It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

this movie bothered me so much, I had to see it in many days to survive the agony of it. now I am going to try to show my feelings towards this picture.first of all: the acting. the cast acts like they are teaching little children. I hate it when actor's do taht. it's as if we are all dumb creatures and they know it all... I dislike that fact, because it isn't so. correct, it's a play of Shakespeare, so they must overact to make it watchable, but still... they annoyed me like hell! second: the story. it's a story a 7 year old can write. again, it's Shakespeare, but why should I have to love everything from Shakespeare? yes, I like most of his works, but this one I detested. it was like watching a train arrive in 1894 (actually, that would have been more exciting than this Comedy of Errors).the music. ah, the music was fine. but if you would hear the music outside of the movie, you would hate it. so, also the music BEEPs.conclusion: the whole movie BEEPs. the only interesting about it was the conclusion, where everybody comes together in a Shakespearian way.

This play is not as feeble as, say, "Two Gentlemen of Verona," but it's not terribly strong either. Directors have a tendency to throw in distractions to up the level of interest: Trevor Nunn threw in nine songs, Greg Mosher added a clown and a drag queen, and here James Cellan Jones throws in a mime troupe.I don't care what his rationale was, there are three things in life worth avoiding: folk dancing, incest and commedia dell'arte. The mimes are superfluous, annoying and nowhere near as interesting as they are supposed to be.Getting past that, this is neither the strongest nor the weakest of the BBC Shakespeares. The set is a cheerful stylization of a tiny town on the Aegean, with a surprising amount of atmosphere. It's easy on the eyes and is also built in the round, so no matter which way the camera looks, you remain solidly within the physical setting.Cyril Cusack and Wendy Hiller get the acting honors, with a tip of the hat to Charles Gray.The master and servant pair from Syracuse are relaxed and benign, those from Ephesus are sour and prone to violence. Since the TV camera would not forgive two sets of actors pretending to be identical twins, one single actor plays both Antipholi (?), and another both Dromios. Michael Kitchen labors over a case of flu to differentiate his characters. Roger Daltrey is sincere and good-natured, but way out of his depth here and best passed over in silence.The trouble, as so often with farce, is the pace. Though things start off promisingly and finish well, that droop in the middle is serious.So, not a show for the ages, but not the worst thing ever to happen to the Bard.

I saw the Comedy of Errors with Roger Daltrey. I totally disagree. I thought Daltrey was very entertaining and acted brilliantly in it. Also got to see him on stage in NYC acting as Scrooge in a Christmas Carol about 7 years ago. He was good in that role, too.In addition to being a well known singer, I believe he shows a lot of versatility with his acting, also. I'm guessing he's gotta be on the other side of 60 now, but he still looks good. He was on Letterman recently with Peter Townshend, and although he's beginning to show age, he still keeps himself in great shape.While a lot of rock stars of his era were poisoning their bodies with drugs and alcohol, he seemed to steer clear. There were times he fought with his own band mates over the alcohol and drugs they were using and killing themselves with(Two of them died using drugs). He stayed away and looks great at his age compared to how bad others look from his era who were lucky enough to survive their drug addictions.

To cast one Roger Daltrey may be regarded as a misfortune. To cast two looks like carelessness.This is a woefully clunky piece of film-making, and its biggest mistake is to use sophisticated special effects (sorry, awkward split-screen work) so that the same actors can play both identical twins. The BBC series is always over-literal in its interpretations, and this is a classic example; when the two Roger Daltreys and the two Michael Kitchens are identical to the point of pristine perfection, the story is actually made even less realistic than it was before. And it's also made less interesting; the actors don't play each twin as having a different personality, so it's difficult to tell who is who, and even more difficult to care. (Quite apart from the fact that Daltrey can't act...)Unintentional humour: check out the under-rehearsed actors who attempt to mime Egeon's story of his travels. It's really funny in a painful kind of way.