IMDb > A Midsummer Night's Dream (1996) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
A Midsummer Night's Dream More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 19 reviews in total 

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Creative and very English adaptation

Author: Ray Girvan from Devon, UK
21 February 2003

I just love this film. I didn't see the stage version, but this is an extremely clever adaptation of the play: a nice parallel construction where the human court is pointed up by using the same actors as the fairy court, and Bottom's friends reappearing as his fairy attendants. Desmond Barrit is brilliantly characterised, and the Mechanicals very creatively presented as English working-class (for instance, Bottom on a motor-bike combination). And we're left with no doubts that he does have sex with Titania, and donkey's ears are not all he gets from the transformation! I think it's one of the hallmarks of good Shakespearian productions that it manages to make the humour genuinely funny, and the play-within-the-play combines slapstick with genuine pathos. Ultimately, it was a very moving production, whose end (despite my being fairly hard-bitten) brought tears to my eyes with its deep nostalgia and Englishness. You are sorry to leave the world of these characters.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

different, but really well done!!

8/10
Author: italyzmafiachick from United States
29 June 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

While it does take a bit of time to get things going, I found that it was REALLY well done! The way they did the woods scenes with the lights and the doors it made me look at it in a whole new way. The scenes in the woods required the watcher to use their imagination and it was so lovely! The characters and the dialogue are well done by the actors! The costuming and make up are wonderful and full of color!! I enjoyed it! The boy did puzzle me, but that was the only thing I could have done without! I just love Lindsay Duncan who most would know from HBO's ROME, she is such a classy lady and a very good actress. Puck reminded me of a young Robin Williams and was very good in his part. It was a good production and I would love to see it again!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Delightfully Surprised!

8/10
Author: (sylviastel@aol.com) from United States
8 December 2005

The little boy in the movie has read William Shakespeare's A Midsummer's Night Dream. Like the title, he has a dream where he goes to different worlds and sees them act out the comedy. While it can get confusing, I prefer this film version because the little boy can be the audience. Not everybody who is going to see it is going to relate to the film. Shakespeare's Comedy is fantasy as well with fairies and an underworld all on its own. The boy may not grasp the language neither can most of the audience. But he does see what going on. Just like a title, it is his dream. Dreams can have fairies and be weird on its own. I like the fact that the director tried to do something different. After watching other versions, I like this quirky film for its pure hearted attempt to get people involved in Shakespeare. Like our dreams, they don't make sense a lot of the time. The acting here is average. You can't compare these actors to the other versions. They are not as seasoned as them but that's not the point. The Royal Shakespeare Company should be commended and applauded for taking a daring chance at bringing this play to a mainstream audience. If you want the old fashioned film, watch the 1968 version with Dame Diana Rigg, Dame Judi Dench, and Dame Helen Mirren. If you don't want that, you will enjoy and open your mind to Shakespeare's play without the bloodshed of his tragedies. By the way, since I am going to become an English teacher. I like this version because of the little boy.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Not incredibly satisfying.

6/10
Author: TwzzlrFrk from London, Canada
17 August 1999

After it's been through hundreds of different settings and thousands of different interpretations, it's hard for directors to come up with original concepts for William Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream". As a result, we either get productions with highly original concepts that are terribly distasteful or we get a rather conventional interpretation that leaves us bored.

Adrian Noble has tried to transfer this masterpiece from the stage to the screen, and I'm afraid that he doesn't do a particularly good job. The concepts are original and quite intriguing, but the movie itself lacks the dynamism that this play has when performed on stage. The concept of adding The Boy is in my mind great, especially for the movie. Otherwise, I find the settings bland and monotonous.

The Royal Shakespeare Company does an excellent job in acting (of course they do - it's the RSC!) and I would love to see this performed on stage. As for the movie . . . not incredibly satisfying.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Provocatively Interesting

8/10
Author: Ann from United Kingdom
7 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Noble's adaptation of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' is highly interesting in many ways which highlight the issues explored within the play, bringing many of them into a new light. The introduction of the new character 'The Boy' highlights the interaction between reality, dreams and imagination as the viewer is forced to reconsider the relationship between these concepts. Despite the fact that we appear to enter the boy's dream world, we are confronted by a number of inconsistencies which challenge this assumption, not least of which being the extensive doubling of the characters, as well as the apparent recognition between Hippolyta and Bottom when they are back in the 'real' world. There is also a suggestion that Theseus is fully aware of the events that took place in the fairy wood. The interaction between the boy and the fairies in both the 'dream' and 'real' world also complicates the straight forward assumption that we are witnessing the boys dream.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Absolutely lovely version of a classic, watch for the umbrella traveling fairies!

8/10
Author: Amy Adler from Toledo, Ohio
18 November 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In Shakespeare's classic story, four lovers are playing cat and mouse. Hermia loves Lysander but her father prefers Demetrius. Demetrius, now smitten with Hermia, once courted Helena before he chose to abandon her. Helena still loves Demetrius dearly and persists in following him around. Hermia's father demands that she marry Demetrius and leader Theseus agrees with him. Hermia and Lysander secretly plan to meet each other in the woods and elope. Elsewhere, a group of amateur players are planning a production of Pyramis and Thisbe for Theseus and his lady, Hippolyta. And, the fairy world, led by Titania and Oberon, are feuding among each other and playing tricks. Puck, one of the conniving fairies, is sent to straighten out the love story between Helena and Demetrius, Hermia and Lysander. Puck bungles his assignment. And all on a summer's night! This gorgeous production is inventive and accessible. Watch the fairies arrive by umbrella and the amateur thespians travel by motorcycle, of all things! The principal actors are exceedingly wonderful, although not many of them have household names. One quibble was the production's ending. It failed to give us the resulting triumph of love for the four mixed-up lovers. Nevermind. This is a wonderfully unusual but superior film that proves, indeed, that Shakespeare is a keeper for the ages and ages to come.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

What would the RSC do if they had TV special FX?

9/10
Author: spikey-5 from United Kingdom
19 July 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This performance of Shakespeares best play by the Royal Shakespeare company is a visual gem. Contempory without throwing out the setting or the themes, presenting the original language in a way to appease both traditionalists and the MTV generation.

Of course, if anyone can do the play right its the RSC, but even they have not always hit the mark. This is by far the best envisioning they've done in the past few decades and the ability to pull off a few minor tricks with TV cameras that couldn't be done live on stage only adds to the whole film.

A nod to the origins of their craft is presented when most of the players play two roles, one in Faerie and one in Athens. The Duke is also Oberon, his bride Hypolita also Titania whilst their attendant Faeries are also Courtiers of the Noble couple. Even the players of Pyramis and Thisby are also the inner circle of Titania's grotto and all of this adds to the question of how much is real and how much is Dream.

The simplicity of set and props half convinces you time and again that it is a Staged show and not a movie, with Faerie scenes feeling very magical in an 80's pop video kind of way. (don't hold that against it, this is not matched by terrible pop video editing or camera work in anyway). The Costumes (especially the use of bright colours and single shade outfits) adds to the pop video feel without it detracting from the story.

All in all this is far better than the Kevin Kline Hollywood attempt at the play which lacks the same otherworldliness and basic acting talent. A Midsummernights dream told in a dreamy way without the dry throats or discomfort of summer.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

A Bit Disappointing

6/10
Author: artzau from Sacramento, CA
1 April 2001

I would have liked to have seen this production on the stage without the introduction of a boy whose ambiguous presence is supposed to give the production its "dream-"like quality. I'm afraid, as the other reviewers here have noted, a well-intended and, for the most part, well acted version of one of the Bard's best known and most loved romps, alas, fall flat. The RSC is great but I found the presentation of Alex Jennings in the double role of Theseus and Oberon to be unconvincing. His facial expressions reminded me of one who's stepped out of the loo remarking about the lack of potty-paper. Lindsay Duncan, is lovely and fun in her double role as is the feckless Bottom given in fun by Desmond Barrit. Finbar Lynch's Puck has a darkness not often seen in other presentations but it works. My only quibble besides Mr. Jennings perpetual sneer and the wandering (as another reviewer here noted, a Macaulay Culkin look-alike) kid, is the flatness of the effects-- which I'm sure, worked wonderfully on the stage. Cross-overs into other media can be tough. All in all, an earnest albeit not wholly satisfying effort as earlier versions or the one two years later.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Inventive

8/10
Author: galensaysyes
31 August 2000

This film makes the title literal by adding a Little Nemo character dreaming it all. There are a couple of allusions to Alice in Wonderland, as well. It's a cute idea and leads us to see the characters as if through the boy's eyes but he comes to get in the way after a bit. Many of the actors are double cast so that we're led to see one story in the light of another. The film is playful and inventive in its magical use of prosaic settings and objects. The mood sometimes reminded me of "Dr. Who". There's hardly a scene without a visual surprise. The fairies are rather sinister and erotic; some of the stage business is unusually bawdy--too much so to fit with the conceit of the child's dreaming it all. Bottom and the rustics are funnier than usual, but overall this isn't a primarily comic "Dream". But it is an imaginative and poetic one.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

so-o-o-o much better than the Hollywood version...

9/10
Author: oldgirl from USA
10 April 2006

If ever there was a film that actually improved upon the Shakespeare text, this is the one. The director's fluid treatment of the boundaries between light and dark, dream and dream, innocence and awareness, and fear and fantasy is really something to behold. Absolutely loved the timeless, yet contemporary feel of the costumes, and though it took some getting used to, eventually fell prey to the spell of the very strange and mystical 'forest' with its opening/shutting, rising/falling doors, quirky dangling lights, and odd, angular levels. Just the look of this film adds depth and resonance to Shakespeare's 'dream' motif. The superb acting - especially on the part of Lynch (Puck/Philostrate) and Barritt (Bottom) -- neither weighs down the lines (as so many British productions do) with pomposity nor allows the lines to weigh down the actors (as so many American productions do). Fantastic, fresh feel to this take on what has usually been nothing more than a fluffy little fantasy. And it's so-o-o-o much better than that mannered monstrosity given birth by Hollywood. Long live the Royal Shakespeare Company!

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history