the leading man is my tpye

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

I originally expected to watch a few seconds of this and turn to another channel; however, the film style intrigued me, so I kept watching. Then, I saw Titania...She was beautiful. Her acting was sublime. The enthusiasm she had for the ass-headed Bottom was palpable. I had to tape it. Fortunately, there was another showing later in the day.To my surprise, the beautiful Titania was none other than a youngish Judy Dench. Diana Rigg also appears as Helena, the spurned lover, who joins three other young people for the familiar comedy of errors.Besides the fairies, the actors dress in modern garb...casual: Button-up shirts, mini-skirts, go go boots. The acting is wonderful and the choppy editing very appropriate. Was it as good as Propero's Books? No, but it gives it a run for its money...

This is not only the best version of the play available on film, it is easily one of the five best Shakespearian films of all (at least in English).The fact that it was made on less than a shoestring budget is totally irrelevant. Whether or not there are any special effects, the photography by the renowned Peter Suschitzky ("Dead Ringers", "Empire Strikes Back", "Spider") is excellent. It's not only pictorial, but contributes greatly to the spontaneous, irreverent, slapstick-esquire approach to the whole production, which Peter Hall and his marvelous actors worked so hard to achieve. The locations are also ideal, given the modernized, anglicized look of the production.Director Hall's interpretation of the play comes as close to 'perfection' as an enthusiast of the Bard could possibly ask for. He refuses to reduce the play to an erotic fantasy, as so many other have done (i.e. the 1999 film), and he rejects the even more common temptation to turn it into a loud, garish costume-ball. In other word, Hall presents the play as Shekespeare wrote it.It relies for its appeal on marvelous words and gestures, not on costumes and special effects.As for the cast, one only need to look at the big names on the list to see that this production was literally one-of-a-kind. Actually the least famous major player in this company is the one most worthy of note: Paul Rogers, a wonderful character actor and a frequent collaborator of Alec Guinness, is quite possibly the best Bottom that most of us (in this day and age) are ever likely to see. Both Cagney and Kevin Kline were terrific in the major films, but Paul Rogers IS Bottom.It says something about both film audiences and readers that the 1935 Warner Bros. film with James Cagney is rated more highly on the IMDb than this production. In that pretty but vapid collection of songs and dances, you could hardly hear any of Shakespeare's words, and if you could you would have to cringe, since almost none of the actors could adequately speak the lines. Cagney was good, but the rest was silence. GO WITH THIS VERSION INSTEAD! Fortunately, it was recently made available on DVD.

I only saw this during the single showing CBS gave it way back when. I had no idea what the play was about but as a Diana Rigg fan, I was curious what she had been up since abruptly leaving The Avengers. I only saw it on a 19' BW TV. I had no idea that some of the Faerie were green.... The things you learn at this site!Decades later, looking at the cast list, I'm really eager for a chance to see this again! This is one of those productions where everyone was unknown then and famous now. I'm also curious about the relationship of CLARE DENCH and EMMA DENCH to the now-world-famous Judi Dench (I'm guessing nieces).Postscript, April 2007-- Last November I finally got a chance to see this nearly-forgotten flick. The film quality is a bit off, with some noticeable color shifting. But what the heck! It's probably the only version available....It's a very, very dated production. Hippolyta wears a classic mid-60s Mod outfit and some of the outfits struck me as very Hippie era. This may be the effect they wanted, a sort of psychedelic Shakespeare.Oh man, what a cast! So many future stars a decade before they would finally hit it big-- Ian Holm, David Warner, Helen Mirren as an ingénue, Judi Dench in the nude?!?!?!Hopefully the BBC saved the negative or at least a decent copy of this so that someday they release a decent copy of this.

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.