as the young Helena who seeks to be in love. I probably got the names wrong but it's Shakespeare, who can remember?

This movie looks like it was hastily committed to film by high school students. The lighting changes constantly so one is never sure whether the scene is intended to be at night or during the day. The fairies appear to be various shades of green at different times. The lovers get muddier and muddier as the story progresses, and the stains migrate around their clothes and faces. The sound is exactly the same wherever the action is. There is a frequent use of jerky stop action to move the scene from place to place and to show fairies moving at the speed of light. The dreadful music is earnestly trying to be avante-garde and succeeding in being cacophonous and out-of-place. The costumes were trendy then but look rather silly now.The virtually uncut script, an advantage for students, has the disadvantage of occasionally slowing the action to a near stop.It's a pity because these are great performances by an amazingly talented cast. Helen Mirren's Hermia, less strident than most, Ian Holm's doglike Puck and Judi Dench's near naked Titania are standouts certainly. Best of all for me was Derek Godfrey as Theseus. He brings a lot of dignity and urbanity to a part often played as a pompous bore or a chump. Theseus is given a lot of lines, sadly cut in many productions, which comment on literature and drama. "The best of this kind are but shadows, and the worst no worse, if imagination amend it." You need a fair bit of imagination to amend the shortfalls of this film, but the effort is well worth it.

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.