How sad is this?

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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

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.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.

Unless you are a rabid Shakespeare fan who is very familiar with this play, I strongly recommend that before you watch it you go out and buy some Cliff Notes or Monarch Notes so you'll have some idea about exactly what's happening. While not as sketchy and confusing as some other early Shakespeare short films (such as KING JOHN (1899) or THE TEMPEST (1908)), this is a very abbreviated version of the play and is awfully confusing and tough to watch. This doesn't mean that the acting or direction were bad--for 1909 it is pretty good--along with the props and cinematography. In fact, I really liked the guy who was given a donkey's head by Puck--cute stuff for 1909. But even if the film had wonderful production values (which it didn't), you just can't do justice to Shakespeare or any play in only 11 minutes!! My advice is just watch FORBIDDEN PLANET (derrived from THE TEMPEST, believe it or not).

I'm becoming convinced that it is extremely difficult to bring Shakespeare to film without doing some major translations, at least using modern notions. There's just too much invested in the spoken language itself from whence all the stuff flows that is normally associated with the cinematic.I've been looking at several silent treatments. Naturally enough, they fall flat. But this one doesn't because it emphasizes the play of the "mechanicals." The abstraction of that play on film, the jumping and gesticulating is along the same lines as ALL the acting of that day, but double.If you were going to try a film, the best plot device is the play within the play (of any of his plays that have this). And the best abstraction strategy is to just take his existing exaggeration and exaggerate it.It is all a matter of what you are tricked into falling in love with.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

This version of Shakespeare's play works well with some excellent performances (the girl playing Puck, Julia Swayne-Gordon, Maurice Costello, Florence Turner) and an attempt to pack in all the twists and turns of the plot into a very short time span. The curio is that Oberon is omitted and Penelope added instead - very odd! The players are also very funny, particularly the wild looking actor playing Bottom. Not at all boring and exceptionally good quality visually.