You won't be disappointed!

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

As with "Much Ado About Nothing" and "Romeo and Juliet", this is another Shakespearean play with which I was only familiar through reputation but I have been familiar with three of its characters for most of my life. My first exposure to Shakespeare was through the classic 1990s animated series "Gargoyles" in which Puck, Oberon and Titania were all recurring characters, as were Macbeth and the Three Witches. One of the cleverest and most complex of the Shakespearean plays which I have read or seen performed, it features three interconnected story lines and wonderfully blends the lines between fantasy and reality. The play is also extremely witty and occasionally downright hilarious. Made by the Royal Shakespeare Company, it has one of the best casts of any film that I have ever seen: Judi Dench, Ian Richardson, David Warner, Helen Mirren (who also appeared in the 1981 BBC adaptation, though as Titania rather than Hermia), Diana Rigg, Michael Jayston and Ian Holm. Rigg was already very famous for her role as Emma Peel in "The Avengers" and Warner had starred in several big films such as "Tom Jones" and "Morgan - A Suitable Case for Treatment". While most of the other cast members were not well known for their on screen work in 1968, they became so in the years and decades that followed. The strongest performer is certainly Judi Dench, whom I consider to be the best living actress. She is captivating as the proud, forceful queen of the fairies whose dispute with her husband Oberon, played wonderfully by Richardson, serves as the catalyst for the events of the play. However, she is just as good in the scenes in which she is required to be softer such as those with the fairy children (two of whom are played by her nieces Clare and Emma) and those in which she professes her love to Bottom after Puck has given him the head of a donkey. All of the actors whom I have mentioned are top notch but I have to single out Rigg as the kind and vulnerable Helena who sharply feels the pangs of her unrequited love for the Hermia loving Demetrius, who can't stand her until the fairies have their way with him, and Warner as the dashing, romantic Lysander, who adores Hermia until the fairies have their way with him and then comes to despise her before going back to adoring her! For much of his later career, he was typecast as sinister characters and was and is excellent at that but it's always great to see him play a gentler character (for the most part, anyway).The rest of the film's cast is just as strong, particularly Paul Rogers as Bottom (who also played the role in a 1958 TV adaptation), Sebastian Shaw as Quince, Derek Godfrey as Theseus, Barbara Jefford as Hippolyta and Bill Travers as Snout, who was one of the then best known actors in the film in spite of his fairly small role. Rogers, one of the few actors in the film with whom I was largely unfamiliar, is an absolute laugh riot as the overly enthusiastic Bottom, who seeks to take over the play-within-the-play "Pyramus and Thisbe" by playing every part himself. I wonder if the exasperation felt by Quince whenever Bottom made a suggestion came from Shakespeare's own experience working with difficult actors. With his infectious hearty laugh, Rogers is even funnier once he receives the head of a donkey. The scenes with Judi Dench in which Titania fawns over Bottom are the funniest in the entire film.In spite of the strength of its cast, however, the film is not perfect. Peter Hall may have been a great theatre director and the British theatrical world owes him a huge debt for founding the RSC but he was not a good film director. Compared to other Shakespearean films that I have seen, this one is shot in a fairly mechanical, workmanlike fashion and the editing is often very bad. Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh's versions of "Hamlet" and Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" were all beautiful looking films but, in spite of the location work, this seems more like a filmed stage play rather than a film adaptation of one. As much as I loved Bottom, the scenes featuring the entire acting troupe were the least interesting of the play. Consequently, the film drags a bit after Lysander, Hermia, Demestrius and Helena leave the forest. While the acting troupe's terrible production was funny, it was not as funny as it could have been and went on a bit long. Since I haven't read the play, however, I don't know what, if anything, was left out and the final act may have been better structured if it had been performed in full.If it were to rate this film based solely on the acting, I would give it full marks without hesitation but there are other issues to consider so I can't, I'm afraid.

Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream (1968) was directed by Peter Hall for the Royal Shakespeare Company. It features some truly great actors: David Warner as Lysander, Diana Rigg as Helena, Helen Mirren as Hermia, Ian Richardson as Oberon, Judi Dench as Titania, and Ian Holm as Puck.MND is a perfect play for film. This MND was directed by a highly talented Shakespearean director, and had brilliant casting. It had to be great, right? Wrong. First of all, this is--literally--the worst print I've ever watched. As another reviewer pointed out, it looked as if it had been decaying in a dank basement for 40 years. This isn't Abel Gance's "Napoleon," patched together from various sources and very, very old. This film was made in 1968! How could RSC release a print like this?Another problem--contemporary costumes. Midsummer Night's Dream is supposed to be set in Athens, but everyone knows that it really takes place in England, and most directors set it in Elizabethan England. That's probably how people saw it in Shakespeare's time, and that setting will always work. Hall set his play in "contemporary" England. The problem is that "contemporary" costumes look very dated after 50 years. So, seeing the women actors in miniskirts and go-go boots looks really, really funny.Most of the play is set in a forest, and the young actors get lost, stumble about, fall into streams, etc. OK--so we don't want the young women to look like they just stepped out of a bath. But, director Hall has smeared their faces with mud. We can't really see them anyway, because of the print, but what we can see looks like Diana Rigg and Helen Mirren prepared for a commando raid. Was it really necessary to hide the actors' faces?The movie is true to the text, which is good, but there's so much hand-held camera work, and so many jump-cuts, that nothing hangs together. My wife and a friend both gave up after the first half-hour, saying that the film was too painful to watch. I watched until the end, so that I could write this review. I love Shakespeare, and I love MND, but I don't love what Hall did with it. It's more like Midsummer Night's Nightmare. What a waste of talent!

I would only recommend this movie to people who would like to see a laughably horrible version of a great play. All the actors are horrible, except for whoever plays Bottom. They deliver their lines incredibly dry. The costumes are also bad, as the female characters are in mini skirts most of the time. Surprising, considering the movie takes place in Ancient Greece, or, at least, it's supposed to, but the director decided to say it was in Athens, when all the costumes and sets look like the Victorian times. The editing in this film is nonsensical. The fairies, instead of being graceful, disappear and move thanks to the magic of film cutting. Human characters find themselves in random places in between lines of monologues, even in between lines of dialog, where it makes even less sense, when one character is suddenly up a tree. It's a funny movie, but not because the play is a comedy, but because it's all so horrible.Thumbs down, way down.

This spectacular film is currently experiencing a rebirth on cable TV this month, I've seen it listed several times, in its' completed version, without having the aggravation of commercials or editing. When viewed in it's entirety, you'll gasp and squeal with delight at how so many of these budding young English Shakespearean actors became legends in their chosen field decades later.. A fresh and youthful Judi Densch is spectacular, along with the always sexy David Warner, but Diana Rigg's performance is the one that hammers home the reason why this stunning and statuesque actress was the darling of the 60's and 70's in the acting community in Britain. I'm sure so many of these performers, who'd already made a name for themselves in the Shakespeare community later became absolute legends in film and stage. I was hoping to see a youthful Alan Rickman or Maggie Smith, but beggars can't be choosers... Highly recommended and if you get a chance to watch it on the Hi-Def channels on cable, take the phone off the hook and stock up on the mead...