Did you people see the same film I saw?

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

I do like a lot of Shakespeare's plays, the language is not as easy to understand but some synopsis reading and some lessons on Shakespeare, like I had to do for English GCSEs and A Levels, will do just the trick. They have compelling stories and characters, and I love the poetic and witty style of the language. As much as I do love the likes of Hamlet, Midsummer Night's Dream, Merry Wives of Windsor(or Falstaff if you are an opera fan), Macbeth, Much Ado About Nothing, Antony and Cleopatra and Romeo and Juliet, Twelfth Night is my personal favourite. It is deliciously funny and contains some of Shakespeare's most poetic prose(Much Ado About Nothing and Antony and Cleopatra also).This 2003 version is not the definitive Twelfth Night for me. My favourite is between the 1980 and Branagh adaptations, and the Trevor Nunn film is excellent too for its great acting and exquisite visuals. I did find Sir Andrew rather cardboard, though Richard Bremmer did his very best with the role and does gain some chuckles, and two performances didn't work. Chiwetel Ejiofor is certainly handsome as Orsino but his performance has no real insight or motivation. David Troughton I do like, but even for a very rustic character like Sir Toby I did find him a little too coarse. While I did like the melancholic feel that the adaptation has, making the play more dimensional and more than a comedy(though essentially it is that) I did feel some parts did drag.Conversely, this Twelfth Night does look great. I always like gorgeous scenery and photography and there is plenty of that here. The songs are beautifully incorporated and have a nice sense of rhythm to them. The dialogue still has its poetry and is still hilarious, especially with Malvolio, while the melancholic aspect is done surprisingly well. There are some interesting touches, such as the asylum seekers subplot and the Sir Toby, Sir Andrew, Feste and Maria spying on Malvolio via CCTV, and the multi-cultural aspect proved good, not just from a historical perspective but also it makes the play more accessible to a wider audience and ethnic minorities(or so I think). The performances are very good on the whole, Claire Price is very moving as Olivia, and there is a very amusing Feste from Zubin Varla. The standouts though were Parminder Nagra, who is not just entrancing to look at but her Viola looks very natural, and Michael Maloney's brilliant Malvolio, I did have a good giggle at the sight of him in yellow tights (pretty) hideous as they were.Overall, interesting and surprisingly good. Maybe not the ideal version for everybody, especially traditionalists, but for those looking for solid fun this is a good watch. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Normally, modern adaptations of Shakespeare tend to be clunky and forced; Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" and Michael Almereyda's "Hamlet" are perfect testament to this. Even Richard Loncraine's "Richard III" falls on dull devices trying to place the action of that play in the imagined setting of World War Two. Perhaps it is that the tragedies and histories do not lend themselves well to being updated or embellished (see Julie Taymore's "Titus") and would best be left as they are.This adaptation of Twelfth Night, however, benefits greatly from the liberties Andrew Bannerman and Tim Supple take with it. Not only is the story better for the adaptation, but the songs are beautifully rendered and the acting and stage direction is superb.Also incredible is how much they accomplished with so little. This is quite obviously a low budget television adaptation with only a dozen or so sets and very few frills, but what the producers and directors manage to achieve with so little is startling. Whatever Bannerman and Supple made this for could not have exceeded the cost of a luxury car, but the film is a far better ride.

I am not a fan of putting Shakespeare's language into a modern setting. I didn't like the modern Romeo&J, however, I did like Kurosawa's version of King Lear because he didn't use the olde language. I have been watching this version for over an hour now and I have been moderately interested in it but mostly bored. I have no knowledge of the play itself, this film has just made me think that I would like to see the play in it's original form, for this version is too confusing and boring. I like the way Hindi has been spliced into the dialogue. The film does not hold itself up. Not knowing the original story is a problem because this version does make it all confusing. If you are the same then don't start with this one. I would say this version is for those arty people who know what they are talking about and are able to judge scene by scene how this director has managed to interpret the original play.

A made-for-TV adaptation of William Shakespeare's play. Set in modern times with a multi-cultural theme, this is a rather sombre production of one of Shakespeare's comedies, bringing out the darker rather than the comic side of the characters. Sebastian and Viola are portrayed as asylum seekers, ship-wrecked and washed ashore on foreign island, each assuming that the other has drowned. Since they are identical twins, when Viola decides to pose as a man in order to find work it leads to all kinds of confusion including a love triangle involving the dignitaries of the land. Meanwhile amongst the servants and lower orders there is other mischief at work.